Photo by James Baltz on Unsplash
Opinion: By Zach Brown
In the words of Austin Frerick, an expert on the state of modern agriculture, "Since 1980, America has lost 50 percent of its cattle farms, 80 percent of its dairies, and 90 percent of its hog farms."¹ Ownership of rural America has swung from small farmers to a select few mega-corporations whose power is limited only by their profits. We call them "Big Ag". Our rural communities are losing the farmers upon whom their economic bedrock is built, while those who remain in small-town America work for low wages at the very companies that export local wealth to far-off cities.
The rise of Big Ag began long ago. In the wake of World War One, U.S. farmers were heavily supporting a rebuilding Europe's food supply. When European farmers became self sufficient, it sent the U.S. grain market into a decline that turned into a freefall when the Great Depression hit.² Farmers couldn't pay debts and soon nature itself turned against them. The Dust Bowl hit, flinging millions of tons of loose topsoil across the southern plains, sparking a mass migration away from the nation's heartland.³ Four million acres of farmland were simply abandoned as their owners fled to the cities in desperation. A quarter of family farms were sold between 1920 and 1933, mostly in areas plagued by the Dust Bowl.⁴
Into the void stepped opportunists, like John MacMillan Jr., who bought up land for a fraction of its true value. MacMillan's company, Cargill, would use this opening to slowly swallow up the grain production market.⁵ Today, "Cargill handles more than one-quarter of the world's grain trade," and their "annual revenue is equivalent to the combined annual state tax revenues of South Dakota, New Hampshire, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maine, West Virginia, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and Iowa."⁶
However, the institutionalization of corporate mega-farms was largely not the fault of the disastrous1930s. In fact, despite the challenges, by decade's end, small farming was still the backbone of U.S. agriculture. Only decades later would the food industry become fully dominated by Big Ag.
The reason for its rise has less to do with economic pressure and more to do with politics. From the Presidency of Dwight Eisenhower and on, the Department of Agriculture saw a marked change in policy direction. Then Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson worked to remove or ignore governmental safeguards designed "to protect family farms" because he believed it "subsidized inefficiency."⁷ Instead, he urged farmers to "get big or get out."⁸ The department undercut or replaced the policies first established during the Great Depression which subsidized farmers who grew soil-friendly crops and paid them to reduce the production of goods with greater supply than demand.⁹ ¹⁰ In the long term, those initial policies had subsidized and prioritized helping struggling farmers and stabilizing prices, while diversifying the range of goods produced.¹¹ ¹² Now the subsidies changed such that most went to large producers of a few staple crops, namely corn, wheat, soybean, and cotton crops.¹³ This set of policy changes allowed the great capitalist spiral to take full effect. Producers worked to max out their production of a select few crops, which cut prices for those goods and drove those who couldn't compete to sell their land to those who could.
Changes in regulatory law supported this transition. The interpretation of competition law shifted focus from preventing "stifled competition" to the "much narrower basis" of whether it "increased consumer prices or led to market inefficiencies."¹⁴ Other drivers of consolidation played a role, though none have been as influential. The rise of private equity and financialization allows stakeholders, who prioritize profit above all, to pressure producers towards expansion.¹⁵
Technological advancements have also played a part. Massive tractors can pull plows and planters that dwarf their predecessors by orders of magnitude. These innovations make it feasible for farmers to own ever larger swaths of land.¹⁶ Yet, the need for these oversized machines is the result, not the cause of Big Ag. Small farmers don't need big machinery and they still run their farms perfectly well using equipment from the 1980s and 1990s that is better suited to their needs and budgets.¹⁷
Whether greater scale is more efficient in agriculture is debatable as well. Food production per acre is higher today than in the past, despite a steady decline in farmland as cities expand outward.¹⁸ Since the 1970s, corn production has nearly tripled, soybean production has almost quadrupled and potato harvests have risen by a fifth.¹⁹ However, production increases can largely be attributed to technological improvements. Crops today are genetically altered to maximize yield, while sprayers, irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides promote crop growth. Better equipment allows fewer people to accomplish more than ever before. In this regard at least larger farms are more efficient, as they can have fewer workers per acre due to larger machinery, but small farmers are not thanking Big Ag for freeing them of their livelihood and way of life.²⁰ If these people do not wish to change careers and do not have the qualifications to pursue other skilled employment, what have we gained? There is even some support for the idea that small farms produce more per acre than their larger counterparts through greater crop diversity and micromanagement.²¹
We have already seen the result of forcing out small farmers. As farms have grown bigger and more corporatized, communities in rural areas have shrunk.²² With fewer farmers to buy goods there is not enough money circulating to keep local businesses afloat. The big dairies and hog factories don't contribute to these economies because profits go to owners and shareholders in big cities, not members of the community. "There are fewer jobs than there were a generation ago, and the ones that remain pay lower and lower wages. America's agricultural system is predicated on an extractive model, where more and more of the profits flow to a few."²³ Often the only jobs available are at the same companies who have ruined the community, at wages and in conditions of work that are tough to stomach. As an example, "Workers at a Hormel slaughterhouse in Austin, Minnesota, made $10.69 per hour in 1985, equal to $25.04 in 2018 when adjusted for inflation. But 33 years later, the average slaughterhouse worker makes less than $3 more."²⁴ Studies comparing communities of family farms to one "crowded with giant dairy producers" found the small farm community to be doing better in practically every regard, including higher income and more businesses.²⁵
