Farming may be classified as:



Natural
Organic &
Conventional

Industrial/ Capitalistic
“We change the way we grow food, we change our food, we change our society, we change our values
.” Masanobu Fukuoka in ‘The one Straw Revolution’
The basis of this farming is cooperating with the nature rather than trying to “improve” upon nature by conquest, thus returning to source. There are four principles of this farming:
 No Cultivation: There will be no plowing or turning of the soil. For centuries, farmers have assumed that the plow is essential for growing crops. However, non-cultivation is fundamental to natural farming. The idea is that the earth cultivates itself naturally by means of the penetration of plant roots and the activity of microorganisms, small animals, and earthworms.
 No Chemical Fertilizer or Prepared Compost: People interfere with nature, and, try as they may, they can not heal the resulting wounds. Their careless farming practices drain the soil of essential nutrients and the result is yearly depletion of the land. If left to itself, the soil maintains its fertility naturally, in accordance with the orderly cycle of plant and animal life.

No Weeding by Tillage or Herbicides: Weeds play their part in building soil fertility and in balancing the biological community. As a fundamental principle, weeds should be controlled, not eliminated. Straw mulch, a ground cover of white clover interplanted with the crops, and temporary flooding provide effective weed control in the field.
 No Dependence on Chemicals: Nature, left alone, is in perfect balance. Harmful insects and plant diseases are always present, but do not occur in nature to an extent, which requires the use of poisonous chemicals. The sensible approach to disease and insect control is to grow sturdy crops in a healthy environment.

Organic farming refers to agricultural production systems used to produce food and fiber. All kinds of agricultural products are produced organically, including produce, grains, meat, dairy, eggs, and fibers such as cotton, flowers, and processed food products. Organic farming management relies on developing biological diversity in the field to disrupt habitat for pest organisms, and the purposeful maintenance and replenishment of soil fertility. Organic farmers are not allowed to use synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.
Organic farmers build healthy soils by nourishing the living component of the soil, the microbial inhabitants that release, transform, and transfer nutrients. Soil organic matter contributes to good soil structure and water-holding capacity. Organic farmers feed soil biota and build soil structure and water-holding capacity. Organic farmers feed soil biota and build soil organic matter with cover crops, compost, and biologically based soil amendments. These produce healthy plants that are better able to resist disease and insect predation. Organic farmers' primary strategy in controlling pests and diseases is prevention through good plant nutrition and management. Organic farmers use cover crops and sophisticated crop rotations to change the field ecology, effectively disrupting habitat for weeds, insects, and disease organisms. Weeds are controlled through crop rotation, mechanical tillage, and hand weeding, as well as through cover crops, mulches, flame weeding, and other management methods.
Organic farmers rely on a diverse population of soil organisms, beneficial insects, and birds to keep pests in check. When pest populations get out of balance, growers implement a variety of strategies such as the use of insect predators, mating disruption, traps and barriers. As a last resort, certain botanical or other non-synthetic pesticides may be applied.
Organic meat, dairy products, and eggs are produced from animals that are fed organic feed and allowed access to the outdoors. They must be kept in living conditions that accommodate the natural behavior of the animals. Ruminants must have access to pasture. Organic livestock and poultry may not be given antibiotics, hormones, or medications in the absence of illness; however, they may be vaccinated against disease. Parasiticide use is strictly regulated.
Livestock diseases and parasites are controlled primarily through preventative measures such as rotational grazing, balanced diet, sanitary housing, and stress reduction.
Organic farm management
As with any other farming system, organic farming must be adapted to the farmer's individual situation. An organic system is probably more dependent than conventional systems on the integration of the major management factors: crop, soil and livestock management. Though organic farmers use far fewer purchased external inputs, they will need to manage their farms more intensively. Farmers must carefully consider crop rotations, soil fertility and soil management when planning a transition to organic farming.
Crop rotations
Organic farming do no permit organic producers to use synthetic chemical products as fertilizers or for controlling pests. An effective crop rotation strategy is essential for controlling weeds, diseases and insects and maintaining soil fertility.

