The phrase,”industrial farming” is something I see on lots of web posts and comment strings. I’m guessing that this intentionally derisive terminology conjures up some pretty negative imagery for most people not directly involved with farming. The use of this emotive term raises two questions for me:
- Is modern, “industrial” farming actually what people imagine it to be?
- Is there actually a viable alternative?
Well, let’s consider some of the features of modern farming
“Industrial Farming Is Highly Mechanized” (True but Necessary)
It might not fit your view of a romantic, rural life-style, but if you are actually the farmer, the comfortable, efficient, sophisticated farm equipment available today sounds pretty good. As in all “industrialized” segments of our economy, machines and computers make farmers more productive and eliminate the most laborious (and often dangerous) parts of the job. There is a detailed history of farm equipment on the John Deere website that is worth a read. Mechanization of farming has enabled the workforce directly involved in farming to drop from ~40% in 1900 to less than 1% today. Over this time period, people have chosen other careers intentionally. There are not a lot of people who want to work on farms in the old, labor-intensive way.
Actually, hand-labor-intensive crops (e.g. coffee, strawberries…), or high labor cropping systems (e.g. Organic) are on a collision course with demographic trends. The pool of unskilled farm laborers upon which rich Americans have (unethically) depended is only going to decline over time and make rejection of “mechanization” an increasingly non-viable option. Unless you are the one doing the work, it isn’t really reasonable to insist that mechanization be avoided because it’s too “industrial.”
“Industrial Farming is Largely Corporate” (False)
The widely held image of US Agriculture as “corporate” turns out to be in direct conflict with the facts. The USDA tracks this in the “Census of Agriculture” that it conducts every 5 years. It isn’t completely accurate because it does not differentiate between real “corporations” owned by uninvolved stockholders from farming operations that are conducted by an extended family and just put under a corporate structure for tax/estate-planning reasons. Even so, the USDA map above shows that the vast, vast majority of farming is still on family farms. That is not surprising. Farming is a highly risky and not highly profitable venture. Try selling that on Wall Street! The most “corporate” sectors of farming are in fresh produce where scale is critical to be able to respond to the leverage of the retail industry. Fresh produce is a tiny part of agriculture on an area basis.
“Industrial Farming” Is Large-Scale” (True, But Not Probably Like What You Think)
If I told you that I have visited 5,000 to 12,000 acre farms you might imagine something, well, “industrial.” I’ve met with many such growers and my interviews were with the 1-2 family members to do almost all the farming. We met at the kitchen table or in a corner of the machine shed where there might be a sticky, runt calf under heating lights being bottle fed. Even these seemingly huge operations are family farms. Because of the mechanization I’ve described, an extremely large grain farm can be run by a very small number of people who often work off-farm as well. Still, if you met these farmers, they would perfectly fit your image of “the salt of the earth, hard-working folks”, and you would also see that they are quite concerned with the environment. In fact large farms have a higher adoption rate of the most sustainable practices I will describe below.
Actually, there is a trend both towards large farms and small farms. Between 2002 and 2007 there was a small increase in large farms, but a huge increase in the number of very small farms (see the blue in the map above, 10 farms/dot). In total the area involved is not large, but it is an interesting trend. There are a lot of complex and region-specific dynamics here, but just the fact that much of farm acreage is in larger farms does not need to be a big concern. If you don’t believe me, go meet some of the folks that run the large farms.
“Industrial Farms Use Synthetic Fertilizer, Hybrid Seeds and Pesticides” (True, But The Alternatives Are Not So Great)
The graph above shows that “Pre-industrial” yields were low and stagnant over 60 years. The amazing yield gains in the “industrial era” came first from synthetic fertilizers, then from improved plant breeding, pesticides and most recently biotechnology.
Along the way there were definitely environmental issues with the way farming was being done, but also changes and improvements. The Dust Bowl calamity of the 1930s lead to the establishment of the Soil Conservation Service as the first step towards improving farming practices. The pioneers of “no-till” agriculture got started in the early 60s working to save fuel and stop erosion. The Environmental Movement of the late 60s lead to the establishment of the EPA in 1969 and pesticides have changed dramatically. By the time I started working in agriculture in 1977 there was already a major research effort focused on improving the environmental and safety profile of agriculture. Since that time I’ve had the privilege of working with a wide range of public and private scientists and with farmers to see these improvements implemented.
