Jolley: Defending modern agriculture

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

A few days ago I was watching an interesting commercial on TV.  An old farmer standing out in a field somewhere in the Midwest was reminiscing about the joys of life in rural America. In the background, a large combine was slowly doing its work. The old farmer nodded at the combine and talked about how proud he was that he had passed on some of his traditional values; the inference of course, was that his son was piloting the combine.

The son suddenly appeared next to the farmer who spluttered “Hey, wait a minute!  Who’s driving the combine?”

Cut to the steering wheel and we find some cute little cartoon critters driving the combine.

And in a quick 30 second nutshell of a commercial, the mythical small family farm – the one with a picket fence out front, a perfectly kept red barn in the back and a few lovingly tended farm critters roaming around the back 40 – was laid to rest.

Modern farming is not the misty-eyed nostalgia of the good old days.  It can’t be.  And like all bits and pieces of nostalgia, the times way back then weren’t nearly as good as memory serves (cue Barbra Streisand, “Memories….”).  Most people have an uncanny ability to think back on hard times and remember all the fun they had while they struggled through it.

Back when America was predominately rural – before the stampede to urban centers really began after WWII – a farmer could feed only a handful of people.  As more people migrated to the big cities in search of a better life, agriculture needed to become much more efficient.  Fewer people producing food means they must become a lot better at what they do or our urban centers starve.  A farmer tilling the soil in 1960 could feed about 2 dozen people.  Today he or she can feed at least one hundred more.

So, following the strictest rules of the free enterprise system, companies like DeKalb and Monsanto began researching more efficient seed.  John Deere, Massey Ferguson and Ford are a few of the heavy equipment companies, an odd international list that includes Kubota and even Lamborghini, now a manufacturer of very expensive sports cars.

Those companies started with the basics, of course.  Anyone who remembers a Farmall knows the early days of farm mechanization were just a few steps better than a mule and almost as reliable.  And seed corn choices were simple - white or yellow?

OK, maybe I’m over simplifying, but agriculture took small steps in the early days, limited perhaps by the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Dust Bowl that came with it, decimating American agriculture and hastening the decline of our rural population.  What was a slow movement during the first quarter of the twentieth century became a torrent as the Midwestern breadbasket threatened to dry up and blow away.

Reviving a world destroyed by WWII began with staving off massive famine by finding better ways to feed millions.  The Far East was losing huge chunks of its population because there was no food and very little infrastructure to transport what they could grow to the urban centers that desperately needed it.  The Borlaug revolution helped solve a disaster that might have threatened the lives of more people as half a dozen years of world war. 

Along with it came another possibly more important than evolution – mechanization and hybrid seed.  Not only could we grow much more food per acre with less fertilizer and water, but we could harvest it much faster and get it to market within days instead of weeks.  Those improvements have been phenomenal, especially in the last half century.

In 1960 American farmers harvested 54.7 bushels of corn per acre.  In 2009, they were harvesting 161.9 bushels per acre.  Soybean harvest soared from 23.7 bushels to 76.8 bushels.  Tripling production in less than one lifetime is an incredible example of a green revolution.  The scientists and engineers who created it should be awarded medals and honored by every major food and agricultural organization in America.

Instead, we’re subjugated to an incredible cacophony of pseudo-scientists, elitist foodies and chicken littles that look at fields aplenty and cry that the sky is falling.  New York Times chief romanticizer of the good old ag days and professional food industry crepe hanger, Mark Bittman, can still enjoy “a farm dinner in Maine. . . a long table of 60 people eating corn, chicken, salad, a spectacular herb sorbet and other goodies” or attend “a fund-raiser on Cape Cod a week or so earlier, (where) the talk was all about the provenance of the produce and meat rather than the cooking technique.”

But he has to understand the provenance of produce and meat was on the table because of the hard work done in the latter half of the twentieth century by too many scientists to mention. Friend of the Farmer reports farmers today can produce 262% more food with 2% fewer inputs.  I’m not sure that’s a perfectly accurate statement but I have no doubt the long-term trend is strongly in that direction.  It’s nice that the wealthy of the world can eat well but they’ve always managed to put a pheasant on the table and some fine wine in the glass.

The real problem throughout history has been the less wealthy, starting with the very poor.  Feeding the masses is hard work and the world has often failed in that pursuit.  It’s the vast improvements made by modern agriculture that have turned that historical tide and greatly reduced famine.  For a few people, most of them very well-fed, to question the intent of people who managed to feed millions through valid scientific advances is simply wrong. It’s like pouring a fine beurre blanc sauce over the hand that’s feeding them and then biting it.

Thanksgiving is just a few short weeks away and I will be celebrating the people and the companies that have put so much more food on the table during the last half century. I will acknowledge that some of the advances haven’t been all they should have been but that’s the direct line of history.  We will always go forward, even if we trip from time-to-time.  Assigning the role of “evil” to scientific advancement is one of those “trips” that we must never accept.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Chuck Jolley, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.


