Reorienting Agricultural Research Back to the Farm

E. Ann Clark, Crop Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1 (eaclark@uoguelph.ca)

What is the role of agricultural research in reconciling the needs of society for abundant, secure, and safe food with those of farmers for a livelihood and a sense of community? The historical evidence is not encouraging, with farm number and population declining as yield increased (Fig 1). In New York state, for example, as farms became larger and more productive, profitability per unit of production declined (Fig 2), obliging them to get larger still to stay in business.

We're now down to less than 2% of the population directly involved in production agriculture - just how low can we go? When will the numbers be "in balance" with the dollars available? When will the seemingly inexhaustible population of inefficient farmers be exhausted? Or when will all farmers be large enough to make use of what we give them as the outcome of our research?

Just why is it so difficult to make a living in agriculture today?

A. Is it - as stated in the documents which informed post-WWII farm policymaking in the US (e.g. Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development⁽¹⁾, 1962 and 1974) - because there is an excess of labor and resources occupied in agriculture - an argument which was used to justify policies designed to depopulate rural communities?

B. Is it because so many farm operators are just not up to the task of engaging in contemporary commercial agriculture - and should be put on welfare like any other disadvantaged segment of society, as stated by the CED (1974)?

C. Is it because so much of our research is focused on scale-dependent technologies, so that only large-scale producers can benefit from the tax dollars contributed to agricultural research? In Ontario, the fixed costs of machine ownership are second only to land in accounting for the costs of production of many field crop commodities. But how big do you have to be to afford a combine? A used, 6-row combine reportedly costs about CA$60,000, as compared to $120,000 for a new model. To justify owning even a used combine, a producer would have to annually harvest an estimated 300-400 ac of grain crops (double that for a new combine)(T. Vyn, personal communication, 1997). Many small to medium sized operations are operating with aging machinery and will soon be facing major equipment purchase decisions - are we giving them realistic alternatives, or just waiting for them to go quietly into town?

Scale of production matters (e.g. acres cropped or milking herd size) because the margin per unit of production is declining. To stay solvent, more acres must be cropped or more cows must be milked. At least three causes of this disturbing treadmill are:

• productivity has increased while demand is static, driving down price. According to Eugene Paul, president of the National Farmers Organization, the purchasing value of agricultural commodities today is the same as it was 25-30 years ago (Paul, 1997).
• high yields depend on high levels of purchased inputs, and the cost of the inputs is increasing at a much faster rate than the value of the commodities. The aggregate input price index for agricultural inputs increased at 16.5% over the last 10 years, while the aggregate value index of agricultural commodities increased by just 0.2% (Ferguson, 1992). At present, Canadian producers keep only 10% of the farm gate value of their produce - the rest goes to purchased inputs, and to a lesser extent, debt servicing (Fig 3).
• the value of the commodities does not vary freely with demand, but is largely controlled by a few buyers/marketers which dominate the marketplace. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations - who are now very much in a price-setting position. Of all the income in agriculture today, the lion's share is absorbed in marketing (Fig 4). The rise in income of the marketing and to a lesser extent the input sectors between 1910 and 1990 is in shocking contrast to the static, real returns in farming. Quoting work by Heffernan and colleagues at Missouri, Paul (1997) reported that the price received by farmers for their commodities is largely dictated by the large conglomerates which now control the industry. He noted that the concentration of power is now so complete that just 3-4 buyers control from 46% (in broilers) to over 72% (in meat packing) of the market in all major US commodities.

These are some of the factors which retard prices, reduce margins, and squeeze out smaller and medium-sized operators today.

TESTING AN HYPOTHESIS

So, where does agricultural research fit into all of this?

I would hypothesize that the fundamental assumptions which have guided post-WWII agricultural policy, and hence, have shaped and textured agricultural research, have caused or at least exacerbated the apparent incompatibility between the needs of farmers (economic survival) and interests of society (higher yields/lower prices) which has obliged the large-scale exodus of people from the land.

In other words, people have been obliged to leave farming by circumstances intentionally created by US farm policy, including the focus on scale-dependent agricultural research⁽²⁾. The "good" news is that what has been made by policy can be unmade by policy - given an effective lobbying effort. This apparent conflict between the needs of farmers and the needs of society has been created - it is not intrinsic or inherent. But unmaking policy will require a concerted effort, and one which is already underway to profile the accumulating negative ramifications of industrial agriculture and to identify realistic alternatives.

