There is an uneven relationship between agricultural production and environmental care. As of 2017, 53 percent of American land was dedicated to agriculture (“Land Use, Land Value, and Tenure”). As populations have grown, American agriculture has evolved to meet societal expectations. Deforestation has predominantly supplemented this growth, but innovations in the industry have emerged. Innovations including pesticides, fertilizers, and agricultural machinery redefined the farm industry to be more efficient. Although beneficial to production, the emergence of these aids has negatively impacted the environment. Degradation of soil, depletion of viable land, contamination of water, production of greenhouse gases, and reduction of biodiversity are consequences of agriculture’s evolution. The evolution of agriculture raises the question, is there an imminent need to revolutionize the agricultural industry? With a close look at scholarly research, government studies, and other authoritative resources, it is evident that if left unaddressed, agriculture will continue to spiral into a revenue-driven industry oblivious to environmental consequences. With the majority of American land dedicated to agriculture, the public must terminate their complacency with the issue and learn to understand the reality at play. Widespread agricultural techniques sacrifice environmental needs for production; society, therefore, must diminish the impacts of farming to establish a sustainable relationship between agriculture and care for the environment, for the future.
Pesticides, a fundamental farming element, have significant repercussions on the environment. Originating around the 1870s, synthetic herbicide materials have been adopted to attack the growth of unwanted vegetation (Tudi). Although beneficial to maximizing agricultural production, pesticides and herbicides have developed into more toxic chemicals that have adverse effects on the environment. Pesticides are known to contribute to “mass killings of nonhuman biota, such as bees, birds, amphibians, fish, and small mammals” (Carvalho). Pesticides, by nature, aim to eliminate unwanted life from interfering with the growth and development of farming crops. Inherently, pesticides may eliminate organisms that are not the intended target. Perpetuating this issue is the accumulation of pesticides in the environment: “Pesticides harm and accumulate in more other places than crops due to poor management…, or a lack of information” (Pathak). The Food and Drug Administration in the United States regulates and monitors pesticides. Pesticides produced may meet acceptable standards within a limited volume but often violate these standards when combined with different pesticides and applied to the same crop. The agricultural industry should be held accountable for excessively spreading pesticides in the environment. In moderation, pesticides ensure a reasonable crop yield; however, excessively applying pesticides on crops marginally benefits crop yield while astronomically harming the environment. Setting regulations on the total volume of pesticides spread over an established period will limit the adverse effects of pesticides on the environment while allowing crops to yield successful harvests. Further regulations need to be established for malpractice farming.
Malpractice farmers who ignore safety regulations when applying pesticides perpetuate the issue. Muyesaier Tudi, a researcher of environmental health science, elaborates on this occurrence and asserts, “Spray drift is the airborne movement of spray droplets receding from a treatment site during pesticide application, thus causing environmental pollution and food contamination” (Tudi). When released in locations poorly suited for pesticide use, pesticides can significantly alter the natural state of an environment. The poisoning of various organisms can affect species’ populations and alter the natural selection in ecosystems. The prevalence of spray drift illustrates the imbalance between agriculture and the environment. Although repercussions are in place for farmers who damage neighboring crops, limited to no legislation exists for damaging forests or unmonitored ecosystems (Brown). Society may express a commitment to environmental preservation, but the ignorance of inconspicuous events like spray drift expresses the reality that environmental consideration is a smaller priority than agricultural production. Pesticide longevity exacerbates pesticides’ effect on the environment and causes temporary environmental consequences to become permanent factors in climate change.
Pesticide’s longevity exacerbates climate change. Throughout the evolution of pesticides, longevity has been a characteristic that has evolved among all other characteristics. Tudi notes, “Depending on the environmental conditions and the pesticide’s chemical characteristics, degradation may take hours to days or even years” (Tudi). Pesticide longevity is closely tied to pesticide sorption. Pesticide sorption, or the amount of pesticides absorbed in the soil, can be key in destroying an environment and contributing to long-term effects on the environment. When pesticides degrade, their chemical composition may degrade into new, more toxic chemicals (Ruomeng). A specific example of this occurrence is the chemical compound chlorpyrifos and its child compound metabolite (Tudi). Chlorpyrifos degrades into a metabolite, a significantly more toxic compound known to pose health risks to many organisms, including humans (Tudi). The introduction of unregulated or unknown chemicals into the environment poses serious threats. Agricultural land and its surroundings will undergo chemical processes that are unnatural to the environment. More concerning, however, is farmers unaware of the chemicals affecting crops and surrounding land. If undetectable, farmers and those concerned with the environment cannot minimize the effect of evolving chemical compounds. The need for further pesticide regulation is evident. To preserve the environment and ensure that future generations will have cultivable land, regulations need to be established to balance agricultural needs and environmental preservation.
