Author:

Abstract:

Aerts et al. (2009) and Aerts (2012) have presented and analysed the different functions of modern agriculture. Agriculture now has six different functions (6 Fs): Food, Feed, Fuel, Fibre, Flower, and Fun. Rising population and demand, and increasingly scarce inputs lead to an ethical need to intensify agriculture if all these functions are to be continued. We aim to analyse whether reducing the number of functions is feasible. Only two functions (Food and Fibre) are essential as a whole. Food can only be produced through agriculture, and the production of natural fibres is an essential supplement to the petroleum based industry. With Feed, Flower, and Fun partial gain is possible. Lower consumption of animal products has ethical advantages, and the associated feed production would also decline. Stopping animal production entirely seems impossible as it contributes significantly to a healthy agricultural cycle. Increasing attention to nature conservation (Flower) or recreational activities (Fun) are essential and irreversible, although improvement is possible. The production of non-edible plants, drugs, tobacco, and ‘recreational food products’, could be considered as non-essential. Biofuels, of all generations, seem unable to add much to overall world energy security. Based on the direct and indirect effects we argue that not producing agricultural products destined for energy is a substantial sustainability improvement. We conclude that there are functions performed by agriculture that are ethically debatable when agriculture is struggling to meet demands and become more sustainable. These should be abandoned, thereby liberating agricultural production potential.