By PETER SCHROEDTER 

It wasn't that long ago that farmers were seen as caring stewards of the land. They were the friendly helpful folk in blue bib coveralls and straw hats working with nature, wise in the ways of plants and animals. 

But from an urban perspective, today's farmer is more often seen as someone busy polluting the environment, contaminating the water, mistreating livestock and destroying wildlife habitat. 

Somehow, in less then 50 years, farmers have become eco-villains to many urbanites who view us and what we do with suspicion or outright hostility. Even the food we grow is suspect, prompting some people to search for alternate sources or to restrict themselves to organic or vegetarian diets.

How did contemporary urban society arrive at this point? 

Why have some consumers lost faith in the food production system? At no time in history has so much food, in such variety, been available in all seasons at such affordable prices.

Agriculture History 101

The answer to this riddle may lie in two related social processes: agriculture's industrialization and society's wholesale urbanization. 

These transformations developed hand in hand after the end of the Second World War as farm productivity exceeded even the most optimistic predictions made at the beginning of the last century. They evolved in an unforgiving economic climate in which successful farmers learned to respond quickly to market signals and to readily adopt new technologies – or else. 

It started slowly with tractor power replacing draft horses. Tractors allowed farmers to till more land in less time, with less hired help. Land that was tilled more, produced more. Farmers who adopted this new technology were so successful, their neighbors soon copied them. This boom in food production lowered the prices farmers got for their grain, vegetables, and other commodities. And this, in turn, kept retail food prices lower too.

In the end, the farmers who wouldn't give up their draft horses quickly enough could no longer make ends meet and were forced to sell out to the tractor farmers. 

To offset the lower prices they now were getting, the tractor farmers began to use cheap nitrogen fertilizer from factories that formerly had used the chemical to make explosives for the war effort. 

Again crop yields increased, creating a surplus not only in North America but throughout the developed world. Commodity prices fell some more, and consumers snapped up the bargains. This time it was the tractor farmers who had been slow to use the new fertilizers who had to sell out.

The next wave of industrialization saw farmers adopting chemicals for weed and pest control. Again yields went up, prices fell, and the consumer continued to reap a harvest of bargains. 

By the mid-1960s, cereal grains had become so cheap that for the first time in agricultural history it became economical to use them for livestock feed. This laid the groundwork for modern cattle feedlots, hog barns, and poultry production systems. Until then, cereals such as corn, barley, oats and wheat were generally reserved for humans.

This cascade of agricultural innovations fuelled the drive to urbanization. As productivity increased, fewer people were needed on the farm. As financial returns shrank, fewer could continue making a living from the land. More and more rural people drifted to the cities and lost touch with their agrarian roots. In the towns and the cities, a lack of understanding gradually developed about why farmers and ranchers do the things they do.

Reversing the Course

For the money, it isn't a bad system. Consumers get a cheap, reliable food supply. The government converts surpluses into covetted foreign currency. And only the most innovative and efficient farmers survive. No one has come up with anything better, that's workable, so far. The main reason is money. 

No matter what consumers say, everyone in the food industry believes the vast majority of shoppers will always follow gravity and find the cheapest product. For two generations, the motto of successful farmers has been: "Produce Cheaper and Prosper." 

Yet we know there is a consumer base that really wants to change the way we farm. Call it "naturally produced food" or "organic food," we know there are people willing to pay for it.

But if that core of consumers wants change, they have to create an economic climate that will nurture it. They have to convince other consumers to do more than just talk the talk about how much they dislike the large hog and poultry barns, the chemicals, and the feedlots. They've got to convince at least 25 percent of the food-buying public to apply their collective economic might to the problem.

Don’t expect government to chip in without massive public pressure. Politicians know very well that agricultural surpluses feed national economic growth. But they also know who elects them. Just look at Europe. Over there, consumer pressure has effectively kept genetically modified foods off the market. 