While pesticides pose an immediate threat to the environment, many argue that pesticides are crucial to agriculture (Cornejo). Supporters of this argument cite the vast growth and economic resume that agriculture amassed after pesticide application in agriculture (Cornejo). However, the prevalence of organic farming counters these claims. Organic farming is an emerging form that limits the use of potent pesticides in agriculture and utilizes more naturally occurring substances to promote agricultural growth. The United States Department of Agriculture ran a study from 2011 to 2021 to analyze the prevalence of organic farming in the United States. Their discoveries determined that “organic cropland acres increased by 79 percent (to 3.6 million acres)” during that time (“Organic Agriculture”). Although pesticides have become an essential tool in the farming world, the gradual decline and transition to more environmentally cognisant tools are desired and achievable. If the agricultural industry is experiencing drastic growth in organic farming, it is plausible that alternative farming methods are emerging that balance agricultural prosperity and environmental cognizance. Reducing pesticides in farming would significantly mitigate farming’s impact on the environment and ensure the future of the farming industry. While organic farming would limit pesticidal contamination in the environment, the depletion of viable land still poses a threat.
The farming industry’s depletion of viable farmland furthers farming’s negative environmental impact. As humanity’s population increases, the need for food continues to rise. Tiziano Gomiero, an independent researcher in farming and food systems, remarks, “Over the past 50 years, the world’s net cultivated area has grown by 12%, mostly at the expense of forest, wetlands, and grassland habitats” (Gomiero). While feeding the world’s population is a priority, destroying natural wildlife to supplement the need for farmland has threatened the environment. Farmers are pushing to expand farmland and crop quantity to combat extreme meteorological conditions. Perpetuating farmer’s need for more land is the increase in meat consumption in the developed world. Carrie Daniel, a researcher for The National Library of Medicine, notes that meat consumption “appears to be on the rise in the developed world as a whole” (Daniel). While not necessarily driven by poor intent, farmers accumulate more land for livestock to meet societal demands. In the accumulation of land, pivotal landscapes are destroyed, limiting the natural defense the earth has to carbon emissions. Environments and ecosystems are wiped out completely, and expanses of trees and vegetation can no longer consume the extensive carbon dioxide gas the world emits. To enhance this issue, farmers are also combating the effects of soil degradation and erosion.
Soil degradation and erosion destroy viable land and force farmers to postpone growing seasons or seek new farmland. In response to the growing effect of pesticides and fertilizers on the environment, researchers assert, “Soil degradation has been defined as a ‘global pandemic’, as it is a world problem” (Gomiero). Soil degradation refers to the gradual decline of nutrient levels and organic matter found in soil. Nutrient levels and organic matter are pivotal in fostering a growing environment capable of sustaining crops. The abuse of fertilizers and pesticides is directly linked to soil degradation. Fertilizers and pesticides strip the soil of naturally occurring compounds to reap maximum crop growth; however, soil cannot sustain constant overexertion and maintain natural soil health. When soil reaches extreme degradation levels, it can take “100 [years] to recover to a self-sustaining state suited for agriculture” (Blanco-Canqui, 399). Destroyed farmland affects more than agricultural growth. Microorganisms, specifically bacteria and fungi, can be permanently destroyed by degraded soil. These organisms are crucial in the decomposition of dead organic matter. When soil is destroyed for an indefinite period, microorganisms cannot decompose dead organic matter. From this, dead organic matter accumulates, making the environment less habitable for other organisms (Cavicchioli). While soil degradation is an inherent consequence of farming, the prevalence of its occurrence is not. The abuse of enhanced chemical compounds can be regulated to minimize adverse effects, but still maintained so farmers can benefit from their use. Ultimately, if used in moderation, extreme soil degradation can be avoided.
