essay
Forman 1
Sam Forman
Professor Higgins
TUT 101: Freshman Tutorial
3 May 2008
The Future of Food Production
The process that food consumed in America goes through to
make its way to our mouths is like a Rube Goldberg contraption.
The seemingly straightforward process of growing, raising,
harvesting, and slaughtering goes on every day, completely hidden
from consumers. Very few Americans are aware of the highly
complicated, mechanized, and convoluted journey that any given
bite of food takes from its origins in nature (or some manipulated
approximation of it) to its destination on our plates. Although
some people criticize the state of our food system, it is clear that it
grew to be the international machine that it is because of demand.
More than 300 million Americans want lots of food, meat
especially, and they want it cheap. So like every other production
process in this country, our food system has been industrialized to
produce maximum food calories for the American people at
minimum cost. This industrialization of our food system has
allowed for population increase and higher standards of living.
But there are significant problems with the industrial food
system. Caught up in a drive to maximize production and profit,
the industrial food system has grown to an unsustainable size. As
food production has become increasingly industrialized, concern
for the environment and the animals we eat has taken a backseat
to expansion. Specialization, rather than integration, has become
Forman 2
the hallmark of America’s farms. Rather than having chickens,
hogs, corn, and hay all on one farm, all these things now reside on
separate, much larger farms. There is, however, another, very
separate food system that supplements the industrial food system:
the local food system. Local food systems cater to people who
believe that it is better to “buy local” or from a smaller, usually
family-owned farm rather than from a supermarket with less
expensive mass-produced food.
There are few places where the two food systems are as
visible and distinguishable as in Grinnell, Iowa. Poweshiek County
has a range of farms in terms of size, as illustrated by fig. 1, taken
from the 2002 Census of Agriculture, County Profile: Poweshiek, Iowa.
As a resident of Grinnell, I have become very familiar with the
faces of the two food systems. Wal-Mart, Hy-Vee, Monsanto Seed,
and Fremont Farms are the incarnations of our industrial food
system, while Café Phoenix, the farmers’ market, and the various
family farmers who participate in Community Supported
Agriculture programs represent our local food system here in
Grinnell.
Through both reading and personal interactions and
interviews, I have come across all kinds of opinions and arguments
from proponents of both small-scale and large-scale agriculture.
One theme that everyone agrees on is that our world is changing.
Serious economic and environmental challenges are on the
horizon. The current state of our food system in the United States
is key to how well the industry will adapt when change comes. The
American food system needs significant modification in order to
Forman 3
This image can not be included here for permissions reasons. To view this bar graph, please visit: https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/ County_Profiles/Iowa/cp19157.pdf
Fig. 1. Range of farms by size in Poweshiek County, Iowa. United
States, Dept. of Agriculture.
guarantee that we can both eat healthfully and protect the natural
workings of the planet. The most important change that could be
made is a return to methods of food production that resemble
nature’s traditional processes, rather than methods that
manipulate nature in an effort to make it work like a factory.
In Grinnell, as has been the case across the country, there
has been a strong trend in agriculture toward larger farms, fewer
farms, and fewer farmers on each farm. According to the most
recent county census of agriculture (taken in 2002), the number of
farms in Poweshiek County has fallen 8 percent since 1997 and the
average size of farms has grown 8 percent during the same time
Forman 4
period. While growing bigger and industrializing, farms have also
changed the nature of their operations to maximize efficiency and
profit at all costs. Examples of this trend would be maximizing
cropland by demolishing buildings on the farm that used to house
livestock or by planting on hilly ground that is prone to erosion. In
effect, too much farmland is used to grow crops, and not enough of
it is left for livestock to graze on, throwing off the natural
ecosystem. This is supported by the 2002 Census of Agriculture of
Poweshiek County, which shows that 85 percent of all farmland in
Poweshiek County is used to grow crops while only 5.5 percent is
open pasture (Department of Agriculture 1–2). This great
discrepancy begs the question, if so little land is used for pasture
and so much is used to grow crops on, where and what do the
livestock of Poweshiek County eat?