An Ideal for Industrial Agriculture
Even though mainstream industrial agriculture has come a long way, there is an even better “suite” of sustainable practices that would ideally see further adoption. I sometimes call these the elements of “Agriculture 2.0″
- Continuous “No-till” (saves fuel, stores moisture better, eliminates erosion and off-site movement of pollutants, increases biodiversity)
- Cover-Cropping (with no-till leads to net carbon sequestration, can be used either to produce biologically fixed nitrogen or to scavenge excess nitrate as needed)
- Controlled Wheel Traffic (saves fuel, stops compaction, reduces nitrous oxide emissions)
- Precision, Variable-Rate Fertilization (reduces fertilizer need, and nitrous oxide)
Considering Scale
There were 309.5 million acres of harvested cropland in the US according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture. Even after 30 years of “rapid growth”, only 1.29 million of those were Organic. But an anti-industrial purist would only consider a small part of that (at most 20%) to be truly non-industrial. What about “Ag 2.0?” Unfortunately, the Bush administration cut funding to the CTIC (the organization that used to track things like tillage practices). Groups like CTIC now estimate that, 5-10% of the corn/soy rotation (~10 million acres) in the US are farmed with “continuous no-till” – the most important feature of Ag 2.0. I estimate that the total area that is utilizing at least some Ag 2.0 practices is on the order of 70 MM acres or possibly higher. Looking at this graph, which sustainable alternative looks to have the most realistic potential for growth?
Non-Industrial Farms Exist (True, but the model is not scalable)
I’m all for small-scale, local farms, CSAs, gardens and the like, it is just that this cannot be extrapolated as the kind of farming that will feed the US population, let alone the millions of people around the world who depend on US agriculture. To think that it can is actually a dangerous delusion that is wide-spread among our non-farming population. People just don’t understand the scale of food production that is needed.
The demonization of “industrial farming” serves no constructive purpose. Yes, modern farming is “industrial.” It has to be. Like any industry, farming can be improved from an environmental point of view (and it has, dramatically). We will accomplish a lot more for the environment and for humanity by supporting the further adoption of “Agriculture 2.0″ practices on “industrial” farms than by pretending we don’t need it.
You are welcome to comment on this site or to email me at feedback.sdsavage@gmail.com
Farming image from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Maps from the USDA Census of Agriculture, 2007. Graphs by Steve Savage.
Steve Savage
Born in Denver, now living near San Diego. Agricultural scientist for 30+ years with a Ph.D. in Plant Pathology. Have worked for Colorado State University, DuPont and Mycogen and for the last 13 years consulting for all sorts or companies, universities and grower groups. Experience in biological control, natural products, synthetic chemicals, genetics, GMOs and agronomic practices. Have given multiple invited talks on the interaction between agriculture and climate change (both ways)
32 Responses to “You Talk About ‘Industrial Farming’ Like It’s A Bad Thing!”
Connect and Explore!
Proud Sponsor!
I agree with you, Steve. We need to feed people, and that is the number one priority
I agree that we need to feed the people but not necessarily that GMOs and industrial agriculture is the only way to do it.
I have often wondered how the proponents of the non-input ag systems propose to replace trace minerals and phosphorous. True, we have a lot of balancing acts to perform in typical agricultural crop fields. Some of the same balancing acts such as tillage vs. soil erosion control might be performed in organic or non-input systems but if we don’t replace phosphorous and trace minerals our fields are headed for reduced yields, reduced nutrition or both. For a while the organic matter in the soil left from the long gone native vegetation will supply many nutrients but it’s mining the soil. Legumes and lightening can supply a little nitrogen(from trace amounts to a 1/3 of a crop of corn) but phosphorous and trace minerals have to come from somewhere. Buying variable rate application equipment to conserve phosphorous or capturing 100 % of the manure and as much of the volatile nutrients as possible from the manure while producing milk or meat to supplement a healthy diet is good in my book even if the cost of the system requires 2000 cows or 2000 acres. I work with a lot of families that farm 2000 acres.
In my region no-till and reduced tillage can be amazing.
