While most people have capriciously wished for an end to modern technology following a particularly annoying late-night text from an employer, only the smallest minority actually advocates a return to the workplace technology of 50 years ago.

So, why do so many people outside of agriculture think that a return to equally antiquated technology would actually improve farming?

Recently, a column in Stock and Land magazine examined the impact of a large-scale return to the farming methods of our forefathers, a romantic notion with dismal consequences. Instead of growing a crop large enough to share with the world, U.S. farmers would produce only enough food to feed half of the country’s current population.  Maintaining levels of dairy, meat and milk production would require two-thirds more land.  Increased environmental degradation and social unrest further complicate this already hungry scenario.

Simply, removing technology and scientific advances from modern life seriously damages productivity and effectiveness whether done in corporate or agrarian America.  Notably, the negative impact on farming creates a food shortage thus depriving an incredible number of those in towns and cities of the sustenance needed to survive.

Instead of buying into the soft-focus vision of farming that replaces knowledge and understanding with a vague sense of nostalgia, get the facts.  Question the farmers and ranchers who produce food about how and why they use the technology and practices that they do.  Look at the bounty of healthy options U.S. agriculture offers.  Become part of national discussion about food that seeks a better tomorrow instead of a rose-tinted version of the past.

Scratch beneath the surface, though, and the local food movement isn’t always what it seems.  A complete cultural shift to a paradigm in which local foods reign supreme would yield some ugly results for the economy and for our health.

Simply, local food proponents do not account for basic economic realities in their public policy platform.  From the economic advantages of specialization and trade to the realities of scale of economy, the shift toward a government-favored status for local foods, already well underway, would both make food more expensive and increase pollution.

On top of that, the foods which would become the most expensive in a local food world would be those needed for a healthy, balanced diet.  Obesity already plagues the United States.  If locavores get their way, the poor would be condemned to a sentence of junk food options for the crime of being unable to afford their nutrient-rich, lower-calorie counterparts.

So speak up.   Trends and fads come and go.  Fashions and crazes like leisure suits and pet rocks pass naturally through the cycle of cool.  Don’t let this trend, and all of its harmful repercussions, be written into our laws and regulations.  Tell the government to keep our options open instead of basing public policy in popularity.

The coupling of this healthy respect with a desire to return to what many view as a simpler, more thoughtful lifestyle has heavily influenced many foodies to recreate small portions of their lives.  From city dwellers keeping chickens in backyards to urbanites building community gardens, a growing number of Americans want to explore farming in a real, tactile manner.

As these trends receive increasing attention, it becomes increasingly important that these noble, well-intentioned desires also become more informed.  Fresh laid eggs on subdivision breakfast tables and shopping bags of fresh basil aside, the business of farming is serious work.

So, what would it really take to feed the average family of four intent upon growing and raising every scrap of food to hit the table? It would take about two acres.

This idea seems somewhat hard to imagine.  Luckily, a group called One Block Off the Grid developed this infographic to show exactly what this family would have to raise and the amount of land these crops and livestock would require.

Notably, said family would have to adopt some dietary changes that the majority if Americans might not consider acceptable.  Beef and traditional milk would not be an option.  Instead, they would need to adhere to a diet that allows only limited portions of pork and poultry with dairy products created using goat’s milk.  For many months of the year depending upon the climate, even on this hypothetical farm based in a nearly ideal climate, vegetables would only come from the supply they spent many hours carefully canning and stocking on pantry shelves.  Fruit would actually have to be viewed as a treat and not what mom substituted for real dessert.  Incredible hard work and significant land ownership aside, this family would hardly be living the locally produced dream that is so easy to envision in the fine dining restaurants that tout the movement’s virtues.

Examining this scenario can turn up many ideas and feelings as unique as their creators.  What it should turn up almost universally though is a healthy respect for American agriculture.

Our society enjoys an abundance and variety of food heretofore unimaginable.  We have access to nutritious, affordable food that the vast majority of the world envies.  Despite rising rates of obesity, the prevalence of calorie-laden options and a general propensity toward the often deliciously decadent, the vast majority of Americans have the luxury of pondering their food issues with a full stomach.

Maybe, we should thank our farmers.  They do work tirelessly cultivating the vast tracts of land needed to feed a growing population.  They keep abreast of the newest technology and practices to constantly improve their operations.  While most of us sleep peacefully, farmers are already awake and in their fields making sure that we have something on our breakfast plates.

Tending a plot of tomatoes is an excellent way to explore our heritage while cultivating something to proudly serve guests.  At the same time, it is imperative that we continue to embrace our respect for the farmers who make life as we know it possible.

The many myths surrounding “magical” grass-fed beef illustrate this point precisely.  Oft touted for its environmental and health benefits, proponents rely on the halo-effect that foodies grant nearly any item produced by a small-scale operation that involves a hefty price tag.  But when you get down to it, statements promoting the sustainability of grass-fed beef are as accurate as if they had been transported through a children’s telephone play chain.

Luckily, real, non-biased experts are setting the record straight.  Hudson Institute Center for Global Food Issues Director of Research and Education Alex Avery’s message is clear – corn-fed beef is a more environmentally-friendly, sustainable choice.

Noting that he “loves the sustainability question, if it’s an honest discussion,” Avery offers concrete data to back up his assertions.  In place of dubious claims involving hip buzzwords, he explains his analysis citing studies that conclude corn production reduces greenhouse gases emissions and land use in beef production. An avid proponent of the practice, he confidently has presented arguments to corn-fed beef ranchers that they should place labels on their packaging to help consumers understand that their product is actually environmentally-friendly and sustainable.

It’s time to stop relying on feel-good messaging created by agenda-driven propagandists disguised as friendly hippies.  Don’t play telephone.  Share real, concrete information by posting a link to this article on your Facebook or Twitter page.