This is an important hypothesis to test, not simply for our own people but for the future of others who are being exhorted to emulate the high yield, "plastics and pesticides" approach to food production. Consider the societal logistics and implications of intentionally lowering prices globally to purposefully displace people from their small subsistence farms and into the cities of Latin America? And for what? To whose benefit?

"As the nation's leading earner of foreign exchange, agriculture is of major importance in energy and trade negotiations. In 1973, agricultural exports were $17.7 billion or 26 percent of total US exports...The private sector accounted for all but a fraction of agricultural exports; whereas fifteen years ago, it accounted for only about two-thirds." CED, 1974

PAST POLICIES What evidence supports this hypothesis? Two CED publications (1962 and 1974) reveal that US government policies, including commodity specific price supports and production-based subsidy/entitlement programs, have encouraged and perpetuated both overproduction and low prices, as well as systematic and intentional imbalances in benefits derived by large versus small farmers. The clear intent of these highly successful policies (Figs 5 and 6) was to replace labor with capital, or in essence, to promote large-scale, heavily capitalized, industrial style farming. Particularly by the 70's, the underlying rationale for the process was international trade and foreign relations, and the rising potential for commercial gain (see sidebar). The welfare of the farmer - or the dwindling number that remained on the farm - is assumed to somehow benefit from higher yields. This assumption is implicit, and is presented without validation.

REORIENTING AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH BACK TO THE FARM? The foregoing provides little support for the notion that agricultural policy - or agricultural research - has ever been "oriented to the farm" in the post WW II era - despite what we might like to think. In recent decades, the intentional beneficiaries of agricultural policy, and agricultural research, were not farmers but agribusiness and consumers, at the expense of farmers.

Well, these people issues are not really your problem anyway, you say? You are just a plant breeder or soil scientist or agronomist? Consider your responsibilities as a practising agricultural scientist:

According to the Crop Science Society of America (1992), researchers are ethically bound to "demonstrate social responsibility in scientific and professional practice, by considering whom their research and professional activities benefit, and whom they neglect".

Our professional responsibilities as agricultural scientists demand consideration of the societal implications of our research.

THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE: MORE OF THE SAME?

Now, while one could conceivably object to transferring the proceeds of agriculture from the farmer to the agribusiness industry, just what is WRONG with giving American consumers vast quantities of high quality, highly affordable food? When framed this way, the question implies that the unambiguous success of the industrial paradigm - replacing labor with capital - at feeding people:

• is the only way it can be done - in other words, that people will NOT be fed if the primacy of the industrial paradigm is challenged, and
• if it ain't broke, why fix it? What worked in the past will continue to work in the future.

But what evidence supports this premise, and what other critical dimensions are excluded from consideration when the question is simplified to "feeding people"?

Let's address this provocative question by considering whether the needs of society and the environment are better served by:

• the logical extension of 50 years of adherence to the industrial paradigm - megafarms, mass production of a few raw materials, and mass marketing by a few, full-time "farmers" sustained by corporate interests - or
• by family farms operating under a "sustainable" paradigm - environmentally sustainable production systems, a diverse range of commodities, and niche marketing for local consumption, with a larger number of "farmers" who may well be farming part-time to complement other forms of employment.

The Industrial Paradigm. In the industrial paradigm, the total "farm" population is small, and employment is assumed to be full-time, with most of those being employed as workers rather than independent owners - like Tyson and others operate today. For agricultural researchers to voluntarily conduct research to support this vision requires acceptance of a suite of assumed societal benefits from megafarming, many of which can and should be challenged (Table 1). If the assumptions are unsound, then the perceived benefits of megafarming to the taxpayers who pay our salaries and fund our research must likewise be suspect.

Research for tomorrow must also acknowledge that the world has changed. The driving/controlling variables which must be considered by the agriculturalists of tomorrow have changed from those which directed the thinking of policymakers, farmers, and researchers yesterday. In particular, the environmental and societal costs of the high yield paradigm⁽³⁾ must now be factored into the equation, along with the usual practice of profiling the benefits in terms of the abundance and availability of cheap food. As noted by the British Panel on Sustainable Development (1996) in the specific context of biotechnology:

"The introduction of GMOs must proceed with caution to ensure that any benefits now are not made at the expense of the safety and well-being of future generations and their environment. Once released in other areas there is uncertainty about the long-term outcome of human actions and human ability to deal with the consequences.... Unfortunately there are many recent examples of failure to anticipate problems arising from the use of new technologies (such as CFCs asbestos, pesticides and thalidomide). Potential consequences are more uncertain where self-replicating organisms are introduced into the environment." (NB emphasis added)

Biotechnology is just one example where emerging technologies continue to concentrate power in fewer and fewer hands⁽⁴⁾, while simultaneously prolonging or perhaps increasing the real risks to human health and the environment (Clark, 1997a).