One of the farms we work with has raised the organic matter test with long term reduced tillage. He’s working with SDSU now to investigate further.
All i have to say is you better take a second look at whats going on and evaluate the motives and ethics behind it. fistly yes productivity has increased but you are failing to take into account all the land destroyed by industrialization. Ner the beginning of industrial farming marked the begining of the dust bowl crisis. almost half of everbody is going to get cancer thanks to your precious industrial scale machines. not that i don’t like efficiency but its not efficient if you factor in all the peoples we rob and land we rape to extract the minerals in order to fuel the beast. You may of worked with alot of “real farmers” but if you and your real farmers really believe this then what you are basing your opinions on is the appearance of the inside of your assholes. Look at Cuba there is a good model for agriculture. Look at how much cancer people are getting and tell me that’s not what you and your mechanization of life are a cancer rapidly sucking life force and nutrient away from the planet to grow what a nasty tumor which will in the end be its own demise.
Steve, great post, do you mind if i republish your article with your credits on my website?
Steve,
When you look at your chart titled “Historical Crop Yield Progress…”, you get a visual sense of cheap energy and it’s technological impact on crop yields.
What will take a long time is seeing the back slope of industrial ag curves…and I don’t know that we’ll ever see the back slope being caused by the sheer depletion of soil/ecosystems but by Peak Resources dropping the economic activity.
If we could run cheap energy all the way through I still doubt the yields would run across a plateau indefinitely. All that excess yield is a direct measure of how much Na-K-Mg-Ca and C-H-N-O-P-S elements get sucked out of the soil year after year. On top of which is the narrowing vertical height of this botanical ecosystem (rising water tables and shrinking, nonexistence deciduous tree canopy), such that runoff is draining so much nutrients into valleys like the Mighty Miss and out to the ocean…
It doesn’t matter if organic farming is lower impact but not expandable, if that’s what we had always been running the human population would have taken longer to grow but agriculture would have still peaked and dropped back to levels of several thousand years ago…just a longer, more stretched out run of ag and fossil fuel consumption.
Industrial ag is just accelerating the reaction rate, this is all a chemical process, and one of the inputs is the limiting reagent (fossil fuels?), though it is not clear yet…
-Tom
I saw recently there’s a new documentary out, about nonindustrial approaches to sustainable farming: http://www.freshthemovie.com/… haven’t seen it myself — anyone here caught it yet?
Seems like there’s some interest in exploring other production models, among some farmers as well as consumers.
Steve nice post again.
Of course I’ve a different take on things then you do.
It seems to me that you’ve got your ‘cart’ facing ’round the wrong way. The point is not to satiate the hunger of man by growing enough food to fill bellies; if we tried to do that we had better plan on ramping up exo-planet exploration and intergalactic colonization.
The problem is that man is an animal and one of the tenants of evolution is that geometric increases in population happen EVERY time there is an excess in food sources (read biologically extractable energy).
With increasing energy comes more people; of course this logarithmic increase will begin its second derivative flattening into an ‘S’ curve with an effective plateau (or more realistically in a biological system an oscillation about a point of ‘balanced’ constraints).
This point of balance (sometimes referred to as ‘red in tooth and nail’) is the heart of evolutionary theory. What jumps out at me from the above graphs is the stability (corn gives us some idea of the oscillation parameters for that resource within the graphs time frame) of preindustrial ‘productivity’.
After about 1935 the ‘explosion’ of fossil sunlight is obvious and of course very similar looking graphs for all of ‘industrial’ civilization products and trends could be made. The point is that without starting with the premise of ecology/biology/evolution in the context of man’s ‘fit’ on earth we will exhaust our available energy supplies in the form of more bodies.
In the pre-industrial time they too struggled to wring as much productivity from the soil as possible, however they were working with the same level of energy and materials as they had always had access to (animal-power, man-power, wind/water, and some instrument harder than earth be that steal, copper, or obsidian).
After the refinement of machines and chemistry (as applied to our food base) based on a ready supply of a new condensed form of energy, the fuse was lit. Going back ‘down’ to the yield that is constrained (like that word better than ‘balanced’ which has been hijacked by fuzzy, new-age-y types) by ‘surface’ (none fossil) inputs is the only way to diffuse the bomb.