Soil erosion contributes to farming’s effect on the environment. Modern farming practices stray away from a diverse array of crops and traditionally aim for one or two different harvests. When this occurs, farmers often adopt a practice known as monocropping. Monocropping is a growing routine where farmers grow the same crop in the same location every year to maximize profits (“How Industrial Agriculture Affects Our Soil”). Studies suggest that monocropping is closely tied to “reduc[ed] organic matter in soil” and “significant erosion” (“How Industrial Agriculture Affects Our Soil”). The perpetual cycle of tilling the soil, planting the seeds, watering the crops, and harvesting the field diminishes the soil’s natural resistance to erosion. Powerful agricultural machinery exacerbates erosion. Farming machinery removes the root systems of previous crops and allocates more space for future crops. In such circumstances, monocropping can “produce landscape features that are both dramatic and long-lasting” (Gomiero). Before the Industrial Revolution, the lack of farming machinery forced farmers to engineer alternative methods to meet production needs (McLeman). While it is unrealistic for humanity to revert to historic farming practices, alternative practices exist, emphasizing a need to balance between the environment and agricultural production. An example of this occurrence is no-till farming. Farmers who follow no-till farming strategies do not till or plow cropland before planting crops. Instead, farmers “use specialized equipment to create a channel that is just spacious enough for seeds to be planted, minimizing soil disturbance” (“Northwest No-Till Farming for Climate Resilience”). No-till farming is prevalent in northwestern America and has proven cost-efficient for farmers’ labor costs (“Northwest No-Till Farming for Climate Resilience”). No-till farming expresses that a balance can be established between agriculture and the environment. The farmers in northwestern America applied no-till farming with interests in both the environment and agriculture. The agricultural industry needs to apply these practices to balance the industry with the environment. Farmers can minimize soil erosion which benefits the environment and land health without sacrificing substantial resources. Further measures, however, need to be taken to minimize water contamination.
The negative effects that farming has on water quality harm the environment and perpetuate climate change. It is evident that fertilizers and pesticides impact the land itself, but their effects are also common in water. Considering the longevity of pesticides and inorganic compounds, common chemicals like phosphate can “persist in the soil over long periods, representing a potential diffused source of water contamination and leading to eutrophication events” (Prager). Eutrophication refers to when an environment or ecosystem becomes oversaturated with nutrients and spurs a burst in natural growth. Although the prospect of fruitful growth appears appealing, it can have extreme consequences. The most common consequence of eutrophication is algae blooms (Chislock). When algae blooms occur, a dense and often widespread sheet of algae forms on the surface of a body of water. Algae overpowers the traditional ecosystem by limiting light emission and, consequently, hindering the growth of aquatic plants. Additionally, algae adversely affect the chemical makeup of ecosystems including a spike in pH levels and a rapid decrease in viable oxygen (Chislock). Algae blooms destroy habitats because animals cannot adapt to extreme pH and oxygen levels while plants cannot absorb enough sunlight for photosynthesis. When an algae bloom dies, the depletion of natural compounds needed to support life leaves the ecosystem ravaged and likely permanently changed (Chislock). Furthermore, the prevalence of eutrophication is reaching dangerous levels. In the United States, over 96,000 square miles of aquatic land experience toxic consequences from algae blooms (Chislock). The agricultural industry neglects the importance of preserving the environment. Ecosystems that are unrelated to agricultural production should not bear ill effects. Similar to the call for consequences on spray drift, legislation should punish farmers who contaminate water sources that impact more than human victims. Society needs to address environmental defense. Ecosystems provide vital, life-sustaining entities that are critical to sustaining the world and agriculture in the future. Balancing the relationship between agriculture and the environment ensures more years of environmental production and more time for society to inhabit the earth. The danger of widespread consequences from farming continues with the prevalence of carbon emissions in modern farming.
