This Geography guy really needs to get out of the classroom and the city for that matter once in a while. Modern agriculture is probably demagogued and more poorly understood than energy efficiency, and since this opinion piece addresses both I will dispense with its shredding.
I grew up on the farm 30 years ago in southern MN and northern IA, and I stay in touch spending a week each year reliving my childhood farming days. My elder brothers still run the place. They grow maybe 2,500 acres of corn and soybeans and raise and market maybe 25,000 hogs per year. To the ignorant, they would be perceived as ecology-destroying corporate/factory farmers.
When I was a kid, farm chemicals were more dangerous, less effective, and more heavily applied. Yet since they were so ineffective, noxious weed and grass control was largely provided by tillage which is environmentally unsustainable in two ways. First, it takes a lot more diesel fuel, obviously. Second, erosion was rampant. If there was one thing I always pressed my father to do as a kid it was to reduce tillage to leave more crop residue on the surface to reduce erosion – from both rainwater runoff and wind.
Back in those days, everything was plowed black – as in, all crop residue buried. Why? To bury grass and weed seed along with it. The spring snow melt would leave three inches of topsoil in our grove (where the snow drifts / dirt dunes were) and road ditches. Who knows how many tons per acre landed in Indiana or Tennessee? Moreover, in the spring, we would typically have to scramble out to the fields to run rotary hoe to stop blowing dirt from sand blasting the young crop that just broke ground.
In total, we would make about seven or eight trips over the field to till, plant, cultivate (weed), harvest, and plow. For soybeans, we would actually use machetes to chop weeds during the mid-summer heat. Find a fourth grader who would do that nowadays. Parents would be hauled away in handcuffs for child abuse and maybe reckless endangerment. This one looks just like my Grandmother’s. My father would sharpen them every morning before we took to the fields. No sheaths, guards or any of that kind of crap either.
For livestock, we used to raise hogs and cattle in more “humane” ways in the open field. This makes for a nice image to the Geography professor but in truth what would happen is the sows would root holes in the soil for a nice cool spot in which to snooze. Soon they would give birth to a litter of pigs. Then the rains come. After having lain on and crushed two or three pigs, the remaining ones would be freezing in the cold water and mud. Ninety degrees is perfect for these little guys – not 60F and mud.
The good old days weren’t so good.
Fast forward thirty years. Unlike the Geography professor claims, farming has changed, hugely, and in the direction of sustainability AND increased productivity. Most crops are now Roundup ready, meaning they are genetically modified to withstand Roundup, which otherwise kills everything rooted in the ground. This may sound horrible but it only kills what it lands on and is benign to soil, doesn’t drift, and doesn’t run off. What are the implications? Fuel use is drastically reduced and the minimum soil tillage results in practically no soil erosion, which brings other benefits in addition to being intrinsically sustainable.
First, when I was a kid and everything was plowed black, soil erosion continuously uncovered rocks on hills and hillsides. We used to spend weeks before and after planting hauling rocks off the fields – more child abuse. Have you ever had your foot run over by a rock wagon? Neither have I. Rocks are not kind to expensive farm equipment. It would beat the crap out of tillage equipment, planters, and god help you if you ran one into a combine.
Second, water erosion destroys crops. First, as it washes down from highlands it takes crop along with the soil to the lowland. In the lowland, crops will survive in standing water from the runoff for just a few hours. With modern minimum tillage made possible with Roundup, erosion is practically nil. In addition to preventing runoff, erosion, and associated crop destruction, residue, otherwise known as stover or trash, helps soil retain moisture to carry crops through dry spells. It would be common to have 10-15% of our crop land flooded every year; now there is practically none.
The Geography professor claims 107 gallons of fuel are burned to produce an acre of crop. This is crazy. First, recent conventional thinking was that to break even a Midwest farmer needs about $500 revenue per acre. That covers seed, rent or farm payments, chemicals, fuel, overhead, this, that, and the other. Well 107 gallons is not far from $500 alone. Second, it probably takes about a half gallon of fuel per acre each to plant and harvest and maybe another couple gallons for tillage (minimal) spring and fall . That’s about three gallons per acre, direct. Chemicals and fertilizers? I have my Roundup booklet right next to me and that says it takes about 20 ounces per acre. That’s a British pint, give or take a spit, per acre. Does the fertilizer take the other 102 gallons per acre? I don’t think so. A ballpark estimate is 100 lbs per acre. That’s probably in the 10-15 gallon/acre fuel equivalent, ballpark. So, I’m seeing 20 gallons equivalent, maximum.
Note however, many modern factory farms produce their own fertilizer for free. The Geography professor may think the factory farmers are ruthless dingbats, thriving on tortured, cramped, sick livestock, quietly dumping manure in the creeks because it’s cheap and easy.
The modern confinement barn where livestock is mass produced is always portrayed as a hellish inhumane place for livestock. Wrong. Sick, stressed, uncomfortable livestock does not eat or grow. Growing is the key to making a profit. It’s that simple and irrefutable. The modern farm is as productivity centric and competitive as Wal-Mart is with its supply chain. Adapt or die. Everything revolves around keeping livestock healthy, dry, cool/warm, and frisky. They even get lots of natural ventilation and daylight – how is your work station in this regard, by the way?
Back to the fertilizer. The manure produced by the confinement barns provides nearly all fertilizer for the corn crop needed to feed the hogs. Let me clarify this: the waste displaces an enormous amount of “artificial” petroleum-derived fertilizer – and it’s produced and applied locally. It is knifed into the soil in the fall in precise quantities to maximize value of all fertilizer needs: potash, phosphate, and nitrogen. Its nutrient content is better known than it is for a Snickers bar. Typically, just enough is applied to satisfy the most abundant one of these so as to not over fertilize or waste any of it. The remainder, which is hardly any, if any is made up by petroleum or natural gas derived fertilizers.
Fields are mapped for soil nutrient levels with GPS positioning systems. “Fertilizer” application is adjusted continuously as it is spread to provide just enough per the specific needs of each location. Resources are leveraged to the maximum extent possible. Like any other business, sustainability, energy efficiency and profit are not exclusive competing interests in Midwest agriculture.
Did I mention, an acre of land today produces about 50% more crop than when I was a kid? And another thing – crop genetics have improved such that grain drying, often provided by propane, a petroleum derivative, has declined significantly.
Is it perfect? Heck no, but it’s a world better than most people realize and I could go on for several more pages regarding how much more sustainable and less abusive things are today compared to the “family farms” of the 1970s and earlier. The only digression I see is the absence of machete wielding 4th graders earning a few bucks for college.