We bought a new furnace for our house this fall. The old one, while still working, was more than 30 years old. So it made sense to bite the bullet and install a new one that is considerably more efficient. The way we figured it, it just made sense to install a newer and more efficient furnace that will use less fuel, cut utility bills and be better for the environment.
A lot of farmers go through a similar calculation as they update their livestock barns, grain bins and other equipment. It just makes sense to upgrade to the new stuff because it is more efficient, uses less energy and is better for the environment. It’s pretty much a no-brainer.
But some people don’t see it that way. They say that farmers, by upgrading their operations, are hurting the environment. Many in the so-called “foodie” movement also contend that modern farming is bad for consumers by restricting choice and causing obesity.
Instead of upgrading, the foodies say American agriculture should turn back the clock. They say that reverting to the farming methods of our grandfathers, or even our great grandfathers, is the way to go. They want to scrap a wide variety of advances, such as climate-controlled livestock barns, genetically-modified crops and GPS-guided equipment.
It only takes a glance to see right through this rose-colored and nostalgic view.
Study after study shows that modern methods are better for the environment. They reduce soil erosion, improve water quality and trim pesticide use. Something else that’s very clear: modern farming helps to protect the world’s fragile lands by producing larger crops on the land already in production.
Today’s agriculture has also been a boon for consumers. The average American household spends less than 10 percent of its disposable income on food, the lowest percentage ever. That leaves Americans with more disposable income for other things. At the same time, there’s never been a more bountiful variety of food available to consumers.
Yes, today’s agriculture, like my new furnace, is more efficient, more productive and easier on the environment than the system it has replaced. Going back to older farming ways would hurt the environment, reduce our food choices and raise food prices. I don’t know about you, but as a no-nonsense Iowan, that’s a lose-lose in my book.
Written by Dirck Steimel
Dirck is the news services manager for Iowa Farm Bureau.
October 20, 2009 at 11:35 am |
Great comments! Love this! From my perspective growing up on a Century farm, the only thing I miss about the ‘good old days’ of agriculture was my bean-walking crew; we had fun!
October 21, 2009 at 6:21 am |
Great article. Love the furnace analogy. Too bad “some people in the foodie movement” are simply not motivated by words like “efficiency” and “productivity”. The way we farm today is definitely better for the environment, and that message is important to all!
October 21, 2009 at 11:30 am |
There seems to be a recurring theme in some of these articles written by staff of the Iowa Farm Bureau, namely that modern farming is under attack by uniformed critics who pine for the good old days. I really think that agriculture is more diverse and robust than these articles give it credit. And the reality is that our society is undergoing so much change that one hears criticism of nearly everything from the “good old days” perspective, which is simply an expression of how difficult it is to absorb change. But most of the farmers I know are not so worried about the impact of criticism on the economic realities of their business. Me thinks the Farm Bureau doth protest too much
October 21, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
I think the comparisons depend on how far back one goes in Iowa agriculture, and how one does the comparing. For example, no-till corn is better at protecting soil than plowed corn. But new ISU research is showing again that perennial vegetation is far better than no-till corn when it comes to protecting soil and water quality. In the “olden times,” Iowa agriculture had far more land in perennial vegetation in the form of pasture and hay, and less land in corn.
Corn is an inherently “leaky” crop when it comes to nutrients, and it’s hard on soil. It’s going to be a real challenge to grow the amounts of corn we’re growing in Iowa without continuing to “grow” water pollution and the Dead Zone. From what I’ve read, we’re almost certainly going to have to put more land back into perennial vegetation in the form of wetlands and buffers. In that sense, we need to move backwards in time.