Green manure
Soil fertility maintenance through the use of legume green manners is especially important for an organic farmer. Because no synthetic chemical sources of nitrogen are permitted, nitrogen requirements for crop production must be met either through the application of raw or composted livestock manure or through the use of legume green manure. Rhizobium bacteria on legume roots fix atmospheric nitrogen; legumes incorporated into the soil can be used as a source of nitrogen and organic matter.
Incorporation of green manure should be shallow and leave sufficient crop residue at the soil surface to prevent erosion. Green manuring can have benefits for both soil fertility and soil structure. Deeply rooted crops, such as sweet clover and alfalfa, penetrate the subsoil and use nutrients not available to other crops. As well, the decaying roots from a green manure crop provide organic matter throughout the soil profile, improve soil aeration and provide internal drainage channels. Besides improving crop yields, green manure also enhance grain quality of subsequent cereal crops by increasing kernel size and protein content.
Perennial forages can play a valuable role in an organic crop rotation. They can be useful for improving soil quality, fertility and crop yields. Legumes such as alfalfa are especially valuable because they can be used both as green manure and as livestock feed.
Cropping sequences
Effects of a previous crop may serve to reduce a crop's growth and yield. Different crops, for example, result in different depths of soil moisture depletion and consequently may have direct bearing on the productivity of a subsequent crop, particularly in a dry year. Deep rooted crops, such as alfalfa, sunflower and sweet clover deplete soil water to greater depths than do crops such as field pea and barley.
Crop residues can produce toxic products detrimental to the growth of some crops and weeds.
These toxins are either directly leached from the residues or formed in the process of microbial breakdown of residues. Allelopathic effects of these toxic products can cause decrease in crop growth and weed populations, especially to crops that are similar to the crop residue.
Rotations, then can be planned to avoid consecutive crops that are similar.
Crops also differ in the amount of competition they offer to weeds. Weed proliferation that may occur with poorly competitive crops can depress yields for years if not properly managed.
Farmers can use rotations involving spring annual, winter annual and perennial crops to combat the build up of specific weeds.
Soil management
Soil management is very important in organic farming systems. Organic farmers must closely monitor soil fertility to ensure adequate crop nutrition. Both soil testing and plant tissue analysis are methods of evaluating soil nutrient levels.

To be sustainable, an organic farming system must prevent soil loss through wind and water erosion. Crop residue management is a key aspect of soil management. Crop residues return organic matter to the soil, and residues left at the soil surface help prevent erosion and conserve soil water.
Soil Fertility: Some soils can be highly productive without the addition of purchased external inputs. Farmers should maintain the inherent fertility of these soils by replacing the nutrients removed by crops or livestock grazing by using green manure, animal manure (raw or composted) and other organic fertilizers. Other soils, however, may be deficient in one or more essential nutrients and this deficiency must be corrected. Truly sustainable farming protects the fertility of the soil and improves it where possible.
Soil erosion: Soils differ in their susceptibility to erosion. As well, crops differ in the amount of residue they produce and in the effectiveness of that residue for soil erosion protection.
Tillage implements also differ widely in the amount of crop residue they bury. Rodweeders, wide blade cultivators and field cultivators bury the least amount of crop residue. All producers, including organic farmers, must consider the potential effects of soil erosion when planning tillage operations. Some special crops, such as peas, beans, lentils and potatoes, produce very little crop residue and leave soils very susceptible to erosion. Such crops should be sown into cereal fields that have a heavy crop residue cover. Strips of corn or sunflowers in annual grain legume or potato fields can provide further protection from wind erosion both during crop growth and after harvest. They also provide an excellent means for trapping snow in winter, thereby increasing soil moisture.
Soil Moisture: Soil moisture conservation can be done by various methods. Some of the methods of soil moisture conservation are much more effective. Standing stubble from the previous crop, or strips of other crops such as flax, sunflowers, corn or perennial grasses, can be very effective for trapping snow on the fields. As well, eliminating fall tillage can be an effective method to derive maximum benefit from winter precipitation.
Crop residue on the soil surface will help prevent excessive evaporation during early crop growth. The amount of water conserved in this way is directly related to the amount of residue present on the soil surface. Increased infiltration of rainfall also occurs when crop residue remains at or near the soil surface. For good soil moisture management, crop residue left at the soil surface is essential. Minimum or zero tillage is recommended for protecting the soil against erosion.

