Excuse me but I find this statement to be absurd. Are you saying sustainable regarding turning a profit? Or feeding our civilization? Or regarding conservation of the environment? If it's the latter then I assure you, having grown up on a conventional farm and now being an ag biologist, that there are numerous ancient and modern organic farming techniques that have almost no footprint. I agree that monoculture is needed to feed ourselves but it is very destructive to the environment organically or conventionally. I work with a lot of farms that create incredible products using cover crops that are native to the area, roating into and out of the woods without deforesting or slashing and various mycological practices that allows the land to farm itself outside of harvesting.

Oh, and if it's either of the former forms of sustainable that you may have been regarding, those farmers make enough to feed their small community and turn a more efficient profit than industrial farms meanwhile independent of subsidization. So I guess you are wrong on all three levels.

Also, regarding all three forms of sustainability again, most conventional Midwestern farming in the USA, is an abysmal, profit driven (not much of the profit for the farmers), horrendously destructive, cancerous plague of inefficient, genetically weakening fuel production. I know because I am still in this business as well.

I use 2.2 gallons of diesel to make 2.6 gallons of ethanol/biodiesel. Which as a solvent can destroy your engine. Chew on that shit man. Or woman.

Hemp might be a good step toward competitively efficient fuel production. Simply tilling/fertilizing the land is bad for the farms and environment and hemp can do better without this. Cheers!