On the other hand...

I support strongly the emergence of an agrarian sector that sells not just products (beans, lettuce, eggs, beef, etc.) but process (free range, organic, local, biodynamic, etc.). It is a true market response to consumer choices propelled by entrepreneurship, passion and very little government support (which could be the reason it's thriving).

But, here's the catch. I also am an enthusiastic proponent of industrial agriculture. These are farms like mine that grow products that meet every standard required, in environmentally responsible ways, and using every bit of technology I can get my mind around.

These two sectors in agriculture really do not compete much head-to-head. Only our insistence on one vision for farming makes that seem the case.

Still when I read articles about agrarian farming I lament the witless drivel that passes for informed comment about what I do for a living. Consider this paragraph from a paean to local agriculture:

The American Farmland Trust estimates 1.2 million acres of cropland, pastureland, and rangeland are lost each year to development. Farms are increasingly being swallowed up by new houses, roads, and strip malls—86 percent of U.S. fruits and vegetables and 63 percent of dairy products currently come from areas in the path of urban sprawl. This loss of farmland combined with the shift during the past century toward industrialized agriculture has greatly extended the distance produce and meats travel. The average American meal today journeys more than 1,500 miles from where it’s grown or raised to where it’s bought—at a big cost. Green-house gases emitted during food transport contribute to climate change. Our produce is not as fresh as it would be if it were grown closer, which would improve its taste and, health experts say, possibly its nutritional value. And because our food is so heavily mass-produced and transported, the origins of outbreaks of E. coli, like those from last year’s much-reported batch of tainted spinach, cannot always be pinpointed in time to prevent human illness, sometimes even death. [More]

To save make my responses more coherent, I will insert them into the original text.

The American Farmland Trust estimates 1.2 million acres of cropland, pastureland, and rangeland are lost each year to development. [Wait - lost? Those acres have gone missing? Actually those acres simply have houses on them, and houses have to be somewhere. This familiar trope insinuates that the strong instinctive urge for permanent housing should be satisfied only for the affluent and that the need for food requires every acre. (See ethanol, etc.)] Farms are increasingly being swallowed up by new houses, roads, and strip malls—86 percent of U.S. fruits and vegetables and 63 percent of dairy products currently come from areas in the path of urban sprawl. [ Where exactly would you site a fruit/vegetable operation - New Mexico? Of course valuable crops like sod are grown on the outskirts of development. Transportation costs matter. Besides, if this land is developed those valuable crops will still be grown just outside urban areas. This statistic has not changed appreciably for decades, and should be recognized for what it is: an inversion of cause and effect. Farmland is valuable because it's close to people and and hence a candidate for high-value agriculture. People are the key - not land] This loss of farmland combined with the shift during the past century toward industrialized agriculture has greatly extended the distance produce and meats travel. The average American meal today journeys more than 1,500 miles from where it’s grown or raised to where it’s bought—at a big cost. [Oddly, the market will sort this out if you price in all costs.] Green-house gases emitted during food transport contribute to climate change. [Okey-doke, let's include this cost via a carbon tax] Our produce is not as fresh [Can you actually discern something 80% as fresh?] as it would be if it were grown closer, which would improve its taste and, health experts say, possibly [or possibly not] its nutritional value. And because our food is so heavily mass-produced and transported, the origins of outbreaks of E. coli, like those from last year’s much-reported batch of tainted spinach, cannot always be pinpointed in time to prevent human illness, sometimes even death. [But we did pinpoint it, thanks to industrial records/tracking. As for death, compare food contamination deaths now to truly agrarian times.]

It is not necessary to have an internecine battle to address consumer wishes about food. It is also foolish to believe the agrarian model could provide a reliable food supply on the scale of industrial agriculture.

On the coasts of America, around metropolitan areas and in scenic rural areas like New England or Lancaster County, these concerns can be addressed with the enormous amount of money available there. But transferring those values to my county or northwest Iowa, for example, yields no return for society and overrides Constitutional freedoms.

We have room and need in America for industrial and agrarian farms. And best of all, consumers can make the choice.