In an insightful paper, Ikerd (1996) argues that agricultural scientists should "stop promoting the industrialization of agriculture". He reasons that the societal and economic benefits of industrial agriculture were already largely achieved by the 60's, and that there is little to be gained by continuing to pursue the goals of specialization, mechanization, and routinization of both production and marketing. He argues that the marginal costs of industrialization, not simply in pollution and degradation of the environment⁽⁵⁾, but also in damage to the human resource⁽⁶⁾, may have exceeded the marginal benefits of industrialization several decades ago. (Fig. 7)

The Sustainability Paradigm Alternatives to the high yield paradigm must be envisioned, studied, refined, and provided to producers. The first step - envisioning alternatives - may actually be the hardest because we are so conditioned to accept without question the implicit assumptions of high yield agriculture. Evidence provided above and elsewhere needs to be seriously considered before continuing to pursue research questions in support of the industrial paradigm.

In his essays, John Ikerd references contemporary thinkers and strategists such as Alvin Toffler, who wrote in his book Powershift that the old industrial model of economic progress has already outlived its usefulness, with mass production being replaced by customized goods and services for niche markets as the hallmark of a successful business enterprise. In addition, Toffler is quoted as saying that "the most important economic development of our lifetime has been the rise of a new system of creating wealth, based...on the mind". Peter Drucker, in his book The New Realities, concurs that the biggest shift in contemporary society is the shift to a "knowledge society". He draws a distinction between knowledge work and industrial work, where the former is fundamental biological in nature, while the latter is basically a mechanical process.

Industrial agriculture is the antithesis of these projections, in that it is predicated upon mass production and marketing of uniform products by workers who are valued not for their unique human qualities but for their hands.

The projections of Toffler, Drucker, and others are supported by many trend indicators of modern society, ranging from:

1. the skyrocketing popularity of Internet discussion groups, such as GRAZE-L, which broaden the information highway to accommodate the questions and gracious sharing of experience and information by a truly international audience

2. the introgression of highly educated and motivated business-oriented people back into rural communities, not as commuters escaping from the city but as entrepreneurs looking for a sense of community, a way to contribute, and a healthier life for their families.

3. the recent focus on vehicles such as zoning and land trusts owned by municipalities or other groups, with the specific aims of bringing the dollar value of agricultural land into balance with the value of its agricultural production as well as ensuring an aesthetically and ecologically satisfactory landscape in the countryside

4. the rise in interest in producer-to-consumer marketing schemes such as CSA's, direct marketing, farmers' markets, and foodsheds. Incidents like the recent scandals with contaminated meat, strawberries, apples, and other mass-produced, mass-marketed products have motivated consumer interest in other methods of food production.

These early trends involve a relatively small, well-educated and upper income segment of society at present, as has been emphasized by Marty Strange. Access to locally produced foodstuffs from environmentally sound production systems and to meaningful employment in agriculture will need to be broadened to encompass a wider spectrum of people if it is going to become a societally meaningful trend. This may not happen on its own, particularly if farm policy and agricultural research continue to operate to oppose the transition to post-industrial alternatives. Lipson (1997) recently reported, for example, that of the 30,000 projects currently in the USDA Current Research Information System database, just 34 were specific to organic farming. In dollar terms, a maximum of $1.5 million annually could be identified as pertaining to projects specifically on organic farming, out of a budget of $1.8 billion. However, recent farm policy is changing in encouraging directions to reduce the most harmful aspects of past policies, and with continued effort, could become a powerful agent for positive change, if complemented by suitable changes in agricultural research.

From this fresh perspective, we can visualize a future where producers could be freed from many of today's production and marketing constraints, which will open up diverse new opportunities for food production, entitlement, and gainful employment in agriculture. Price could more directly affect demand if grass rather than grain is used to the fullest extent possible to produce meat and milk. Some 70 to 90% of North American grain (40% worldwide) is grown just as livestock feed - and much of that grain is funnelled through central marketing/processing units like Cargill and IBP. If this step can be bypassed, perhaps with complementary innovations in small-scale processing facilities, it would go a long way to reducing the concentration effects which predominate today.