For the most part, livestock, especially those commonly
consumed like hogs, beef, and poultry, have been taken off the
farm and now reside in an invention of the industrial food system:
the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, or CAFO for short. In
a CAFO hundreds of thousands of animals live together, eating the
grain (corn for the most part) that is grown on the land where they
used to graze. These CAFOs are a prototypical example of how the
industrial food system has rearranged nature to provide the
ultimate value-added service: turning cheap, government-
subsidized corn into protein and calories, in this case meat. During
a phone interview, Professor Mark Honeyman of Iowa State
University pointed out to me that by definition agriculture is the
manipulation of nature to turn solar energy into caloric energy for
Forman 5
our consumption. This logical assertion forced me to stop and ask
myself why, if agriculture was by nature manipulating plants and
animals, is there anything wrong with the way food is mass-
produced in our country today? I quickly reminded myself that
there are different degrees of manipulation. The environmental
impact of Barney Bahrenfuse, the owner of a 500-acre farm in
Grinnell, keeping goats on his farm because they like to eat weeds
is minimal because he is not changing anything about the goats’
natural habits. Goats like to eat weeds. Greater degrees of
manipulation often thwart the animals’ natural instincts, reducing
their existence to little more than converting grain into meat.
It should be added that small farms are not all good and big
farms are not all bad. CAFOs recycle their animals’ waste, just as
Bahrenfuse does on his farm. The only difference is that while
Bahrenfuse hauls his animals’ waste across his smallish farm,
CAFOs do not usually have farmland of their own and sometimes
(because they do not depend on the soil in any way) are not even
located anywhere near farmland, and thus have to truck the
manure to a buyer, using precious fossil fuels in the process. In a
paper entitled “Sustainability Issues of U.S. Swine Production,”
Professor Honeyman points out that to optimize sustainability, “the
relationship of swine population to arable land is important. Large
swine production units [CAFOs] built on small acreages or not part
of farms that also produce feed grains can have manure utilization
problems” (1415). This is certainly not a problem in Iowa, where
fecund soil is everywhere. The CEO of Fremont Farms, Steve
George, whose farm in Malcolm, Iowa, holds about 9 million hens
Forman 6
that lay eggs for liquid egg products, does not have to look far to
find a farmer in need of the waste his hens create. Animal waste is
usually well dealt with by CAFOs; after all, it is not only
environmentally conscious but also profitable to sell your animals’
waste as fertilizer.
There are, however, ways in which CAFOs are clearly less
earth-friendly than traditional farming. First, they are generally
farther from farmland that needs fertilizer, and so the animal
manure needs to be transported, a considerable waste of fossil fuel.
This also contributes to pollution and global warming, problems
we all pay for. Another problem with CAFOs is the health of the
animals they produce. Separating the animals from their natural
habitat and constantly feeding them sub-therapeutic levels of
antibiotics weaken the animals’ natural robustness. In addition,
these practices create antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a threat to the
health of humans as well as to the animals that host the resulting
super-bacteria. There is much debate about what is the healthiest
and safest environment for an animal. Steve George told me in a
phone interview that he wouldn’t want his chickens roaming
around outside, because of all the dangerous pathogens that lurk
outdoors. By keeping his hens indoors, he is able to protect them
from disease and keep them big and productive by giving them
feed with growth-promoting antibiotics in it. In the other camp are
Barney Bahrenfuse and Suzanne Costello, who run B&B Farms in
Grinnell (see fig. 2). According to Bahrenfuse, they raise 600
chickens each year. They let their chickens peck around outside in
addition to giving them feed that Barney grows and produces
Forman 7
Fig. 2. Not-so-concentrated accommodations at B&B Farms.
Photograph by author.
himself. As Costello put it, “One way of looking at it is there’s this
horrible world out there that we’re all at war with,” and then
there’s the way Bahrenfuse and Costello handle their chickens: “If
[the chickens] are getting fresh air, and they’re getting greens . . .
they’re healthier beings and they’re less susceptible. So the way we
view it is, you beef up their health and you don’t have to worry
about it.” Based on direct observation I would have to say they are
right. It just so happened that on a drive-by tour of Fremont Farms
(shown in fig. 3), I observed a truck full of dead hens being covered
for highway transport. Apparently about 10 percent of laying hens
in CAFOs simply can’t endure their situation and die, a fact that is
Forman 8
Fig. 3. Fremont Farms in Malcolm, Iowa. Photograph by author.
built into the cost of production (Pollan 318). In the close
confinement that CAFO-bound laying hens exist in, “Every natural
instinct [is] thwarted, leading to a range of behavioral vices that
can include cannibalizing [their] cage mates and rubbing [their]
breast[s] against the wire mesh until [they are] completely bald
and bleeding” (Pollan 317). Bahrenfuse mentions no such problems
among his chickens. Obviously there are many hundred thousand
more chickens living at Fremont than at B&B, but that truckload
stands in stark contrast to the three chickens at B&B that “crapped
out,” as Bahrenfuse put it.
