There are other arguments against "industrial" agriculture but this is
the first I came up with.

The Fatal Harvest Reader by Andrew Kimbrell (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Harvest-...dp/155963944X/
ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220837838&sr=1-1

pgs 19 - 23
MYTH FOUR
INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE IS EFFICIENT
THE TRUTH
Small farms produce more agricultural output per unit. area than large
farms. Moreover, larger, less diverse farms require far more mechanical
and chemical inputs. These ever increasing inputs are devastating to the
environment and make these farms far less efficient than smaller, more
sustainable farms.
Proponents of industrial agriculture claim trial "'bigger is better"
when it comes to food production. They argue that the larger the farm,
the more efficient it is. They admit that these huge corporate farms
mean the loss of family farms and rural communities, but they maintain
that this is simply the inevitable cost of efficient food production.
And agribusiness advocates don't just promote big farms, they also push
big technology. They typically ridicule small-scale farm technology as
grossly inefficient, while heralding intensive use of chemicals, massive
machinery, computerization, and genetic engineering ‹ whose
affordability and implementation are only feasible on large farms. The
marriage of huge farms with "mega-technology" is sold to the public as
the basic requirement for efficient food production. Argue against size
and technology ‹ the two staples of modem agriculture ‹ and, they
insist, you're undermining production efficiency and endangering the
world's food supply.
IS BIGGER BETTER?
While the "bigger is better" myth is generally accepted, it is a
fallacy. Numerous reports have found that smaller farms are actually
more efficient than larger "industrial" farms. These studies demonstrate
that when farms get larger, the costs of production per unit often
increase, because larger acreage requires more expensive machinery and
more chemicals to protect crops. In particular, a 1989 study by the U.S.
National Research Council assessed the efficiency of large industrial
food production systems compared with alternative methods. The
conclusion was exactly contrary to the "'bigger is better"'' myth:
"Well-managed alternative farming systems nearly always use less
synthetic chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics per unit of
production than conventional farms. Reduced use of these inputs lowers
production costs and lessens production costs and lessens agriculture's
potential for adverse environmental and health effects without
decreasing ‹ and in some cases increasing ‹ per acre crop yields and the
productivity of livestock management's systems."
Moreover, the large monocultures used in industrial farming undermine
the genetic integrity of crops, making them more susceptible to diseases
and pests. A majority of our food biodiversity has already been lost.
This genetic weakening of our crops makes future food productivity using
the industrial model far less predictable and undermines any future
efficiency claims of modern agriculture. Moreover, as these crops become
ever more, susceptible to pests, they require ever greater use of
pesticides to produce equal amounts of food ‹ a classic case of the law
of diminishing returns. This increasing use of chemicals and fertilizers
in our food production results in serious health and environmental
impacts.
With all this evidence against it, how does the "bigger is better" myth
survive'' In part, it survives because of a deeply flawed method of
measuring farm "'productivity' which has falsely boosted the efficiency
claims of industrial agriculture while discounting thee productivity
advantages of small-scale agriculture.
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 are 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
single-crop 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
"intercropping.' 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 lake 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.
Government studies underscore this "inverse relationship.' According to
a 1992 U.S. Agricultural Census report, relatively smaller farm sizes
are 2 to 10 times more productive than larger ones. The smallest farms
surveyed in the study, those of 27 acres or less, are more than ten
times as productive (in dollar output per acre) than large farms (6,000
acres or more), and extremely small farms (4 acres or less) can be over
a hundred times as productive.
In a last-gasp effort to save their efficiency myth, agribusinesses will
claim that at least larger farms are able to make more efficient use of
farm labor and modem technology than are smaller farms. Even this claim
cannot be maintained. There is virtual consensus that larger farms do
not make as good use of even these production factors because of
management and labor problems inherent in large operations. Mid-sized
and many smaller farms come far closer to peak efficiency when these
factors are calculated.
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 biodiversity, 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 is time to get efficient.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1016232.html