Like society at large, producers will also be more aware of environmental and human health risks (various, in Clark, 1997b) as well as the economic costs of resource-intensive agricultural practices. Issues such as biocide resistance, which oblige producer dependence upon chemical companies for yet another new product, can be avoided when producers adopt alternative practices for pest control. For example, even moderately complex rotations greatly reduce corn rootworm - the focus of a new GE corn offering - as a problem.

Full-time farming may not be a necessary or even desirable goal under the sustainable paradigm. One or both spouses may well work off the farm to complement farm income, and they may not come from a traditional agricultural background. Farming may well be a lifestyle, but it will also be an efficient food production system as well as a source of gainful employment for a larger number of educated and motivated farm families. With under 2% of the population currently in farming today, rebuilding rural communities will require an influx of people without a farm background. This need not be seen as a detriment - new skills and attitudes may well complement the experience and long wisdom of people native to a given area.

Researchers seeking to serve the producers of tomorrow may focus more on scale-neutral and less capital-intensive technologies designed to achieve different indices of efficiency. For example, enterprise choices may be based on income potential per unit time invested in off-peak hours, to allow farm work to complement other sources of income. Workload may be scaled such that an hour of work by younger family members produces as much economic return as that by adults (e.g. the Joel Salatin approach to pastured chicken).

Examples of opportunities which future agricultural research would need to support could include:

1. Enterprise Diversity. Instead of striving for lowest cost production to mass market a small range of raw grains, meat, or milk to centralized, price-setting buyers, we could see producers opening up more diverse crop rotations, re-integrating livestock into crop enterprises, and striving to capture the synergies implicit among production enterprises. The profitability of an enterprise would not be evaluated in isolation, but rather, on how it complements the whole and contributes to whole farm income.

a. Livestock could become a tool for crop production and whole farm economics, rather than simply an end unto themselves. Whether for weed/residue management, accelerated cycling of straw-bound nutrients through manure/urine, utilization of weather-damaged crops, incorporation of perennial swards into grain crop rotations, or parasite or brush control - livestock can play a supporting and balancing role in whole farm economics, in addition to their commodity value as meat or milk. Research is needed into the benefits and detriments of each of these axes, as well as in the tailoring of livestock genetics and management for this new role.

b. Crops would be grown in a rotation designed not simply for yield but to allow "information" from one crop to carry over in support of succeeding crops, where "information" might include weed and pest/pathogen species composition, internal soil drainage, seasonal rate and pattern of mineralization, or any of countless other "long term memory" aspects that have, heretofore, been obscured by purchased inputs. Research is needed to identify and quantify these effects, determine their generalizability (if any), and refine methods of channelling them to human-desirable goals. A whole range of constraints to rotation complexity, including equipment and managerial costs, need to be identified and addressed. Solutions could range from the evolution of a stronger class of custom operators to relieve individual producers of the burden of equipment ownership, to an improved understanding of predator/prey relationships in field margins.

2. Desirable Crop Attributes The list of desirable properties or attributes of crops (and livestock) may be expanded beyond simply increasing yield or resisting disease if crops are going to be expected to perform as part of a holistic farm plan instead of as an isolated entity. Examples of selection criteria might include:

a. Anti-helminthic properties of herbage species and breeding cultivars to reduce current dependence upon chemical agents for worming and other types of pest control.

b. Flavor-enhancing properties of herbage species, to improve consistency and predictability in the taste, smell, and sense of satisfaction in the meat-consuming public.

c. Specific attributes, such as volatile compounds and texture/morphology, which may affect voluntary intake by livestock, to enhance livestock performance.

d. Depth of rooting and nutrient scavenging properties may be sought in species, either as components of a grazed or manure-applied perennial sward, or perhaps as constituents of a sown buffer zone around an arable field, to intercept, immobilize, and internalize labile nutrients escaping from grain crops.

e. Timing of nutrient demand in grain crops may be staggered to more closely approximate timing of nutrient release from the soil/mineralization, hence achieving a tighter linkage between supply/demand, and less risk of nutrient loss.

f. Responsiveness of disease/pest susceptibility to common management practices, such as rate of N fertilization and type of N fertilizer, rotation complexity, or grazing management

3. Value-Added Products/Local or "Niche" Marketing. Perhaps the fastest growing industry in America today is that of organic or ecological farming. While still small in numbers, this industry will exert an influence far out of proportion to the number of its practitioners - specifically because they already possess both the philosophy and tools of production which will be needed by mainstream agriculturalists in the future. This is not to say that mainstream will become organic - but rather, that some elements of organic philosophy and practice will become mainstream. The motivation will not be purity or philosophy but profit, specifically because organic farmers systematically internalize their costs of production, keep purchased inputs to a minimum, and as such, operate in concert with the demands of the sustainable paradigm.