Weed management
Basic weed management principles should be an integral part of an organic farming system.
Farmers should begin organic farming on relatively weed-free fields, unless a transition crop such as alfalfa is used as an initial cleanup crop.
Highly competitive crops such as barley, rye, perennial forages, or canola are better choices for a weedy field than less- competitive crops, such as flax or lentils. By alternating seeding dates between fall and spring crops or early and late seeded crops, producers can suppress weeds with different life cycles. Weeds can also be reduced by rotating crops between grassy and broadleaf types or between annuals and perennials.
Organic farmers may wish to investigate use of biological weed control, recognizing that it will not offer "quick-fix" solutions to their weed problems. Classical biological weed control involves the use of biological organisms, including insects, fungi and bacteria to control particular weed populations. Researchers have developed biological weed control methods for very few weeds so far, because biological solutions require many years of testing to determine their effectiveness. Biological weed control options are most often applied to large areas and used for widespread problem weeds that cannot be chemically controlled effectively.
Pest management
Since chemical insecticides are not permitted in a certified organic system, management of insect pests must be primarily preventive and not remedial. Crop rotation using different crop types may be useful in controlling those insects that have limited dispersal capabilities and are specific to certain crops. However, those insects that can disperse very widely will not be affected by crop rotation. Non-chemical insect control measures allowed under certification standards are limited. To reduce insect and disease problems, producers should prevent excess nitrate concentrations from accumulating in the crop. Heavy fertilization with a readily available nitrogen source, such as nitrates or ammonia in raw livestock manure, can be more detrimental in this respect than the use of slowly mineralized organic nitrogen sources such as composts and legume crop residues.
Crop disease management
Disease control measures such as the use of disease-free seed, good crop rotations and other cultural methods become very important in organic farming situations. Crop rotations must be carefully planned to prevent disease buildup. Crops, which are susceptible to similar diseases, should not be grown within the recommended number of years of each other for each particular disease.

Some Important Questions:
Organic production and biodiversity
Organic production supports much higher levels of wildlife than conventional farming (The
Biodiversity benefits of Organic Farming, Soil Association 2000). This study found that on organic farms there were 5 times as many wild plants including rare and declining arable plants; greater numbers of birds such as breading skylark; about 1.5 times as many of the insects which make up bird food, and at least 3 times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop edges.
Nutritional benefits of organic food
Several studies have found that organic food contains more nutrients than conventional food.
In particular these studies have found organic fruit and vegetables to be higher in Vitamin A and various minerals (Shuphan 1973, Smith 1993, Soil Association 2001).
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) still maintains that there is not enough information available to say that organic food is nutritionally different from non-organic food. Health professionals are guided by the FSA, along with other bodies, in the nutritional advice they give to the public.
The definitive study has not been done, mainly because of the multitude of variables involved in making a fair comparison between organically grown and conventionally grown food. These include crop variety, time after harvest, post-harvest handling, and even soil type and climate, which can have significant effects on nutritional quality. A 2002 report indicates that organic food is far less likely to contain pesticide residues than conventional food (13% of organic produce samples vs. 71% of conventional produce samples contained a pesticide residue, when long-banned persistent pesticides were excluded).
Is organic food safe?
Yes. Organic food is as safe to consume as any other kind of food. Just as with any kind of produce, consumers should wash before consuming to ensure maximum cleanliness. As cited above, organic produce contains significantly lower levels of pesticide residues than conventional produce. It is a common misconception that organic food could be at greater risk of E. coli contamination because of raw manure application although conventional farmers commonly apply tons of raw manure as well with no regulation whatsoever. Organic standards set strict guidelines on manure use in organic farming: either it must be first composted, or it must be applied at least 90 days before harvest, which allows ample time for microbial breakdown of any pathogens.

