WHAT IS INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE?
Industrial agriculture views the farm as a factory with "inputs" (such as pesticides, feed, fertilizer, and fuel) and "outputs" (corn, chickens, and so forth). The goal is to increase yield (such as bushels per acre) and decrease costs of production, usually by exploiting economies of scale. For example, the cost per unit of growing 1000 chickens is generally less than the unit cost of growing 10 chickens. The features of the agricultural factory that produce these economies of scale include large farms, a focus on a few commercial crops such as corn and cotton, use of only a few prized varieties of those crops, and heavy reliance on chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
The benefits of this industrial approach are well known: Food production has increased fast enough to far outstrip population growth. In addition, the United States has benefited commercially from its exports abroad. But the social and environmental costs of this approach are considerable. And it is not the only method of agriculture. A sustainable approach, based on understanding agriculture as an ecosystem, promises sufficient produce without sacrificing the environment, the farmer, or the rural communities that support small and medium-sized farms. For sustainable agriculture to thrive, the policies that foster industrial agriculture will need to be refocused to foster the transition.
FEATURES OF INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE
A key feature of industrial agriculture is its cultivation of a single crop, a practice called monoculture. Monoculture results in economies of scale that can reduce production costs and as a result the prices of commodities in the marketplace. From this primary feature, others, such as the reliance on pesticides, necessarily flow. Farms that grow one or two crops inevitably invite pests and usually require heavy doses of insecticides and herbicides to control them. Planting the same crops year after year can deplete the soil, increasing the need for fertilizers. At the same time, the large acreages under cultivation provide large markets for pesticides, fertilizer, and farm vehicles (such as combines and harvesters). Similarly, concentrated livestock operations put animals in close proximity to one another, often under stressful conditions. As a result, the animals may become more susceptible to disease, creating a large market for antibiotics, medications, and vaccines. And the huge scale becomes necessary to afford the great expense of developing medicines and pesticides.
MONOCULTURE
Monoculture is the cultivation of one crop at a time in a field. The United States grows all of its major commodity crops -- corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton -- in monoculture. Sometimes crops in monoculture are rotated: corn often alternates with soybeans in a two-year rotation. Much corn, however, is grown in continuous cultivation -- year after year in the same field.
Although they vary from year to year, the acreages devoted to single crops in the United States are enormous. US farmers plant on the order of 50-70 million acres each of corn, soybeans, wheat each year. But because so few crops are grown in such large acreages, the opportunities for crop rotation are also few.
FEW CROP VARIETIES
US agriculture rests on an a narrow genetic base. At the beginning of the 1990s, only six varieties of corn accounted for 46 percent of the crop, nine varieties of wheat made up half of the wheat crop, and two types of peas made up 96 percent of the pea crop. Reflecting the global success of fast food, more than half the world's potato acreage is now planted with one variety of potato: the Russet Burbank favored by McDonalds.
Farmers and researchers have recognized for decades that the decline in genetic diversity in agriculture is a problem, but it has, if anything, gotten worse rather than better over that period of time. The pressures on farmers to grow uniform varieties come from many sources: seed companies, food processors, consumers, transporters, and the designers of farm machinery.
Decline in the genetic diversity in agriculture is important for a number of reasons. Crops that are very similar to each other in yield and appearance are also similar in their susceptibility to disease. Growing thousands or even millions of acres of crop plants that are genetically similar makes the food supply extraordinarily vulnerable to disease. In 1970, the Southern Corn Leaf Blight destroyed 60 percent of the US corn crop in one summer, clearly demonstrating that a genetically uniform crop base is a disaster waiting to happen. In addition, modern crop breeders rely on the broad varieties of crops developed over the centuries as sources of resistance traits. Plants that farmers or gardeners no longer grow are sometimes lost forever, taking with them genes for pest resistance, stress resistance, and flavor that future farmers may desperately need. Finally, restricting the genetic variety in the food supply means foregoing a cornucopia of tasty and nutritious foods. The current enthusiasm for heirloom seeds is bringing back hundreds of varieties of watermelons, squash, apples, and other foods that would otherwise be on their way to oblivion.
RELIANCE ON CHEMICAL AND OTHER "INPUTS"
Industrial agriculture relies heavily on pesticides: primarily herbicides, of which atrazine and metolachlor are the most widely used, but also insecticides and fungicides. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the total US pesticide usage in 1992 (excluding wood preservatives and disinfectants) was 1.1 billion pounds of active ingredients. This impressive figure does not taken into account the so-called inert ingredients in pesticide formulations, which can be higher in concentration and more toxic than the active ingredients. And it does not include pesticides used outside agriculture in 69 million households, a not inconsiderable usage amounting to a third of the quantity used in agriculture.
US agriculture also consumes enormous amounts of fertilizer. Total consumption of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash increased dramatically between 1960 and 1980, reaching a high of 23.7 million nutrient tons in 1981. Fertilizer use has fallen somewhat since then, amounting to 20.7 million tons in 1992.
LARGE FARMS
Industrial agriculture uses larger farms and fewer farmers. In 1959, the United States had almost six million farms averaging 300 acres apiece. In 1992, there were two million farms averaging 500 acres. In 1996, fewer than two percent of Americans still live on farms, and the number is more like one percent, if small, part-time farm operations are left out. This is no accident. One hundred and fifty years of US policy on the structure of agriculture can be summed up in the admonition to farmers made famous by former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, "Get big or get out."
The decline in the number of farms does not necessarily represent a decline in the economic importance of agriculture. According the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, modern agricultural activities, including food and fiber processing, marketing, and retailing, account for 18 percent of US jobs.
SEPARATION OF ANIMAL AND PLANT AGRICULTURE
At one time, farmers raised crops and livestock on the same farm, an approach that provided a diversity of agricultural products and byproducts that could be recycled on the farm, reducing off-farm purchases. For example, manure could be used as fertilizer, crops and crop byproducts could be fed to animals. Animal operations also provided financial security against the ups and downs of the more volatile crop markets.
Now animals -- cows, chicken, and pigs -- are increasingly grown in concentrated livestock operations. These generate mountains of water-polluting manure that has become a dangerous waste product rather than a valuable input. Meanwhile, many midsize farmers have abandoned animals and now grow only one or two crops. This trend is largely attributable to the pursuit of the economies of scale inherent in mass producing similar products.
THE COSTS OF INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE
Although the production gains attributed to industrial agriculture are impressive, they have not come without costs to the environment, the economy and our social fabric.
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
Agriculture impacts the environment in many ways. It uses huge amounts of water, energy, and chemicals, often with little regard to long-term adverse effects. But the environmental costs of agriculture are mounting. Irrigation systems are pumping water from reservoirs faster than they are being recharged. Herbicides and insecticides are accumulating in ground and surface waters. Chemical fertilizers are running off the fields into water systems where they encourage damaging blooms of microorganisms. Mountains of waste and noxious odor are the hallmarks of poultry and livestock operations.
Many of the negative effects of industrial agriculture are remote from fields and farms. Nitrogen compounds from the Midwest, for example, travel down the Mississippi to degrade coastal fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. But other adverse effects are showing up within agricultural production systems -- for example, the rapidly developing resistance among pests is rendering our arsenal of herbicides and insecticides increasingly ineffective.
ECONOMIC COSTS
Estimating the economic costs of industrial agriculture is an immense and difficult task. A full accounting would include not only the benefits of relatively cheap prices consumers pay for food, the dividends paid to the share holders of fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers, and the dollars earned by exporting American goods abroad, but also the offsetting costs of environmental pollution and degradation.
Such costs are difficult to assess for a number of reasons. In some instances, such as water pollution and global warming, agriculture is only one of several contributors. Another difficulty is our rudimentary understanding of potential harms. A good example is the potential for endocrine disruption that many pesticides appear to have. Endocrine disrupters are molecules that appear able to mimic the actions of human and animal hormones and disturb important hormone-dependent activities like reproduction. More research is needed to determine the extent of the health and environmental damage done by such compounds and the relative contribution of agriculture and other sectors and activities.
Among the many environmental costs that need to be considered in a full cost accounting of industrial agriculture are
--the damage to fisheries from oxygen-depleting microorganisms fed by fertilizer runoff --the cleanup of surface and groundwater polluted with animal waste --the increased health risks borne by agricultural workers and farmers exposed to pesticides
In addition there are enormous indirect costs implicit in the high energy requirements of modern agriculture. Agriculture requires energy at many points: fuel to run huge combines and harvesters, energy to produce and transport pesticides and fertilizers, and fuel to refrigerate and transport perishable produce cross country and around the world. The use of fossil fuels contributes to ozone pollution and global warming, which could exact a high price through increased violent weather events and rising oceans.
The full costs of industrial agriculture call into question the notion of cheap food.
SOCIAL COSTS
Industrial agriculture also has complex social ramifications in terms of where and how people live. One effect of decreasing the number of farmers is to deprive rural America of its population and base of economic activity. As farmers leave the farm, rural towns and cities lose ancillary services like cafes, equipment manufacturers, gasoline stations and car dealerships. Currently, the Great Plains states are facing rapidly declining populations as a result of changes in agriculture.
Another effect of industrial agriculture has been to create a new class of farmers highly dependent on large corporations. One of the best examples is poultry farming. No longer are most chickens grown by independent farmers who choose which kinds of chickens to grow and sell them wherever they can. Now chicken farmers contract with corporations who supply the eggs and specify the conditions under which they are grown. As corporations grow in size and market power, individual farmers are in ever weaker positions when it comes time to negotiate the price to be paid for growing chickens or to decide who will bear the cost of disposing of the mountains of chicken waste.
Overall, the share of the food profits going to farmers rather than to the agricultural input and food-processing and marketing sectors has been steadily declining. For many farmers with small and medium-sized farms it means that they will be unable to stay in business if they only produce food. To participate in the more profitable part of the food system, many farmers are expanding into processing and retailing food, either singly or in cooperatives.
The fact that food processors and fertilizer and pesticide suppliers are increasing their share of food profits, of course, has an economic upside for those who hold shares or jobs in chemical or retailing companies. But the loss of farmers means more than simply shifting jobs to other sectors. Farming has in the past been representative of the American ethos. Farmers and their families were seen as testaments to the virtues of independence, hard work, and community that Americans have considered vital to civic democracy. In addition, farmers have been the basis of rural economy and communities. Finally, millions of independent farmers meant a decentralized food supply beyond the control of narrow interests. The social and economic ramifications of the drastic decline in farm populations is just beginning to be felt.
Perhaps the reduction of the number of farmers has gone too far. There seems little advantage in further reductions. The goals of the last century have been met. It might be time to set a reverse course and adopt policies that would stabilize the farming population at 1 or 2 percent of the total population.
SOURCES
Economic Research Service, Pesticide and Fertilizer Use and Trends in US Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 717 (1995).
Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 1992 and 1993 Market Estimates, 2, 1994.
P. Raeburn, The Last Harvest, Simon and Schuster, 1995.
(FROM UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS WEB PAGE)
*****************
KARL MARX:
"Capitalist production, by collecting the population in great centres, and causing an ever-increasing preponderance of town population, on the one hand concentrates the historical motive power of society; on the other hand, it disturbs the circulation of matter between man and the soil, i.e., prevents the return to the soil of its elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; it therefore violates the conditions necessary to lasting fertility of the soil. By this action it destroys at the same time the health of the town labourer and the intellectual life of the rural labourer. But while upsetting the naturally grown conditions for the maintenance of that circulation of matter, it imperiously calls for its restoration as a system, as a regulating law of social production, and under a form appropriate to the full development of the human race. In agriculture as in manufacture, the transformation of production under the sway of capital, means, at the same time, the martyrdom of the producer; the instrument of labour becomes the means of enslaving, exploiting, and impoverishing the labourer; the social combination and organisation of labour-processes is turned into an organised mode of crushing out the workman's individual vitality, freedom, and independence. The dispersion of the rural labourers over larger areas breaks their power of resistance while concentration increases that of the town operatives. In modern agriculture, as in the urban industries, the increased productiveness and quantity of the labour set in motion are bought at the cost of laying waste and consuming by disease labour-power itself. Moreover, all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the labourer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards ruining the lasting sources of that fertility. The more a country starts its development on the foundation of modern industry, like the United States, for example, the more rapid is this process of destruction. Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth-the soil and the labourer."