Research oriented to support local or foodshed marketing would be dramatically different from that which is intended to promote mass production and long-distance transport to service global markets. For example, the logic which produced GE tomatoes that could be harvested green for subsequent, post-transport ripening would be irrelevant to a society where tomatoes were direct marketed to local customers, in season. Consumers have been habituated to seeing and buying tomatoes and other fresh produce on a year-around, not seasonal basis. Thus, changes to farming practice would have to be accompanied, or preceded, by changes in consumer preference. But this can be done and indeed, is already occurring in a small segment of society (above) which would rather enjoy locally grown commodities, either fresh in season or conserved, than patronize environmentally damaging practices in order to access fresh, imported foodstuffs yeararound. The fact that consumers now demand tomatoes on a yeararound basis should not be allowed to narrow the range of potential, researchable opportunities in the future.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Evidence has been presented to support the thesis that post WWII agricultural research has been designed to serve the needs of agribusiness (input suppliers and processing/marketing) and the consumer at the expense of farmers. Farmers have been disenfranchised as a matter of policy, not because they were inherently less efficient, less productive, or served society less well than their neighbors, but simply because they were too small to stay in business as margins shrank.

Leaving aside the issues of commodity pricing, concentration of power, and "fairness" for others to consider, I would emphasize that family farms can be economically competitive, even in the face of low commodity prices, if they achieve wider margins through lower input costs and if they avoid domination by the processing/marketing sector by producing a more diverse array of foodstuffs intended for local consumption.

New Zealand dairy farmers have already proven the economic validity of low cost production. While receiving one-third to one-quarter the price that our producers receive, they nonetheless remain economically competitive - not because they are blessed with especially favorable soils or climate but because they are extremely focused and imaginative in efficiently using the resources they do have. We can learn a lesson from their management-intensive approach to agricultural production.

Grass provides real opportunities for sustainable agriculturalists, in terms of environmental sustainability (Clark and Poincelot, 1996), minimal capitalization, low cost production, and potentially greater independence from centralized controlling interests. Grass-based systems are well suited to part-time farmers and to the involvement of all family members, because of sharp reductions in the risks associated with machinery and confined livestock in the industrial paradigm.

The future will not be an extension of the past. The "plastics and pesticides" mantra of proponents of the industrial paradigm is coming under increasing scrutiny as society slowly realizes that the costs are outweighing the benefits. Research to support adjustments to the texture and structure of agriculture will necessarily be different from that intended to continue today's trend lines. But agricultural researchers must first be convinced that change is needed and that challenges to the assumptions of the industrial paradigm should be critically evaluated rather than rejected out of hand. Changing the rules of the game changes everything, giving both producers and researchers a whole new array of possibilities for future endeavor.

Figures

1. Inverse relationship between farm number/ population and grain yield in Ontario, 1940 to 1990 (adapted from OMAFRA, various)

2. Declining per cow profitability in New York dairying (adapted from Knoblauch et al., 1996)

3. Distribution of the value of Canadian production among inputs, interest, and residual (adapted from Fuller and Bollman, 1992)

4. Growth in real value of the marketing, input, and farming sectors in US agriculture, 1910 and 1990 (adapted from Smith, 1992)

5. Increases in crop and livestock production and in farm income, 1960 to 1974 (adapted from CED, 1974)

6. Changes in number of small and large farms, fertilizer use, and total farm debt (adapted from CED, 1974)

7. Two visions of the future of American agriculture

References

1. CED. 1962. An Adaptive Program for Agriculture. A Statement on National Policy by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development. New York. 74 pp

2. CED. 1974. A New U.S. Farm Policy for Changing World Food Needs. A Statement by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development. New York. 65 pp

3. Clark, E. Ann. 1997a. Genetically engineered crops: a Luddite's view. Presented to the Select Seed Growers, Elora, ON ( http://plant.uoguelph.ca/plant/faculty/eclark/biotech.htm)