Here’s to voluntary diffusing. (?)
Cheers
Evz,
I’m all for supporting farmers without middlemen, but that goal runs into huge logistic problems. I’m with you on buying less or very little processed food, but my family (and probably yours) that likes to cook from scratch is rare. We have become a convenience-driven society. If you are willing to buy the raw ingredients (which might mean only 2 steps in the chain from the farmer) you can eat well for very little. Still, I can’t directly access my lentils from the farmer that grew them.
“Grow many vs few crops”: The diversity of crops that a farmer grows is driven by economics, risk mitigation, crop adaptability and market prices. The fact that growers in specific geographies grow certain crops has been driven by all those factors. Your desire for greater diversity by region runs into the face of grower economics/survival.
Clean energy production: totally a good thing, but remember that photovoltaic solar takes so much energy to manufacture that it isn’t carbon-positive for 20+ years.
“Minimize kill-all pesticides:” First of all, there were never any “kill all” pesticides and I have been intimately connected with the industry that has replaced most of the chemicals that could even be plausibly described that way. While some folks have spent their careers railing against pesticides, I and many of my colleagues have spent those same years discovering and developing vastly safer alternatives.
As for crop subsidies, I’m no supporter of the present or historic system. Have we “propped up” industries inappropriately? I’d say a qualified yes, but I don’t think that obviates individual responsibility for their diet.
World hunger is worse. Until recently one could blame it more on politics than on production. I know that we have been in an era of over-production in the developed world and dysfunctional distribution to poor people. It is just that this is changing already and will change much more if you look at demographic trends.
As for “urban food deserts” in urban settings, this is not an agricultural problem. These deserts will never be reversed by local production. That is absurd.
As for the Dead Zone – the best solution is no-till farming. There is really no better solution (by the way, it is not from pesticide runoff but from fertilizer runoff from the erosion that happens with tillage).
As for young people taking up farming. Why would anyone your age do that? Many are working on small Organic farms which is a great life experience, but it isn’t doing anything significant for the food supply. Considering how conventional agriculture has been demonized, why would anyone in your generation consider becoming a farmer? It isn’t that easy to do anyway. I certainly don’t have the answer for who is going to grow our crops in the future. Do you?
Complex problems rarely have simple solutions.
Maybe what we need is an amalgam, of sorts. To the greatest degree possible, I think we should make every effort to support farmers without the middleman, so to speak — buy ingredients rather than processed food, from the actual people who grew it. Where possible, grow many vs few crops; incorporated clean energy production (solar, wind, & biogas all go very well with small community-supported farms’ needs); minimize kill-all pesticides as much as possible. Small farms should get more of the government support that has so far gone mainly towards feed crops like corn.
In cases where that doesn’t work all the time, b/c of climate or whatever, large-scale farming could fill the gaps… something like that sounds like a feasible model, to me, especially if we nix the subsidies designed to prop up meat & dairy industries — which has created the ‘cheap’ high-cholesterol food that has had such a negative effect on Americans’ health…
Despite increased yields over the past 50 years, world hunger is worse than ever; we’ve got huge urban food deserts where it’s not profitable to ship/ sell whole real food; we’ve got this dead zone in the Gulf, from pesticide runoff; every year more farmers leave their land, and less young people take it up… it just seems to me that what we’re doing now isn’t working that well — at least as a predominant model.
Evz,
Actually I didn’t find that article helpful to the debate, it just went ad homenym (or however you spell that). Why does the author assume that locally produced food will have no environmental issues? I don’t care if it is Organic, it will have environmental issues. The big problem in this “discussion” is that people assume there is a perfect and pure option when no such thing exists. They also completely fail to grasp the scale of what we are talking about.
I have not read the “Ominvore’s Dillusion” so I can’t really comment on that book.
As for whether the current business model means that all the profits go to corporations I’m not sure it is that simple. Monsanto has sales (for example) are in the range of $12B. US Farm sales are in the $180B range. The price of a commodity at the grower level is generally in the range of 25-33% of the retail value if the product gets there mostly as is. It gets more complex if there are processing steps. Thus, the cost of the wheat is a small part of the cost of a loaf of bread, but that is true whether its a major brand or an organic artisan bread.
If you don’t like that model, what do you suggest?