To make an alternative agriculture system work here in Canada and protect it from corporate raiders, farmers and consumers have to get close to each other again. What's needed is something like a sophisticated farmers' market where consumers deal directly with local farmers. Farmers are good at growing stuff, but they need help in the marketting end. That skill is well developed in the urban world. For the system to work, town and country have got to get together.

As a farmer, I know we can grow the food any way consumers want it. The question is, are you willing to pay us a fair living wage?

The marketplace created the modern farming system everyone loves to hate. If urban people really want change, all they have to do is send a strong economic and political signal. We're out here, still working in rhythm with the seasons, waiting for a signal.

The system of industrialized agriculture has been working for everyone but farmers. Using the 1960s as a contemporary baseline, it's easy to see who’s gained the most from it.

Back when John, Paul, George and Ringo stormed out of Liverpool, urban consumers gave up about 25 percent of their monthly pay cheque for groceries. Those same consumers spent about 10 percent of their income on recreation and entertainment. Today the average consumer spends less than 10 percent on food, and the farmer's share is about the same as a waiter's tip. 

On the bright side, according to Statistics Canada consumers can now afford to spend roughly 25 percent on recreation and entertainment.

Is it possible that a large part of our prosperity is resting on an industrialized agricultural base capable of continually producing food for less? Is it possible that the money not spent on food is driving economic activity in all other sectors of the economy?

In less than one generation, farmers have increased their production fivefold and more in some sectors. In the mid 1960s a farm family could earn a decent living – comparable to a skilled tradesperson – by milking a dozen dairy cows or running 50 beef cows. By the mid 70s they had to milk 50 or more cows; and beef herds had climbed to 100 head or more just to hold onto a lower middle class lifestyle. In the same period, grain farmers had to double their seeded acres and then double them again in an effort to maintain income. 

It’s the same in every other sector, including vegetable growers and fruit producers. And the returns still keep getting smaller.

In the world of modern farming, the only survival strategy that works is to keep adopting new ideas and technologies in order to keep producing more for less. All too often survival comes from a chemical container or a genetically modified plant. Deciding what will work and what may not isn't an easy trick to master. Just one mistake can force a farm family off the land.

It’s this survival strategy that created the mega hog barns and cattle feedlots that stretch to the horizon. It gave birth to the Tyson Foods super-sized poultry production system and to grain fields that stretch unbroken over the endless prairies with hardly a farmyard in sight.

We farmers would welcome a sustainable new agricultural strategy. But we need the clout of the urban consumer to help us convince the politicians it’s worth it.

If you care about organic and naturally produced food and want to make a difference, get informed: 

• Organize meetings where farmers can explain what they need in order to feel comfortable enough to risk making the changes you want. Understand that most of the powerful mainstream farm commodity groups – the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Wheat Grower's Association, the Canadian Farm Federation, to name just a few – have for the most part bought into the idea that big is always better and that the small family farm is a thing of the past. They’re not eager to say they've been heading in the wrong direction for the last four or five decades. 

• Learn what’s going on down on the farm. Think about subscribing to a trade newspaper. The Manitoba Co-operator is the province’s mainstream farm publication. The Independent Farmer's Weekly could be described as an alternative journal working hard to keep farmers informed about things other than just chemicals and high-tech farming news. To get a realistic picture of today's farm family and the business of farming, read Ingeborg Boyens’s Another Season's Promise: Hope and Despair in Canada's Farm Country. For a short course on the new high-tech approach to farming, read her book,Unnatural Harvest: How Corporate Science is Secretly Altering our Food.

• Find out from politicans, federal and provincial, why our governments are spending your tax dollars on GMO research instead of sustainable farming systems. Ask them why so much public money has gone into research that benefits corporate interests in the biotech field. 

• Find out how the corporate sector is slowly taking over food inspection, thanks to a program called Hazard Analysis at Critical Control Points (HACCP). Ask politicians and consumer groups for their position on HACCP and industry self-inspection.