carpe annum

Well, my dissertation is about 40% over the word limit. I managed to cut out about one thousand words with a little knife, carefully trimming away the fat to leave as much meat as possible. However, now I am busting out the big ol’ cleaver to hack away entire sections….sigh..

Here are some of those scraps for you kiddies to enjoy.

———————————–

Section 2.2: The Hegemony of Industrial Agriculture

Because of its fundamental contribution to human existence, agriculture has been the recipient of great innovative efforts and creativity. The Industrial Revolution in Europe and the rise of the North American continent have given rise to the wholesale transformation of agriculture from a family-based, labour-intensive, but relatively low output system, to an intensive, economically efficient and ‘modern’ one. This transition laid its formative roots in the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution where the workings of science could conquer, rationalize and reduce all of nature’s complexities into mathematical equations. Increasingly, the natural world came to be regarded as existing for the sole benefit of mankind and therefore an object to be exploited. “Science seeks to discover the true nature of this reality, the ultimate aim to discover, predict and control natural phenomena” (Pretty 1995, 13, emphasis added). This in of itself is of course a wonderful thing which has allowed scientists to discover with greater vigour and accuracy the true nature of our universe. However, once a set of truths has been arrived at (often oversimplified), they begin to take on a momentum of their own. Research which supports the orthodoxy is more likely to be undertaken, and ideas which do not fit the paradigm are less likely to be supported (Kuhn, pp. 24-5 cited in Myers 2005, 171). This has certainly been the case with agriculture; once it was discovered that plants need three primary minerals—nitrogen, phosphate and potassium (NPK)—it became the belief that the only thing needed to for plant nutrition was a mixture of these water-soluble chemicals. By the time scientists had revealed a fuller picture of the complex interaction between minerals, bacteria, fungi and other living organisms within the soil, the primacy of the ‘NPK mentality’ was firmly rooted. The notion that new technologies represent ‘progress’ is central to modern agriculture and that coexistence with old systems is simply backward (Pretty 1995, 27).

Three major advances can summarize modern agriculture: mechanization, chemicalization and seed technology. By substituting motors for muscles, mechanization has led to tremendous increases in labour productivity; modern mechanized farms produce more food per unit of labour than any other agricultural method. Mechanization has also accelerated mass rural migrations as surplus labour moved into cities to pursue other economic activity resulting in a fundamental shift from a rural-agrarian society to urban-industrial one. Chemicalization refers to two separate developments: i) synthetic fertilizers used to supplement or provide primary nourishment to plants and ii) pesticides which help reduce crop loss due to disease, weeds and animals (insects, birds, etc.). One of the paradoxes of agriculture is that while crops provide us with food and fibre, at the same time they consume soil resources which are not automatically regenerated. Thus, fertilizer has always been a valuable resource to the farm to help replace the nutrients lost to crop cultivation. Particularly after WWII, chemically derived fertilizers began to replace natural fertilizers, which were increasingly tedious to collect and distribute. The easy availability of this ‘plant food in a bag’ also rationalized the ploughing of marginal soils.¹ Chemical pesticides developed as an offshoot of the emerging chemical industry after World War II; the concept is simple, spray crop fields with toxic substances to discourage would-be invaders and/or kill existing ones. There is little doubt that chemical pesticides have provided many short-term rescues from pest problems, but have not had much effect in long-term reduction of overall pest damage (Soule et al.). Lastly, hybrid seed technologies, and more recent genetically modified plant varieties, have become the norm of industrial agriculture. Paralleling the wider industrial goals of improving production and efficiency, seed technology focuses on delivering high yields and increased crop uniformity. Uniform agronomic traits such as height and ripening date aid farm operations and allow cosmetically consistent products to be marketed to consumers. Built into the industrial concept is that hybrid plants do not produce seeds similar to the ones they grow from; so therefore, new seeds must be purchased from seed companies with each new season. Genetic modification (GM) technology, according to its proponents, is just a further extension of long practiced cross-breeding and selective breeding. However, this is debatable as genes from completely different species, indeed different taxonomical kingdoms are matched together (e.g. a fish gene inserted into a tomato to allow growth in colder climates) (Mendelson 2002). GM technology promises ever-productive yields of uniform quality with lower chemical reliance; however the jury is still out and detractors have raised many concerns.²

The combination of mechanization, chemicalization and seed technologies represents the foundation of modern industrial agriculture. The apparent success of these methods is reflected in high productivity rates and massive output gains since their introduction. Industrial agriculture has been hailed as the solution to world hunger touting the most efficient, most productive, safest agricultural system the world has seen all at the cheapest possible cost to the consumer. This hypothesis is so widely accepted by national and supranational policy makers and agronomic experts that it has become the de facto agricultural ‘best practice.’ However, industrial farming is increasingly being attacked at its fringes and a growing body of discontent points to several consequences that are irreconcilable with the continuation of current practices…

…to be continued.

Endnotes:

1) Prior to the 20th century, the search for farm fertilizers extended just beyond local manure sources. Silt from rivers, bonemeal, seaweed and guano were actively collected. In the 19th century sizable fleets sailed to remote islands during the “guano rush” to mine this precious agricultural resource.
2) Detractors cite potential and real risks to human and ecological health, However, this debate lies outside the realm of this essay. For further reference, please see Mendelson, 2002, chapter 5 of Myers, 2005 and a report by New Scientist Magazine 2002-2006.

Sources:

Mendelson, Joseph (2002). “Untested, Unlabeled and You’re Eating it: The health and enivironmental hazards of genetically engineered food.” In Andrew Kimbrell (ed.) The Fatal Harvest Reader. Washington DC; London: Island Press. Pp. 148-160.

Myers, Adrian (2005). Organic Futures. Totnes, UK: Green Press.

Pretty, Jules (1995). Regenerative agriculture : policies and practice for sustainability and self-reliance. London: Earthscan.

Soule, Judith and Jon Piper (1992). Farming in Nature’s Image. Washington DC: Island Press.