U.S. Farm Report, September 1999

By Britt Bailey

Of all human activities, agriculture has been called the one with the largest environmental impact. Too often, we pardon farming and its ensuing disturbance of natural ecosystems because food is the common denominator of our species survival. As population researchers continue to project an additional few billion planetary mouths to feed within the next 50 or so years, the agricultural world is being pressured to produce more and more food. Meanwhile the question remains: At what cost?

Following the introduction of cropland chemicals, population biologists believed the resulting increase in productivity could only fuel the population “bomb.” The introduction of genetically engineered varieties is presented as if it is the only way to keep pace with the still burgeoning population. But, little doubt remains that these chemicals and advanced breeding practices have already led to a green revolution and a surplus of grains. Now seeds enhanced through biotechnology to contain genes for pest resistance, or a gene preventing rotting are deemed essential to feed the world in the 21st century. In essence, the new genetically engineered seeds are at the forefront of the second green revolution.

But I often wonder if we are simply on an agricultural treadmill, racing furiously to maintain high levels of food production while exhausting environmental resources and damaging the potential for future food crop production. If we continue to remove the farmer from the soil, are we not further removing the consumer and his or her ties to nature and the soil? Biolistics and chemicals are a facet of high yield farming, and this style of farming, also referred to as agribusiness, seems to remove the consumer further from their food sources while displacing small farms and farmers. Even prior to commercialization of genetically modified seed varieties, between 1985 and 1996, 112,000 small farms were lost to larger ones. This figure is but one of many indicators that a major shift has been occurring in current styles of food production in the United States. While organic production focuses on smaller tracts of land and demands a premium price for its end products, is organic, non-chemically based food production the answer? The converse argument asks: As more and more people begin to choose organic foods, are we simply taking a very expensive step into the past? I don't think so.

Current Conventional Farm Demographics
While the amount of land dedicated to conventional farming has not changed, the demographics of farming has been altered dramatically. Planters in the United States cultivate approximately 1.8 million acres. In 1945 there were 6 million farms averaging 180 acres. Today, the trend has tilted in the other direction, where the number of farms has dropped to about 2 million, each averaging over 500 acres. Not only has the amount of farms versus acreage shifted, but there has also been a dramatic shift in production distribution. As of 1992, 50% of the food produced in the U.S. came from 2.2% of the largest farms, yielding about one-half million dollars profit annually. The remainder of farms (97.8%) produces the remaining 50% of food crops with incomes hovering closer to $50,000.

The trend towards increasing the size of farm is expected to continue as is the increasing reliance on highly technical machinery, chemicals, and seed stock. This direction is disturbing on many accounts. Intensive farming by design requires chemicals, machinery, and uniform seeds. For example, seed stock uniformity allows farmers apply chemicals at one time, harvest the crops at one time using machinery, while decreasing the need for intensive labor. Agricultural chemicals can only be applied at certain times of the growing season (for example, the application of Roundup® herbicide when the plants sprout two nodes, as is the case for Roundup Ready™ cotton seeds), and without seed uniformity, applying such pesticides would not be cost-effective.

By the year 2000, the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that half of all U.S. farm production will come from only 1 percent of all farms. For those wanting to preserve the livelihood of the small family farm, very few options for survival remain. One viable option is the support of organically based agriculture.

Organic Farming
Typically, organic farms are small -- around 140 acres on average. But organic goods typically bring a premium price. The average cost per bushel of organic soybeans is $16.50, compared to the average price for a bushel of inorganic soybeans: just $6.47.

Organic products alone are predicted to be a $6 billion commodity by 2001, with sales of organic food growing between 20 percent and 25 percent annually. A Food Marketing Institute study reports that organic and natural foods are available at approximately 73 percent of grocery stores and supermarkets. “Of shoppers surveyed in FMI's study, more than 50 percent said they purchase organic or natural foods at least once a month; 35 percent said they actively seek out products that are labeled as organic; and 63 percent look for products labeled natural. Purchase of organic products is highest among consumers between 18 and 29 (31 percent), with a heavier concentration of sales in the West (34 percent),” according to the 1998 Fresh Trends Report published by The Packer.

For The Farmer's Sake
I believe farmers caught in the political and technological crossfire surrounding genetically modified seeds may find a safe haven by converting to organically produced agriculture. More and more consumers seem to be voting with their wallets in favor of non-chemically, organic foods. Perhaps there is a hidden virtue in biotechnology. If current trends towards worldwide rejection of genetically engineered foods persist, biotechnological modification may be the straw that broke corporate farming's back. Farmers who purchased genetically altered varieties of seed and believed they would be led out of debt are caught holding grains now priced upwards of 18 cents lower per bushel as consumer throughout the world revolt has increased the demand for conventional foods. Many farmers were misled to believe the only way they could compete in the increasingly powerful agribusiness world of farming was to convert to genetically engineered products. Many believed the seeming promise embedded in the genetic structure of new modified seeds, less labor, fewer chemicals, more profit. In an earthly paradox, small farmers may find economic relief in reverting to the romantic ideals of the labor intensive organic style of farming. One can only hope more of them awake to this new reality.