Prev 1 2 Next All



Comments (13) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

modern farmer    
ND  |  October, 27, 2012 at 09:01 AM

There is not another business on earth that would seek to return to the good ol days...modern ag is not your grandparents farming operation. Technology provides the platform to increase outputs while decreasing the inputs. In our area we still have non-farming folks advocating for farmers to open their business to urban folks seeking a way to "get back to nature" ... ag tourism I believe is the catchy phrase... sorry, my livestock does not need your clumsy efforts to be a cowboy and you will never get to "drive" the tractor... you can however pick up the garbage you throw in the road ditches when you drive by...would that not be good practice for picking the bugs off the plants??

threecollie    
USA  |  October, 27, 2012 at 09:08 AM

Excellent article. Should be required reading.

Wrusssr    
Texas  |  October, 27, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Thank god and Greyhound that natural seed that fed the world for centuries is gone! http://geneticroulettemovie.com/

Wrusssr    
Texas  |  October, 27, 2012 at 11:19 AM

A 10-minute trailer if you can't watch the move. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5EBFUwaw0

Matthew Runnels    
No where New Mexico  |  October, 27, 2012 at 01:20 PM

A very well written article, presented in the same way.

Harold Steves    
Steveston, BC, Canada  |  October, 27, 2012 at 07:31 PM

I am a 4th generation farmer in British Columbia where our farmily has been growing crops and raising beef cattle organically since 1877. I also graduated in genetics writing my graduating thesis on hybridization of cattle. There is a serious fallacy in the article. While so-called "modern" farmers adopted chemical and GMO agriculture, those of us who remained organic increased our production equal to or better than chemical agriculture, with an important side benefit of producing healthier, less contaminated food.

C miller    
Tx  |  October, 27, 2012 at 07:50 PM

I agree with mr Steve's. what good is increased production if it compromises our health or our environment.

Oscar Leroy    
Alberta  |  October, 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM

More to the story. You are a 75 year old career urban and provincial politician, a former career school teacher and currently "farm" 11 acres, so the "farmer" or "rancher" moniker is kind of a phrase of easy convenience and attempt at credibility. What is chemical and GMO ag when it comes to cattle raising anyway? And like the article says, tossing off phrases like healthy and contaminated as what the competition produces but heaven forbid we are pure, are the stock and trade of of the elitist foodie romantics.

Joe    
ny  |  October, 27, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Each Farmers feeds over 100 people, true, but at what cost? Not just to the operation, with all the "latest and the greatest" inputs but to the land they hold so dear. Someone once said,"why should we tolerate a diet of weak poisons, a home in insipid surroundings? Who would want to live in a world which is JUST NOT QUITE FATAL?" The world is changing; the climate, the economies, our kid's health and our grandchildren's future. We are entitled to our own opinions but not to our own set of facts and their interpretation. I doubt Mr Steves is working with mules and jocky rakes. We can still feed 100 plus 1 and not have Monsanto & DuPont laugh all the way to the bank.

Chuck    
Kansas  |  October, 28, 2012 at 10:16 AM

People seem to be cherry-picking their points of contention here. My editorial covered two things - the increase in mechanization and improved genetics. I hope no one seriously attacks the mechanizaton of the farm. As for genetics, let's get serious - no serious research has ever shown those old seed resources and farming techniques superior in output to what we can do today. We are simply more productive in astounding ways, Steve's comments notwithstanding. At best, we might have traded a few hundred thousand possible related illnesses for the certain death of millions. All modern advances involve trade offs, I think the advances we've seen in modern agriculture are well worth it.

Aimee @ everdayepistle.com    
US  |  October, 29, 2012 at 06:54 PM

"The real problem throughout history has been the less wealthy, starting with the very poor... For a few people, most of them very well-fed, to question the intent of people who managed to feed millions through valid scientific advances is simply wrong." That is the heart of the issue. Well said, sir. Well said.

Chuck    
kansas  |  November, 02, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I've been looking for some research that backs Mr. Steve's claims that "those of us who remained organic increased our production equal to or better than chemical agriculture." There is nothing out there that I could find that supports his claim. The claim seemed far-fetched and the lack of data proves it. And I reject Joe's comment "Who would want to live in a world which is JUST NOT QUITE FATAL?" The world is changing; the climate, the economies, our kid's health and our grandchildren's future. We are entitled to our own opinions but not to our own set of facts and their interpretation." The way we were before Borlaug was definitely fatal to millions who starved to death, many of whom were children. That is a fact, not an interpretation.

Harold Steves    
Richmond BC  |  January, 03, 2013 at 06:00 AM

We also farm a 320 acre ranch and 20,000 acres of crown grazing land at Cache Creek and have been doing so in combination with our smaller farm near Vancouver since 1978. Our ranch has recently been taken over by our eldest son. As we use no herbicides, pesticides and hormones, and direct market uncontaminated grass fed beef, we are vigorously opposing the introduction of GMO alfalfa. As cattle eat grasses, any chemicals and GMO's they contain affect livestock the same as vegetables and fruit. As bees and pollen spread from field to field GMO alfalfa cannot be contained and will contaminate organically grown crops. There is absolutely no real benefit to "Round-up Ready" GMO alfalfa as a proper stand of alfalfa smothers the weeds. We pasture and winter feed our cattle on the alfalfa fields in the winter which fertilizes the fields. Our production is just as good as the so-called conventional farms and we don't take risks with chemical contamination.


ZACTRAN® (gamithromycin)

exZACTly the right efficacy, ease-of-use, and economics to manage BRD in your new-arrival cattle. Visit www.ZACTRAN.com for full prescribing information. ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight