First paragraph: Why do industrial agricultural operations continue to displace smaller family farms in spite of their continued pollution of the natural environment and degradation of rural ...communities? Large-scale, specialized agricultural operations, such as concentrated animal feeding operations (or CAFOs), persist because they have an economic advantage over smaller, diversified farming operations. They have higher ecological and social costs but lower economic costs. This economic advantage is commonly referred to as economies of scale. In economic theory, there are two types of economies of scale. Internal economies of scale refer to differences in the costs of production associated with different sizes of production units. In animal agriculture, “scale” refers to the number of hogs, poultry, milk cows, or beef cattle in a single farming operation or production unit. In field crop and pasture-based animal production, scale refers to the acres of land in a single production unit. External economies of scale, on the other hand, refer to differences such as the costs of fertilizer or feed, or the cost of complying with government regulations, for different sizes of management units. Management units may include one or more production units under single management or control (Ross, 2022). A single farm or production unit may comprise multiple parcels of land, but a farm management unit may comprise multiple farms that are managed as a single economic entity or unit. . . .
First paragraphs: In my previous column, I described the transformational changes I have seen in the past and expect to see in the future of American agriculture. Transformational change is not the ...usual incremental or adaptive change but is defined as “a dramatic evolution of some basic structure of the business itself—its strategy, culture, organization, physical structure, supply chain, or processes” (Harvard Business School Online, 2020, “Transformational Change,” para. 1). I believe the changes in food systems, past and future, have been and will be just as transformational as the changes in agriculture. When I was growing up in the 1940s in rural Missouri, we had a local food system. Most of what we ate was grown, hunted, fished, or foraged on our farm. Most of the rest was grown and processed within about 50 miles of our farm. There were local meat processors and locker plants, dairy processing plants, fruit and vegetable canneries, and even local flour mills. Coffee, tea, spices, some canned and packaged foods, and occasional bananas and oranges came from elsewhere. My best guess is that at least 75% of what we ate in the 1940s was homegrown or grown and processed locally. . .
First paragraphs: The Harvard Business School defines transformational changes as “changes that are typically much grander in scope than incremental, adaptive changes. Very often, transformational ...change refers to a dramatic evolution of some basic structure of the business itself—its strategy, culture, organization, physical structure, supply chain, or processes” (Harvard Business School Online, 2020, “Transformational Change,” para. 1). I have lived and worked through a period of transformational change in American agriculture. I was born in 1939 and raised on a small family farm in southwest Missouri. The only farm machinery in our community during the early 1940s was a steam engine that powered a threshing machine that moved from farm to farm at harvest time. Everything on the farm was done with horse power or human power. We milked cows by hand, picked corn by hand, and plowed fields and cultivated crops with horse-drawn equipment. Like most farmers in the U.S. at the time, most farmers in our community milked a few cows, raised a few hogs and chickens, and grew at least enough feed grains and forages for their livestock. They used crop rotations and livestock manure to manage pests and maintain soil fertility. Neighboring farmers shared their horsepower and human power at harvest times—as a matter of necessity. I recall silo-filling crews of up to 40 farmers. Our community may have been a few years behind some other areas, but this was pretty much the state of agriculture in the U.S. in the late 1940s. . . .
First paragraph: My purpose in sharing my long-run perspectives on farms, foods, and communities is not to dwell on the past—neither what was nor what could have been. The past is important only in ...so far as it helps us understand the realities of the present and possibilities for the future. There is a basic tendency for everything on earth to operate in cycles—physical, chemical, biological, economic, and social. Life on Earth is made possible by the biological recycling of finite quantities of chemical elements. Even the universe is thought to be circular so that if we traveled far enough in one direction we would eventually return to where we started. Whatever goes around eventually comes back around. So, the past provides potentially valuable insights into the future. . . .
First paragraph: Corporations are not real people. This may seem obvious, but for more than a hundred years the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as legal persons with many of the same ...constitutional rights as real people (Torres-Spelliscy, 2014). Why does it matter? Because corporations can do things that real people can’t and yet are immune to legal liabilities that real people must consider. The lack of economic competitiveness in agri-food markets is one consequence of treating corporations as real people. So is the lack of government protection of farm and food workers from exploitation and the natural environment from extraction and pollution. Recent examples include concerns about corporate price gouging following the COVID-19 pandemic (Reich, 2022) and the weakening of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to restrict corporate pollution (Feldscher, 2022). . . .
It is often suggested that we vote with our dollars if we want to change the food system. A dollar spent is a vote for whatever we buy and a dollar not spent is a vote against whatever we don’t buy. ...Consumers are led to believe that the current food system exists only because they have voted for it with their dollars. They are told to boycott foods, agribusinesses, and production systems that don’t align with their social or ethical values. Those who have discretionary dollars to spend should vote with their dollars. Food producers respond to things that affect their bottom line. However, consumers haven’t gotten, and won’t get, the foods they need, or even want, by simply voting with their dollars. The “invisible hand” of economic theory just doesn’t work very well in today’s agri-food economy (Majaski, 2023). The current industrial food system doesn’t have the capacity to translate consumers’ food purchases into incentives for producers to provide the foods that consumers need or would even prefer. . . .
Is technology good, bad, or neutral? The prevailing sentiment seems to be that technology is neither good nor bad, but is simply a tool that can be used for either. However, once a technology has ...been developed, its net effects will be one or the other. The consequences will depend on the intention, or perhaps inattention, with which a technology is developed and applied. The Encyclopedia Britannica (n.d.) defines technology as “the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life” (para. 1). The basic purpose of technology, whether mechanical, biological, or digital, is to allow people do things easier, faster, or better. Whether a technology is good, bad, or neutral depends on whose intentions or aims are met and who suffers any unintended consequences. The net effects of a technology, considering both good and bad, is determined not only by whether it contributes to the practical aims of some, but whether it contributes to the betterment of society or life in general.
Can we all afford enough wholesome, nutritious, sustainably produced food to support healthy, active lives? The good news is, yes, we can afford enough good food, enough for everyone—today and in ...the future. The bad news is that many people will need to make some very different food choices. National and global food systems do not change very quickly or easily, but individuals can change their food choices. Changes in individual food choices can lead to changes in local food systems, and changes in local food systems can lead to changes in national and global food systems. . . .
In a previous column, I made the case that enough wholesome, nutritious, and sustainably produced food is affordable for everyone (Ikerd, 2022). However, the fact that good food is affordable for ...everyone doesn’t mean good food is accessible to everyone or easy to locate, acquire, and prepare. For many, accessibility is a greater obstacle than affordability, and those who face the greatest challenges of affordability also face the greatest challenges in accessibility. As I pointed out in my previous column, farmers receive an average of only about 14% or US$1,120 of a typical US$8,000 household food budget. The rest, US$6,880, goes to pay the costs of processing, packaging, transportation, advertising, and other marketing costs (Ikerd, 2022, p. 3). Some of these marketing costs are necessary to transform farm commodities into finished food products and thus cannot be avoided. . . .
In my previous column on technology, I reasoned that “good technologies” (1) should not force people to adopt them but be matters of choice, (2) should reduce the drudgery of work but not the ...thinking, and (3) should not separate thinking from working (Ikerd, 2022). I concluded that industrial agricultural technologies violate all of these criteria because they are designed to maximize productivity and economic efficiency rather than economic sustainability. I concluded: “The technological challenges of the future will be to develop new mechanical, biological, and digital technologies that empower, rather than oppress, the people who choose to use them” (Ikerd, 2022, p. 7).
PDF