Why does organic cost more?
The cost of organic food is higher than that of conventional food because the organic price tag more closely reflects the true cost of growing the food: substituting labor and intensive management for chemicals, the health and environmental costs of which are borne by society.
These costs include cleanup of polluted water and remediation of pesticide contamination.
Prices for organic foods include costs of growing, harvesting, transportation and storage. In the case of processed foods, processing and packaging costs are also included. Organically produced foods must meet stricter regulations governing all these steps than conventional foods. The intensive management and labor used in organic production are frequently (though not always) more expensive than the chemicals routinely used on conventional farms. There is mounting evidence that if all the indirect costs of conventional food production were factored into the price of food, organic foods would cost the same, or, more likely, be cheaper than conventional food.
Are organic yields lower?
Based on 154 growing seasons' worth of data on various crops, organic crops yielded 95% of crops grown under conventional, high-input conditions (Liebhardt, B. Get the facts straight: organic agriculture yields are good. OFRF Information Bulletin #10, Summer.). This was by using organic farming methods developed and refined by years of grower experience, independent of the billions of dollars of support provided the agrochemical industries through
USDA and the land grant system. If USDA would increase the small proportion of its research funds currently directed toward optimizing organic farming practices, organic has the potential to produce yields fully matching or surpassing those of conventional crops. Growers who go through the 3-year transition period from conventional to organic management usually experience an initial decrease in yields, until soil microbes are re-established and nutrient cycling is in place, at which point yields return to previous levels.
Advantages:
ORGANIC farmers provide a safer working environment for field workers.
ORGANIC farmers grow strong, healthy plants, which are more resistant to disease.
ORGANIC farmers save water by building healthy soils, which retain moisture.
ORGANIC farmers conserve resources by using composted natural waste products to feed and balance the soil naturally.
ORGANIC farmers help keep our air, soil and water, as well as our food supply, free of toxic chemicals.
ORGANIC farmers work with nature to replenish the Earth's soil for a sustainable future.