Bob says a real concern and frustration expressed, especially by European participants, was the extent that some activist organizations have dominated the debate and how little their governments are doing to help them. It’s hard to be competitive when you’re overburdened by regulations. Participants from countries like India said that biotechnology products will be critical for them. They weren’t so much interested in subsidies as being on a level playing field. A need to communicate their stories was also expressed.

You can listen to my interview with Bob here:

TATT Global Farmer To Farmer Roundtable Photo Album

I spoke with Pam before the afternoon roundtable session got underway. She says this discussion has been great for her because farmers share a lot of the same issues and concerns around the world. She thought this morning’s town hall meeting was a good one with an audience that understands that there are a lot of definitions for terms like sustainability. She says that the point was made that farmers are working hard to be productive while maintaining a viable business and taking care of their land and other resources. She hopes that the farmers visiting the United States will take away the idea that they have to be able to operate in an atmosphere where their government policy, the public and consumers work with farmers. In other words, it’s not an “us vs. them” situation.

You can listen to my interview with Pam here:

TATT Global Farmer To Farmer Roundtable Photo Album

He says that there are 16 farmers here this year from various countries including the United States, to have a discussion on farming where they live, and to do it in a public forum to foster better understanding between countries and the general public. He’s says it has been interesting to hear how similar the challenges are throughout the world. I’m planning to feature some interviews with the farmer participants during the next couple days.

You can listen to my interview with Dean here:

Photos will be posted to the TATT Global Farmer To Farmer Roundtable Photo Album.

With that observation aside…on to the latest study on Hypoxia and this one happens to be serious in nature, better than many and related to an issue we must understand better. Hypoxic Zones – a condition in which oxygen levels drop so low that fish and other animals are stressed or killed – are often better known in the environmental community and mass media by the stage name of “Dead Zones” for its shock value.

What makes the latest look at Hypoxia interesting is the diverse list of folks involved in the study and several very public observations that would seems to show the wisdom of what many experts have said for years; hypoxia is real, a growing risk, and complex to the point of still largely evading current science.

The study compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had significant inputs from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. It shows a growing body of thought that climate change is a big factor in these zones, urban contributions are significant and most of the zones are in places with little intensive farming or fertilizer use.

The study provides a comprehensive list of the more than 300 U.S. coastal water bodies affected by hypoxia. This alone is interesting. Much of what the public has heard about hypoxia in the past is related to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and the finger pointers saying agriculture, and specifically growing corn production and fertilizer use, is the culprit. This continues despite static acreage, better soil and water management, and reduced fertilizer use.

The new report at least points out nutrient delivery to coastal waters throughout the nation come from urban and suburban landscapes (golf courses & your lawn), city water treatment sewage discharges and even air pollution. The non-Ag sources get a serious look in this study – and they should – given most of the 300 affected waterways have little corn production or intensive use of commercial fertilizers in agriculture.

“This report makes it clear that there are many causes of hypoxia and that the causes vary based on location of the affected areas. Some are agriculture-related, and many are not. We support further research into all the causes of hypoxia because only then can we seriously develop and implement solutions that are workable and sustainable,” said Darrin Ihnen, National Corn Growers Association president of South Dakota.

One big red flag is the largest and fastest growing zones are in the Pacific Northwest which they are attributing to an emerging link to changing climate. Despite this revelation and better balance than many hypoxia papers, this one still singles our corn and growing demand for ethanol as a key culprit.

The study mentions increased corn acreage from 2006 to 2007 but does not mention the acreage drop from 2007 to 2008, and that the acreage planted in 2010 is more than 5 million acres fewer than in 2007.

The hit on corn overshadows the more interesting findings of the geographic diversity of these zones and the emerging link to climate change. These zones have increased 30-fold since 1960 despite advances in agricultural technology and have been located in many areas of the world where no fertilizer is used. Hopefully, this study will broaden the debate and open some minds on the hypoxia issue.

In the first place, the farmers I know don’t consider themselves “manipulated by government policy and corporate interest.” They love what they do and they are proud of their work. Most of them are multigenerational family farmers who see the wisdom of applying modern technology to farming traditions.

When it comes to the Gulf hypoxic zone, Philpott shows a static and ineffective USGS chart that does not provide the whole picture when it comes to the hypoxic zone. It does not show the trend of nutrient flux over time nor does it show how the trend has shifted away from nitrogen and toward phosphorus.

Philpott leaves out another chart that shows that nitrogen flux was lower in the 2000s, just as ethanol production increased, than in the two prior decades. Since ethanol production ramped up, the average annual amount of nitrogen load in the Mississippi has decreased. There is no correlation between increased ethanol production and the size or intensity of the hypoxic zone.

The size of the hypoxic zone is beyond our control. Just look at the difference between 2009 and 2010. What is within our control is the amount of nutrients that flow down-river to the Gulf, and farmers are working hard to increase nutrient use efficiency.

The ethanol industry is accused of using the Gulf oil disaster to promote ethanol. No one talks about how environmental extremists are using it to push for their pet projects while attacking America’s family farmers.

At the Corn Utilization and Technology Conference his topic was “Genetic and Agronomic Contributions to More Efficient Corn Production.” One of the messages he wanted to impart was that due to improvements in corn genetics some of the standard use factors for nitrogen are a little high. He urges producers to look very carefully at their use of fertilizer because they can find ways to save which will benefit them financially while improving environmental impact. He thinks this efficiency will continue to improve too. So even as corn yields increase the amount of fertilizer and energy input will go down. This also helps those involved in ethanol production because it shows the EPA that “We actually produce ethanol with a lot less environmental impact.”

You can download (mp3) and listen to my interview with Fred here: