1. In Defense Of Industrial Agriculture
John Strohl
ES 6820 Spring Semester

2. The Goal & The Possibilities
Ideal : Feed nutritionally effective and/or personally satisfying food to 9 billion people while maintaining population growth margins.
Alternatives :
Feed nutritionally ineffective and/or personally unsatisfying food to 9 billion people
Feed nutritionally effective and/or personally satisfying food to a lot less than 9 billion people
Feed nutritionally ineffective and/or personally unsatisfying food to a lot less than 9 billion people

3. The Real Problems Number and distribution of mouths to feed
Present & Future availability of water to support agriculture close to the needed production
Present & Future availability of land to support agriculture close to the needed production (foodprint)
Unstable Climatic Conditions
Sheer work/energy needed to produce food in quantity
Distribution issues associated with getting the food to the mouths
Predatory capitalism – every stage is disrupted, sometimes profoundly, by profiteering.

4. The Perceived Problems
Oppressive behavior toward small scale farming and farmers
Willfully harmful (deliberate use of untested & unproven processes) to the environment
Destructive of human ecology (social fabric)
No respect for the farmer or the consumer – just cash cows to milk
Oppressive behavior toward small scale farming and farmers
Unbalanced Regulatory
Litigation
Willfully harmful (deliberate use of untested & unproven processes) to the environment
Use of ecologically harmful chemicals
Use of genetically modified propagation stock
Use of cloning as a reproductive technique
Destroying soil micro-biomes
Perpetuating crop mono-cultures
Over fertilizing  stormwater management & runoff
Proliferating Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs)
Agricultural waste management issues
Destructive of human ecology (social fabric)
Causes dis-integration through commoditization
Breakdown of trust networks
Loss of individual connection to the land
Loss of long term stability & well-being

5. Facts As They Are (Part 1)
There is a huge failure in agricultural public relations.
The communication space has been co-opted by the non- agricultural support industry.
The market has been rigged through corruption, coercion, and collusion to favor the “supporting” non- agricultural industries (Oil, Chemistry, Pharmacology, Equipment, etc.) by sustaining massive use of petro- chemicals, synthetic chemistry, genetic engineering, and unsustainable operational structures.
There ARE legitimate reasons for bad feelings, mostly revolving around continuous pursuit of profit (greed), unethical, high pressure, coercive behavior - loss of trust/bad actors/bad behavior

6. Facts As They Are (Part 2)
Marketing Drivers are –
Cost (the cheaper the better)
Convenience (preparation, packaging, readiness to eat)
Easy to get to (spatially close)
Variety (the more the better – year round!)
Availability (24x7, 365 day/year)
All of these functions exist because of low cost energy & labor – from someone or someplace else – otherwise known as the energy “slaves”!
In many cases what the consuming public has been convinced it “doesn’t like” is a huge plus/benefit for the farmer, AS WELL AS a huge plus for the market, where …

7. What We Eat (and want to eat!)
The average American consumes about 2000 lbs. of food per year,
This works out to about 5.5 lbs. and 2700 calories per day–or nearly your entire body weight in food per month.  
Divide those daily 2700 calories by 5.5 lbs. and you get 490 calories per pound of food, on average.
There are differences in the quality of various parts of the diet, including caloric density.  
Fruits and vegetables are abundant in the diet by weight and give us the flavors, fiber, vitamins and minerals we crave, and typically provide calories per pound.  
By contrast, a single slice of bread (on average) has 110 calories and only weighs a .1 lb.
Oils and fats are about three to four times more dense, calorie-wise, than bread.  
Meat tends to have slightly fewer calories per pound than high starch foods.   
Low-fat milk, which is mostly water, still has about 200 calories per pound (about a pint).

8. More of What We Eat
If New York State produced what it did a hundred years ago (pre-industrial farming – based on New York State agricultural statistics from the 1900 U.S. census - before gas & diesel fueled equipment and petro-chemical fertilizers) could it feed its present population (about 20 million)?
Its 1900 food production would barely keep its current population alive (about 360 lbs/person applying the crop to today’s population)
We would be trying to feed almost three times the number of people today that we supported in 1900.
The 1900 dietary quantities would be considered meager by today’s standards, at about half of the 2000 lb/yr. current estimate. Caloric density would also be deficient.
87 pounds of corn and wheat and 114 pounds of potatoes
16 pounds of beef and pork, 37 eggs, and half a chicken per year
just 39 gallons of milk per year, including an average six pounds of butter and seven pounds of cheese
enough animal protein to sustain life, but not remotely what we’re used to.
apples, grapes, peaches, pears, and berries put together would only amount to about 75 pounds per person
New York invented commercial bean crops (1836) but would only be able to supply about 4 pounds per year

9. The Hyper-Efficient Model
The Dervais Family ( operate a commercial farm on 1/10 of an acre (standard subdivision house lot of 1/5 acre) in Pasadena, CA. They produce an estimated pounds of organic food annually. Let’s apply that to New York State -
Clearly, the Dervais family are feeding themselves, and have surplus to sell, so they are doing a much healthier/more efficient job of it than the “average” American. Notably they are completely organic, use no outside power or petrochemicals, all human labor, no GMO
Their production extrapolates to 60,000 pounds/acre, or 30 “average Americans” fed per acre, annually… with 20 people dedicated full time to the tending of each acre (a linear extrapolation from 4 people per 1/10 of an acre, reduced by 50% – assuming some efficiencies of scale).