Conventional farming makes use of artificial chemicals as fertilizers and pesticides to increase productivity and control pests and diseases. Industrial farming / Capitalist farming is an extension of conventional farming.
Industrial farming 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.
The benefits of this industrial approach are well known: Food production has increased fast enough to far outstrip population growth. 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 acreage under cultivation provides 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. 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. But because so few crops are grown in such large acreage, the opportunities for crop rotation are also few. the large monocultures used in industrial farming undermine the genetic integrity of crops, making them more susceptible to diseases and pests.
Few Crop Varieties
Industrial agriculture rests on a narrow genetic base. 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 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.
There are concerns regarding the impact of some of these chemicals on human health.
An estimated 20,000 accidental deaths occur worldwide from pesticide exposure each year.
World Health Organization 1990. The long-term effect of pesticide residue and implication of
"cocktail effects" on human health have not been established. But there is a growing body of scientific evidence, which implicates certain pesticide groups in a range of damaging health effects. 45 pesticides are known or suspected to be hormone disrupters. These compounds have been found to affect reproduction and the immune system in fish, alligators, seals, birds and snails.
Because of excessive use of antibiotics in the fodder used in industrial farming, we risk the creation of resistant strains of bacteria in factory farm animals. When meat from these animals is consumed by humans the information about antibiotic resistance is passed on to similar bacteria in the human body which then also become resistant to the same antibiotics that were used in the animal fodder. This poses problems when treating human bacteriological illnesses such as pneumonia. One of the other dangers is salmonella.
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.
Output versus Yield
Agribusiness and economists alike tend to use “yield” measurements when calculating the productivity of farms. Yield can be defined as the production per unit of a single crop. For example, a corn farm will be judged by how many metric tons of corn is produced per acre.
More often than not, the highest yield of a single crop like corn can be best achieved by planting it alone on an industrial scale in the fields of corporate farms. These large
“monocultures” have become endemic to modern agriculture for the simple reason that they are the easiest to manage with heavy machinery and intensive chemical use. It is the singlecrop yields of these farms that are used as the basis for the “bigger is better” myth, and it is true that the highest yield of a single crop is often achieved through industrial monocultures.
Smaller farms rarely can compete with this “monoculture” single-crop yield. They tend to plant crop mixtures, a method known as “intercrossing.” Additionally, where single-crop monocultures have empty “weed” spaces, small farms use these spaces for crop planting. They are also more likely to rotate or combine crops and livestock, with the resulting manure performing the important function of replenishing soil fertility. These small-scale integrated farms produce far more per unit area than large farms. Though the yield per unit area of one crop - corn, for example — may be lower, the total output per unit area for small farms, often composed of more than a dozen crops and numerous animal products, is virtually always higher than that of larger farms.
Clearly, if we are to compare accurately the productivity of small and large farms, we should use total agricultural output, balanced against total farm inputs and “externalities,” rather than single-crop yield as our measurement principle. Total output is defined as the sum of everything a small farmer produces — various grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, and animal products — and is the real benchmark of efficiency in farming. Moreover, productivity measurements should also take into account total input costs, including large-machinery and chemical use, which often are left out of the equation in the yield efficiency claims. Perhaps most important, however, is the inclusion of the cost of externalities such as environmental and human health impacts for which industrial scale monocultured farms allow society to pay.
Continuing to measure farm efficiency through single-crop “yield” in agricultural economics represents an unacceptable bias against diversification and reflects the bizarre conviction that producing one food crop on a large scale is more important than producing many crops (and higher productivity) on a small scale.
Once the flawed yield measurement system is discarded, the “bigger is better” myth is shattered. As summarized by the food policy expert Peter Rosset, “Surveying the data, we indeed find that small farms almost always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger farms. This is now widely recognized by agricultural economists across the political spectrum, as the inverse relationship between farm size and output.” He notes that even the World Bank now advocates redistributing land to small farmers in the third world as a step toward increasing overall agricultural productivity.

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.
Public Health Costs
Already discussed during Reliance on Chemical and Other "Inputs"
Environmental Costs
Large industrial farmers crowd out small farmers. Because of the creation of mono cultures
(grass and maize for fodder), the release (depositing) of heavy metals contained within the fertilizers into the soil and nutrient overkill generally, wildlife and landscape will deteriorate.
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 contribute 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 area 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.
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 do independent farmers who grew most chickens, choose which kinds of chickens to grow and sell. 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. 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.
It is generally agreed that an efficient farming system would be immensely beneficial for society and our environment. It would use the fewest resources for the maximum sustainable food productivity. Heavily influenced by the “bigger is better” myth, we have converted to industrial agriculture in the hopes of creating a more efficient system. We have allowed transnational corporations to run a food system that eliminates livelihoods, destroys communities, poisons the earth, undermines bio-diversity, and doesn’t even feed the people.
All in the name of efficiency. It is indisputable that this highly touted modern system of food production is actually less efficient, less productive than small-scale alternative farming. It is time to re-embrace the virtues of small farming, with its intimate knowledge of how to breed for local soils and climates; its use of generations of knowledge and techniques like intercropping, cover cropping, and seasonal rotations; its saving of seeds to preserve genetic diversity; and its better integration of farms with forest, woody shrubs, and wild plant and animal species. In other words, it's time to get efficient.
The purveyors of industrial food, when confronted with the health crisis that their food has caused respond by assuring us that new industrial technologies will be a quick fix. For example, in response to the huge increase in food-borne illnesses, the industry promotes the use of irradiation to sanitize our foods. Through this technology, the average hamburger, for example, may receive the equivalent of millions of chest X-rays in an attempt to temporarily remove any potential bacterial contaminants. However, as the meat continues to flow through the industrial food supply, it loses its “protection”.