The number one priority to consumer, however, is pricing. Yet, the case for Big Ag here is murky too. Due to government subsidies and policies, the American food industry has narrowed its diversity of goods, producing massive quantities of specific food such as corn and soybeans, while the production of fresh fruits and vegetables has significantly declined.²⁶ The natural result of consolidation is less variety in markets. Outside of a few subsidized staples, basic foods are no longer being grown in the U.S. We rely more than ever upon imports to fill the gaping holes in our diet, ironically making it hard to get fresh produce in rural areas where imported foods are less common. "The relative cost of grain-derived products fell sharply between 1982 and 2008: by 10 percent for fats and oils, by 15 percent for sugars and sweets, and by 34 percent for carbonated beverages. Over the same period, the price of fresh fruits and vegetables increased by 50 percent."²⁷ This consolidation is why you can buy pasta, snacks, and foods with high fructose corn syrup for comparatively low and consistent prices, while fruits and vegetables are more costly each year.²⁸ Big producers are economically discouraged from diversifying crops, and the prices for shipping our fruits and vegetables from abroad jack up the prices.²⁹ That is besides the higher shipping costs already requisite for grocers who don't rely on local farmers.
To illustrate the extreme reduction in fruit production; in 2018, less U.S. soil was devoted to non-citrus fruits than at any point in the last forty years.³⁰ Despite government policy favoring monocropping, or growing a single crop, small farmers are much more able and willing to grow a variety of crops, both to safeguard profits and because they are less reliant on big machinery that is unsuited to managing smaller, more diverse fields.
This has created a health gap that is linked directly to the wealth gap. Poorer families eschew healthier foods in favor of highly processed carbohydrates that have led to record obesity. "As Farm Bill subsidies started propping up processed foods, the nation's obesity rate skyrocketed."³¹ This is becoming an economic problem as well. "One recent study estimated that obesity-related issues cost the American healthcare sector about $173 billion each year."³²
This is without even taking into account the role rampant antibiotic use in the meat industry has on creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria. According to the CDC, an American dies every fifteen minutes from an antibiotic-resistant infection, and antibiotic resistance is linked to eating meats with antibiotics.³³
Finally, we have the land itself to think of. Oversized farms are environmentally disastrous, especially in dry climates. In the southwest United States, we are in the midst of a "megadrought" compounded by the enormous amount of water required in dairies and widely grown water-intensive crops such as alfalfa.³⁴ 218 million gallons of water are taken from the Colorado River daily to wash and hydrate cows in the region.³⁵ In Arizona, wells are drying up, in part from overconcentration of livestock in water scarce areas.³⁶ Smaller farms would allow for more efficient water use and more spread-out herds, which would put less strain on individual water sources.
Contamination and pollution are other common effects of consolidated dairies and animal factories or feedlots. Massive quantities of manure are produced daily, often leaking into groundwater and polluting lakes or local drinking water, despite regulations.³⁷ The manure also creates methane gas, presenting a significant environmental problem.³⁸ However, manure only creates methane when anaerobic, so when animals are pastured and their manure is used to fertilize the soil all is well. Only when manure is piled, as is impossible to avoid in any large animal farm, does it cause problems.³⁹
These problems cannot be easily solved, especially when government members are happy to back big companies in exchange for bribes. In states with powerful agricultural corporations, there is a long history of Big Ag donating to and promoting the campaigns of political candidates willing to push their agenda.⁴⁰ Additionally, there is a "revolving door between business and government" officials, where members will switch between business and regulation, including in agriculture, polluting loyalties and muddying bureaucratic priorities. It is also common for corporations to pay for studies that support their products, such as when "Cargill funded a front group that, in turn, financed studies disputing any special health consequences associated with corn syrup."⁴¹
However, the sad truth is that such practices are rampant in every American industry, though they are especially present in agriculture. As in every business sector within truly capitalist societies, it is not a question of if but of when and to what extent a market becomes dominated by big businesses. The sad truth is that we are already too late. We cannot bring back the farmers or their communities, at least not completely. Perhaps the best we can do is restructure and reallocate subsidies to create more opportunities for small and mid-sized farms that will be better able to match the diverse needs of consumers. Enforcing antitrust laws among monopolistic corporations like Cargill would be instrumental as well, as it would simultaneously prevent further imbalance and allow smaller companies the chance to compete.⁴² Precedent has recently been set for such a switch, as a wave of antitrust lawsuits have swept big tech companies. These measures would create a more balanced agricultural industry that better fits consumer needs without completely uprooting the current system.