10. Hyper-Efficient Model Applied
OK, Let’s Apply that to New York State, based on what we previously figured out.
To feed 20 million people using this level of hyper- efficiency would require that a little more than 13 million of them be engaged in food production activities (based on 20 people tending 30 peoples food)– and be really good at it!
A minimum of 5 million acres would have to be under cultivation in this fashion for this approach to work.
Approximately 70% of the estimated 7.2 million acres in service now is considered arable, yielding very slightly more than 5 million acres to work with.
Unfortunately 70% of that land is best suited to perennial crops/pasture. There’s already a problem!

11. The Cornell Study
42 different representative diets were defined for the study.
42 different diets makes some attempt to accommodate different notions of both nutritional effectiveness and personal preference.
When all is said and done, 42 different diets is still a pretty rigorous simplification across twenty million people.
None the less, that is what drives most of the significant variance.
The more consistent we can make diet, the less variance in the quantitative land requirements will exist, while minimizing challenges for the perception of quality across the market.

12. Land Requirements Land Requirements – (based on New York State data)
Per capita land resource requirements were calculated with a spreadsheet model for the 42 diets ranging from 0 to 381 g d−1 (0 to 12 oz d−1) of meat and eggs and 20 to 45% total calories from fat.
The potential human carrying capacity of the NYS land base was then derived, based on recent estimates of available arable land (approx. 5 million acres).
A nearly fivefold difference (0.18–0.86 ha) in per capita land requirements was observed across the diets.
On average the productive land required to feed one person for one year using normal agricultural methods varies between acres, depending upon diet and a number of other variables.
Many of these diets meet national dietary recommendations. (2)
Increasing meat in the diet raised per capita land requirements, while increasing total dietary fat raised the land requirements of low meat diets but reduced the land needed for high meat diets. (2)
Higher meat diets used a more of the cropland suited only to pasture and perennial crops. (2)
Thus, only a threefold difference was observed for the potential number of people fed from the NYS land base (2.0–6.2 million). (2)
In addition, some high-fat vegetarian diets supported fewer people than lower fat diets containing 63–127 g d−1 of meat (approx. 1/3 - 2/3 of the national average per capita consumption in the US). (2)
These results support the assertion that diet should be considered in its entirety when assessing environmental impact. (2)

13. The Cornell Take-Aways
The research that was conducted in New York yielded the following take-aways:
New York State cannot meet all of its food needs relying only on local land and resources.
Definition of “local” looks much different for NYC than for the state’s other cities.
Changing the optimization parameter from distance to land use value has a huge impact on the results.

14. What It Takes To Produce
Available Arable Land
Available Useable Freshwater Water
Available Product Capacity (plant and/or animal stock)
Available Amendments (feed, fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, antibiotics)
Human Engagement – Planning, Logistics, Direct Agricultural Labor, Post Agricultural Labor
Energy (Slaves) – Petrochemical fuels (oil, gas, coal) Electricity, Hydro & Aero-Mechanical (water & wind pumping), animal labor

15. Ideal Propagation Objectives – Maximum reproduction/germination
Maximum growth
Maximum yield in a specified time frame
Requirements
Viability
Healthy Stock
Productive Speed & Span
Bio-resistance
Insects/Parasites
Fungus
Bacteria
Optimum Soil composition – Crop requirement match
Optimum Natural Conditions

16. Amendments
When any conditions aren’t optimum for production the options are –
Move the production operation to better conditions
Adjust the conditions to optimize production
While it MAY seem more “environmentally friendly” to move the operation
It is culturally, operationally, and philosophically impossible
It would be a nightmare logistically, with greater negative environmental impact
The Optimal Choice is make adjustments in situ, from an ethically and ecologically aware and sensitive standpoint.

17. Human Intervention
Plants & animals reproduce and grow naturally but growing plant & animals deliberately as a food stock for a growing human population is a distinctly human activity, that we have been altering our world to support for over 8,000 years.
There are incredible amounts of labor involved in the process, and the labor never decreases, because the population never decreases. There is a one for one exchange of energy slaves for humans and “beasts of burden” if you want eliminate the bio- labor, and it has limits. At some point the process still requires human oversight and management.
The reciprocal is also true. For EVERY energy slave you want to eliminate from the process, you have an equivalent or greater amount of human or animal energy that must be put back into the system to maintain status quo.

18. Energy (Slaves)
Bio-energy (human & animal labor) & Non-Bio-energy (fuel, electricity, hydro, etc.) required for
Production
Harvesting
Storage
Preparation
Shipping
Distribution
How do you want to slice and dice this? Managing the production of large amounts of food requires large amounts of labor/energy input.

19. Regulation Issues
Most regulation lags seriously behind the true state of food industry conditions or market requirements.
The regulation that exists is frequently based on conditions (and perceptions) as they existed 50 or more years ago.
Regulatory engagement in the intervening time has been
Knee-jerk reaction to public perception, rather than well considered policy responsive to the actual needs
Blatant pandering to the greed of the bad actors by insecure politicians concerned about their own future security

20. Problematic Results
Massive production but not of the right things in the right places –
many people go to bed hungry every day
we also throw away better than 40% of food produced
The further up the chain this happens, the more energy is wasted.
Massive use of hydrocarbons and other chemistry in general as a matter of expediency, coercively perpetuated markets, an overwrought anxiety about market needs, and overcoming shortfalls in planning and effective environmental engagement
Relatively little coordinated attention to the “ecological fit” of human food production, with specific harm to the macro-and micro-ecology equilibrium of the local environment.
Predatory capitalism continues to drive the generally disrespected and ill-advised actions of non-agricultural industry in the perpetuation of old abusive markets & processes rather than conception of newer, more flexible realities.

21. Conclusions The REAL issues are -
number of mouths
amounts of food needed
types of food preferred
having the right elements in place to produce that food
moving the food to the mouths
IN TOTAL, the sheer scale energy/work needed to accomplish it all.
It’s less an issue of moral and ethical purity and more about whether we’re going to have enough to eat.
The ONLY functional way to get that all in alignment is to do it at scale – meaning what the average Joe calls “industrial” scale – thus “industrial” farming.

22. More Conclusions
The Problem Is Not “Bad” Process, it’s Bad Actors & Ethics
The consumer and the farmer are in a coercive bind, pressured by the agrochemical, fossil fuel, and pharmaceutical industries to sustain the now out of date markets they created.
Emotion over-rides function every time. Removing Bad Actors will start the process of rebuilding the public trust.
If we take action to rebuild the trust, we can refocus on getting the process optimized.
Best Practices should reflect environmental and ecological equilibrium, adapted to large scale applications… but you simply won’t get to “everyone’s been fed” without large scale (aka industrial) agriculture

23. The Bottom Line
Everyone is still buying. In the majority, we routinely buy ALL of the groceries and products that are produced using these processes, with VERY few exceptions.
Even when we say we are "horrified", everyone still buys the factory farmed chicken, the "industrial" milk, and the mono-culture corn, wheat, and soy products – because…
Nobody wants to go hungry or give up any of their perceived affluence, and…
Realistically, most people don’t understand and, if they did, can’t consider the changes to their own lives that it would take to grow their own food, or even shift the population employment sufficiently to replace industrial farming. Most people aren't even remotely ready to make a shift back to the energy slave-less economy of traditional or pre-industrial farming methods.
The numbers of people who are actually doing something profoundly different with the deliberate intent of changing the paradigm are less than 1% of the consuming population – for a reason!

24. References
Farmland LP, One Market Street, Spear Tower, Suite 3600, San Francisco, CA (Accessed 16 April 2015)
Peters, C. J., J. L. Wilkins, and G. W. Fick. Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York State example. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2);
Peters, C. J., N. L. Bills, A. J. Lembo, J. L. Wilkins, and G. W. Fick. Mapping potential foodsheds in New York State: A spatial model for evaluating the capacity to localize food production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24(1);
Expert Interview – Hillary Arnold, Arnold Farms, 530 S. Riverside Drive, McConnelsville, OH (conducted 4/15/2015)
Hesterman, O.B. “Fair Food: Growing a Healthy, Sustainable Food System for All” Public Affairs, a member of the Perseus Books Group, (2011)
Bosak, J. “Can New York State Feed Itself?” TCLocal.org, Planning For Energy Descent in Tompkins County, (Accessed 4/18/2015)

25. References (cont’d.)
DiNapoli, T.P. Bleiwas, K.B. “The Role of Agriculture in the New York State Economy”, State of New York Comptroller (Feb 2010) (Accessed 4/18/2015)
Carrying Capacity: A Measure of Land Resources, Foodprints & Foodsheds Project capacity-a-measure-of-land-resources/ (accessed 19 April 2015)
Limited Land – Which Foods Should Be Grown Locally?, Foodprints & Foodsheds Project content/uploads/2013/12/Limited_Land.pdf (accessed 19 April 2015)
Foodshed Map for NYC, Foodprints & Foodsheds Project (Accessed 19 April 2015)
USDA Dietary Guidelines, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010http:// (Accessed 18 April 2015)