Summer is a busy time of year on the farm, and I must admit that I have really slacked off on maintaining my blog. Some recent conversations with individuals holding a very different viewpoint than myself, however, have motivated me to make some time and get in front of the computer.
As a self-appointed agricultural advocate, I find myself in a good number of heated discussions concerning modern production agriculture. The conversation often flips back and fourth between the seemingly mainstream "big agriculture is bad" argument and my pro-modern ag. viewpoint. Many people are open to reason and, after hearing how amazing, productive, and efficient modern farmers are, will begin to see the issues in a different light. There are, of course, those who will always disagree with what I have to say, sticking to a "small farms should feed our population" mindset.
Those holding this point of view frequently tell me that our current food production techniques should be traded for a system consisting of many small farms producing a wide variety of crops using "more traditional" methods. The theory is that large modern farms are destroying our land and using up our resources, so they should be divided up into smaller plots that will not take such an environmental toll. Sounds OK, right? It is easy enough to fall into line with this concept as long as one does not scratch below the surface.
In keeping with my usual "question everything you hear" theme, however, we are going to dig in our fingers and break through the glossy surface of the theory to see how feasible it really is.
The reality of a small farm food system can be understood with a quick glance at the history of farming. During the early 1900s the inefficiency of traditional seeds and production methods required farmers to clear cut and till massive amounts of land (even that which was not suitable for farming) to produce a relatively small amount of crop - average corn yields as late as the 1950s hovered around 39 bushels per acre; yields for other crops were equally as low. Little attention (if any) was paid to erosion, runoff, vegetation preservation, land contour, and water quality, factors amplified by the wide scattering of small farms. Massive losses from weed and insect pests were the norm, reducing even more the output from every individual farmer (in 1940 each American farmer produced food for only 19 people). What little food was not retained on the farm for use by the family needed to be collected from thousands of locations, using fuel and manual energy for an arguably small return. As the US population continued to grow, inefficient crops could not keep up with the food demand forcing more (usually unstable and unsuitable) land into production to fill the void.
What I just described is, in truth, the system we would return to if anti-modern farm activists could get their way. Although it sounds fine in a passing conversation, a look into the inefficient system proves that our population of 307 million people cannot be supported by such a labor intensive, destructive, inefficient method.
Now compare what you just read to modern agriculture:
Today each American farmer is productive enough to provide food for 155 other people. Average corn yields are rising past 155 bushels per acre (vs 39 in 1950), and average cereal yields rose 155% between 1961 and 2005. Between 1987 and 2007 our farmers grew 40% more corn, 30% more soybeans, and 19% more wheat ON THE SAME AMOUNT OF LAND! Modern techniques for sustaining resources improve as productivity improves, leading to a 43% reduction in farmland soil erosion over the past 20 years, water savings of 50-80% (depending on the crop), more efficient fertilizer (each pound of modern fertilizer produces 70% more corn than a pound of fertilizer in 1970), a massive reduction in pesticides and herbicides (modern GM crops are able to protect themselves against insect pests, eliminating the need for chemical sprays), and major leaps in field application techniques (GPS guided equipment ensures field inputs are applied only where needed). All of these techniques provide us with ample supplies of inexpensive food while helping preserve our land and sustain our future. (Take a moment and watch this video, it is where a found most of my information today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joUggaD6Mr0)
Our population as a whole (even the anti-ag fringe) is very positively affected by the efficiencies of our food system. We continue to make huge advances in safety, productivity, and sustainability in agriculture, ensuring a bright future for generations to come. Remember these facts as you go through life and make a point to appreciate what we have in modern farming.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