For many, farming is an ideal; a lifestyle that encapsulates what it means to be an American citizen. For others, it is simple food production. No matter the perspective though, when markets become dominated by a powerful few, it is the masses who suffer. Yet, we cannot mend the damage already done, and the age of the small farmer is largely past. Our best course now is to find an equilibrium, where corporate farms produce staple crops for the nation, and smaller farms produce a diverse variety of foods, which ideally is mostly sold regionally. This path would not single-handedly resurrect small towns, but it would re-energize them by putting more money in local circulation instead of going to shareholders in big cities on the coast. Large farms are not a problem on their own. The problem arises when a handful of companies control the market. We need a system that is incentivized to produce goods desired by consumers, not manufacturers and government officials. Such a system would not be perfect, but it would be a powerful step in the right direction, in an industry that has been sliding in the wrong direction for years.
Sources
¹ Frerick, Austin. "The Outsourcing of America's Food." The American Conservative, 1 June 2021.
² Egan, Timothy. The Worst Hard Time. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006, p. 73.
³ Egan, p. 114.
⁴ Culver, John, and John Hyde. American Dreamer: A Life of Henry Wallace. W.W Norton, 2000, p. 72.
⁵ Frerick, Austin. Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America's Food Industry. Island Press, 2024,
p. 26.
⁶ Frerick, Barons, p. 22.
⁷ Benson, Ezra. Cross Fire: The Eight Years with Eisenhower. Greenwood Press, 1976, p. 68.
⁸ Sherow, James. The Grasslands of the United States: An Environmental History. ABC-CLIO, 2007, p. 139.
⁹ Metych, Michele. "Agricultural Adjustment Act." Encyclopædia Britannica, 19 Dec. 2024.
¹⁰ Fite, Gilbert. "Farmer Opinion and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1933." The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 48, no. 4, 1962, p. 659.
¹¹ Metych.
¹² Fite, pp. 663-664.
¹³ Mosquera, Jennifer. "Corn, Cows, and Cash: How Farming Subsidies Work and What They Could Potentially Achieve." Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law, vol. 34, no. 1, 2018, p. 197.
¹⁴ Ergen, Timur, and Sebastian Kohl. "Varieties of Economization in Competition Policy: Institutional Change in German and American Antitrust, 1960–2000." Review of International Political Economy, vol. 26, no. 2, 16, Jan. 2019.
¹⁵ Sage, Colin, et al. A Research Agenda For Food Systems. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2022, p. 50.
¹⁶ Sage et al., p. 53.
¹⁷ Sage et al., p. 53.
¹⁸ National Agricultural Statistics Service. "Farms and Farmland." United States Department of Agriculture, March 2024.
¹⁹ United States Department of Agriculture. "Crop Production Historical Track Records." April 2019.
²⁰ Frerick, "The Outsourcing."
²¹ Royal Examiner. "Why Small Farms Make a Big Difference." 27 Mar. 2023.
²² Frerick, "The Outsourcing."
²³ Frerick, "The Outsourcing."
²⁴ Frerick, "The Outsourcing."
²⁵ Frerick, Barons, p. 32.
²⁶ Ridley, William, and Stephen Devadoss. "Challenges for the U.S. Fruit Industry: Trends in Production, Consolidation, and Competition." Choices Magazine.
²⁷ Ludwig, David S., and Harold A. Pollack. "Obesity and the Economy: From Crisis to Opportunity." Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 301, no. 5 2009, pp. 533–535.
²⁸ Frerick, Barons, p. 36.
²⁹ Ridley and Devadoss.
³⁰ Ridley and Devadoss.
³¹ Frerick, Barons, p. 36.
³² Frerick, Barons, p. 36.
³³ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "More People in the United States Dying from AntibioticResistant Infections than Previously Estimated," press release, Nov. 13, 2019.
³⁴ Food & Water Watch. "Big Ag Is Draining The Colorado River Dry." Aug. 2023, p. 1.
³⁵ Food & Water Watch, p. 1.
³⁶ Stern, Andrew. "Draining Arizona: Residents Say Corporate Mega-Farms Are Drying Up Their Wells,"
NBC News, 17 Sept. 2019.
³⁷ Frerick, Barons, pp. 11-13.
³⁸ Nitta, Naoki, and Grist. "Quitting Cows Could Have Big Environmental Impacts, But It's Harder Than It Sounds." Scientific American, 7 Nov. 2023.
³⁹ Johnson, Matt. "Factory Farming Model Incorporates Abuses, So We Need to Adopt Something Radically New," Des Moines Register, Dec. 18, 2024.
⁴⁰ Frerick, Barons, p. 72.
⁴¹ Lipton, Eric. "Rival Industries Sweet-Talk the Public," New York Times, February 11, 2014.
⁴² Frerick, "The Outsourcing."