There is also evidence that CAFOs are as bad for the people
who live around them as for the animals that live in them.
According to Honeyman:
Forman 9
More than 20 years of studies have consistently shown
the negative influences of large-scale specialized
farming on rural communities (Allen, 1993). Lobao (1990)
found that “an agricultural structure that was
increasingly corporate and non-family-owned tended to
lead to population decline, lower incomes, fewer
community services, less participation in democratic
processes, less retail trade, environmental pollution,
more unemployment, and an emerging rigid class
structure.” (1413)
In addition to these findings, large CAFOs, especially hog or beef
operations, create public nuisances in other ways. Because there
can be hundreds of thousands if not millions of animals living in a
densely populated environment, their waste becomes a problem.
CAFOs pool the animals’ feces in vast open cesspools that can
cause huge environmental issues, in addition to attracting clouds
of flies that plague anyone living nearby. It is clear that there are
major drawbacks to the current industrial method of raising
animals. But what choices do we have? There are more than 300
million people living in the United States who need to eat, and eat
on a budget.
Proponents of large-scale agriculture argue that it is cheaper
and more efficient to produce food following an industrial model.
Judging by price tags, they may be right. Often vegetables at a
farmer’s market fetch a higher price than those sitting in the
supermarket do. But the supermarket is not the only place we pay
for our industrially produced goods. Mark Honeyman pointed out to
Forman 10
me, citing work by J. E. Ikerd, a professor emeritus of agricultural
economics at the University of Missouri, Columbia, that many of the
costs of mass-produced agriculture are hidden. For instance, we all
pay taxes to the government, which in turn spends billions of tax
dollars a year subsidizing the industrial food system. Between 2003
and 2005 the government spent an average of $11.5 billion per year
on crop subsidies, 47 percent of which went to the top 5 percent of
beneficiaries (“Crop Subsidy”). This means we are subsidizing a lot,
and mostly the biggest agri-businesses. Family farmers, for the most
part, receive no government subsidies. So when I told Bahlenfuse
and Suzanne that I repeatedly heard from people involved in large-
scale agriculture that family farming is nice, but ultimately not very
profitable if even viable at all, Suzanne was quick to respond: “You
take away [the industrial farms’] government subsidies—they don’t
work. We don’t take any government subsidies, so who’s viable?” In
fact, Steve George of Fremont Farms pointed out to me that they
receive no government subsidies, which I verified online; according
to the Environmental Working Group’s website, which gets its
statistics from the United States Department of Agriculture, except
for a paltry $5,361 in corn subsidies between 1999 and 2000,
Fremont Farms gets no government subsidies at all. No direct
subsidies, that is. It is important to remember, however, that their
operation is indirectly subsidized by the artificially low price of corn
in their chickens’ feed. By subsidizing the largest producers, the
government encourages large-scale agriculture to organize itself
along the lines of a machine, operated with chemical inputs and
minimal human management, and measured by output.
Forman 11
It is much harder to offer a solution to our increasingly
problematic food system than it is to point out its flaws. Some
experts, like Bill McKibben, point to local food systems as a more
earth-friendly and sustainable solution (2007). Others, like Mark
Honeyman, propose many “modest-sized” diversified family farms.
Both are plausible solutions, but critics claim that an industrial
food system is the only way to feed a country with the size and
appetite of the United States. Yet smaller farms do not necessarily
mean less food. The solution is integration. Rather than having one
huge corn farm and another huge pig farm, we should have several
smaller integrated farms that would produce the same number of
hogs and acres of corn. Instead of agriculture existing in enormous
monocultures, farms would resemble independent ecosystems.
This would simplify and reinforce the nutrient cycle and the health
of the farms as a whole. Some might say that this would just be
backtracking several decades in agricultural history. But really any
change made to improve sustainability would be progress.