4. Clark, E. Ann. 1997b. Farming at the agriculture:environment interface. Presented to the Agroecosystem Management group at Ohio State University, Columbus and Wooster
   ( http://plant.uoguelph.ca/plant/faculty/eclark/ohio.htm)

5. Clark, E. Ann and R.P. Poincelot (ed). 1996. The Contribution of Managed Grasslands to Sustainable Agriculture in the Great Lakes Basin. Haworth Press Inc., NY. 189 pp

6. CSSA (Crop Science Society of America) 1992. Statement of Ethics. Crop Sci. 32:1520.

7. Ferguson, R. 1992. Compare the Share. Phase II. The Comparisons Continue. Report Summary Discussion Paper, House of Commons, Ottawa. 13 pp.

8. Fick, G.W. and E.A. Clark. Ch. 1 The future of grass for dairy cattle. In: J.H. Cherney and D. Cherney (ed) Grass for Dairy Cattle CAB International (in press)

9. Fuller, A.M. and R.D. Bollman. 1992. Ch. 11 Farm family linkages to the non-farm sector: the role of off-farm income of farm families. pp. 244-267. In: R.D. Bollman (ed) Rural and Small Town Canada. Thompson Educational Publ., Inc.

10. Ikerd, John. 1996. The industrialization of agriculture: why we should stop promoting it. Presented at the Harold F. Breimyer 1995 Agricultural Policy Seminar, Univ. of Missouri, 16-17 Nov 95 ( http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/brsm1-95.htm)

11. Kalanzainodokes, N.G., H. Hu, and M. Bredahl. 1996. Looking in some of the right places: where are the economies of scale? ( http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/SSU/AGEC/CITE/scale/scale.htm)

12. Knoblauch, W.A., Smith, S. and Putnam, L. (1996) Dairy-farm management. New York economic handbook 1997. Dept. Agric. Resources and Management. Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, pp. 7/1-7/17.

13. NY Times. 1997. Maryland fish kills may spur manure regs. New York Times, 15 Sept 97.

14. Lipson, M. 1997. Searching for the 'O-Word'. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.

15. Panel on Sustainable Development. 1996. Jan 96 report referenced from the Lady Eve Balfour Memorial Lecture by HRM The Prince of Wales, 19 September 96.

16. Paul, Eugene. 1997. The realities of agricultural policy - a producer perspective. Presented to the National Public Policy Education Conference, Farm Foundation 22 Sept 97, Charleston, South Carolina.

17. Smith, Stewart. 1992. cited in Paul (1997)

18. Vyn, T. 1997. Personal communication; corn cropping systems specialist, Crop Science, University of Guelph.

Footnotes

1. The CED is an "independent research and educational organization of two hundred business executives and educators...nonprofit, nonpartisan, and nonpolitical...purpose is to propose policies that will help to bring about steady economic growth at high employment and reasonably stable prices, increase productivity and living standards, provide greater and more equal opportunity for every citizen, and improve the quality of life for all". Thanks to John Bobbe of the Great Lakes Grazing Network in Wisconsin for providing these documents.

2. Which is not to say that farmers should never leave their land, or that all of those leaving were good and efficient farmers; rather, that the population of poorly motivated or inefficient farmers is not nearly large enough to account for all or even most of those who have left farming - particularly in recent decades, they were intentionally removed.

3. Such as pollution/degradation of soil/water/air/energy resources and biodiversity from the processes of large-scale manufacturing, distribution, and use of agricultural inputs; impacts on human health via toxicity and cancer, as well as immune system dysfunction, disruption of endocrine-mediated processes such as reproduction, and aberrant behavior/development.

4. Clark (1997a) profiled the strategic use of profits from the chemical industry to take over the seed industry, effectively reducing future access to commercial seed of non-genetically engineered cultivars

5. e.g. recent Pfiesteria piscicda outbreaks in Maryland and North Carolina which have been associated with water runoff from land to which manure from high density confinement operations had been applied (NY Times, 97))

6. The epitome of what industrialization does to humans is conveyed in a famous quote from Henry Ford, who said that the biggest problem in running a factory is that you have to hire whole people when all you need is two hands. In the paradigm of industrial agriculture, formerly independent decision-makers are transformed into nothing more than pairs of hands. What could be more demeaning and degrading to the human spirit, particularly after being told that you have failed as a farmer for reasons of inefficiency, inadequacy, and/or incompetence.