The key to implementing a more sustainable future for our
food system is a multilateral effort by both government and
consumers. To reshape our food system, there needs to be a
concerted effort by the government to refocus subsidies along with
greater awareness on the part of consumers; ultimately, the
consumers have the greatest effect on what the food system
produces while the government influences how they do it. Many of
the individuals I interviewed noted a growing movement toward
local, fresh, chemical-free foods. Tom Lacina of Pulmuone
Wildwood noted the continual increase in sales of organic foods in
Forman 12
the United States. Mark Honeyman observed the proliferation of
niche pork markets such as antibiotic-free and grass-fed pork.
Locavore, a noun that means “one who seeks out locally produced
food” (“Locavore”), was the New Oxford American Dictionary’s 2007
Word of the Year (“Oxford”). The local food movement is clearly
alive at Grinnell. Many professors and students are conscious of
what they eat, and during the growing season local foods are
plentiful. From May until October there is a fledgling farmers’
market in town. Some local restaurants, most notably Café
Phoenix, make a point of buying local whenever possible. But there
are also strong signs of the entrenched industrial food system.
Wal-Mart and Hy-Vee supply cheap, mass-produced food, mostly
to the townspeople of Grinnell, who generally do not have the
economic means that people at the college do. This trend is not
unique to Grinnell. As Tom Lacina put it, “The top half of the
society is willing to pay for local, pure, organic. They have the time
to shop; they have the education to shop.” But fresh, chemical-free
food should not be limited to those with the money and awareness
needed to shop locally. Government subsidies to encourage more
smaller farms to produce goods for smaller regions could
effectively strengthen local food systems and perhaps even result
in the kind of affordable prices that supermarket shoppers enjoy
today.
There is a clear set of goals for our food industry that
Americans must collectively work to achieve. Our food system
must achieve sustainability, meaning it should be able to operate
indefinitely in its current state. Our food must be produced in a
Forman 13
manner that respects the plants and animals that we consume,
and the system must reward the farmers as well. The key is to re
create a system of farming that mimics nature rather than a
factory. But there are still daunting obstacles in the way of
progress. Most Americans enjoy the quantity of cheap food
available in supermarkets across the country. To ensure change,
Americans have to cast off the myopia that allows us to enjoy the
state of our food system without worry for the future. As a country
we must plan ahead for a time when cheap fossil fuel, antibiotics,
and government subsidies will not keep a grossly unnatural food
system running smoothly.
Forman 14
Acknowledgments
I would like to formally thank everyone who spent his or her
valuable time talking to me for this paper. Steve, Tom, Barney,
Suzanne, and Mark, your knowledge and perspectives were all
invaluable and greatly influenced me as well as my paper. Thank
you so much.
Forman 15
Works Cited
Allen, Patricia, editor. Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions
of Sustainability. Wiley, 1993.
Bahrenfuse, Robert (“Barney”), and Suzanne Costello. Personal
interview. 14 Dec. 2007.
“Crop Subsidy Program Benefits.” Environmental Working Group Policy
Analysis Database, Environmental Working Group, 2008,
www.ewg.org/key-issues/farming/2008/crop-subsidy
program-benefits. Accessed 5 Jan. 2008.
George, Steve. Personal interview. 27 Nov. 2007.
Honeyman, Mark. “Sustainability Issues of U.S. Swine Production.”
Journal of Animal Science, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 1410–17.
— — —. Personal interview. 18 Dec. 2007.
Lacina, Tom. Personal interview. 7 Dec. 2007.
Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality: Farm and Industry Structure
and Socioeconomic Conditions. State U of New York P, 1990.
“Locavore.” The New Oxford American Dictionary, edited by Erin
McKean, 2nd ed., Oxford UP, 2005.
McKibben, Bill. Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the
Durable Future. Henry Holt, 2007.
“Oxford Word of the Year: Locavore.” OUP blog. Oxford UP, 12 Nov.
2007, blog.oup.com/2007/11/locavore/. Accessed 5 Jan. 2008.
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Penguin, 2006.
Forman 16
United States, Department of Agriculture. 2002 Census of Agriculture,
County Profile: Poweshiek, Iowa. United States Department of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. United States
Department of Agriculture, 2008, www.agcensus.usda.gov/
Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/County_Profiles/Iowa/
cp19157.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan. 2008.
“The Future of Food Production.” Reprinted by permission of the author
[Editor’s note: Every effort has been made to include accurate URLs for websites cited. However, some of this information may be inaccurate.]