The farming industry’s emission of harmful chemicals into the earth’s ozone layer proves detrimental to mitigating the growth of climate change. Livestock plays a significant role in the emission of greenhouse gasses in farming. The three primary greenhouse gasses that occur from livestock are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (Millstein). Although producers of all three gasses, livestock mainly release nitrous oxide and methane into the environment. Manure, or the organic feces produced by livestock, plays an essential role in greenhouse gas emissions. Each year, livestock produce around 450 tonnes of manure (Millstein). With the growth of livestock farming, the disposal of manure has become increasingly difficult for farmers. When manure is stockpiled in ponds or other major disposal sites, the manure does not receive the necessary oxygen to decompose properly. The manure then undergoes anaerobic decay, which involves the release of methane and nitrous oxide into the air (Millstein). While the amounts are insignificant when compared to the annual production of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have an exponentially greater effect on the ozone layer (Millstein). On a long-term scale, methane has a “global warming potential” that is “28 times greater than that of [carbon dioxide]” while nitrous oxide is “256 times greater than that of [carbon dioxide]” (Millstein). Collectively, the gas emissions from livestock can accelerate climate change when applied to a global scale. While society can combat these issues by reevaluating the quantity of meat they consume annually, the agricultural industry should strive to improve its waste management practices. As mentioned before, the manure’s inability to properly decay from a lack of oxygen is the driving force behind its extensive pollution. Managing manure waste so it has ample access to oxygen will allow manure to properly decompose and mitigate the release of harmful gasses. Additionally, limiting cows’ nutritional intake to more naturally produced foods limits the toxic chemicals that are released through their fecal matter (DeMartini). Simple changes to the farming industry would help rebalance the relationship between agriculture and the environment. Like other issues related to climate change collaboration, the complete overhaul of systems that hurt the environment is not practical, but gradually modifying them is attainable.
The agricultural industry’s objection to alternative farming practices stands on the basis of productivity and revenue. In Europe, farmers claim that regulations on pesticides and other farming systems would “increase bureaucratic burdens and keep them behind laptops instead of farming” (“European Union Scraps Pesticide Proposal”). The objection is clear: farmers resist change because it is perceived as a removal of their autonomy which prevents them from profiting off of farming. Whether supporting agriculture or the environment, it is essential that individuals realize that power cannot reside in one half of the argument. Farming cannot be an entirely profit-driven industry nor can it solely focus on the environment. Balance between the entities is key, but the current state between the agricultural industry and the environment is unbalanced. Agriculture is the “largest contributor to biodiversity loss” and drastically alters the state of the environment (Dudley). Between fertilizers, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, agriculture inhibits biodiversity. Within the last ten years, tropical forests experienced a loss of around 5.5 million hectares annually (Dudley). Farming is no longer driven by feeding the populous, it focuses on generating revenue and sacrifices all that stands in the way of achieving such a goal. It is essential that society takes a stand and resists the agricultural industry’s lack of care for the environment. The environment is the cornerstone behind helping the earth counteract toxic emissions. In particular, the world’s forests absorb a net 7.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, which accounts for more than 150 percent of the carbon output of the United States (Harris). Without key environments that clean the air and provide habitat for the world’s numerous species, the earth would cease to exist. The agricultural industry does not need to abandon fertilizers, farming machinery, or expansion completely, but measures need to be taken to minimize and counteract the effects that agriculture has on the environment.
Society needs to establish a balance between the agricultural industry and environmental care. The excessive application of pesticides and fertilizers destroys soil and prevents future crops from thriving. Pesticides also spread to other locations and contaminate water and poison environments. Forests and aquatic lands face deforestation and eutrophication. Government regulations threaten farmer’s autonomy, leaving farmers resistant to change. Society needs to respond with action. Legislation needs to be passed that places a higher emphasis on caring for the environment while allowing farmers to still thrive in their profession. Natural environments need to receive protection from pesticides, contamination, and destruction. The key to the solution is balance. Society cannot neglect the environment and prioritize agriculture over its consequences; conversely, society cannot ignore the need for agriculture and the vast population the industry employs. If society prioritizes the environment in agriculture, the two entities can peacefully coexist. While minimizing the United State’s environmental impact on agriculture would benefit the environment, the issue extends to a global scale. Nations throughout the world sacrifice environmental care for agricultural production. Agriculture’s environmental impacts require a global response. Nations on all continents need to evaluate their agriculture’s impact on the environment and identify imbalances between agricultural production and environmental care. As nations implement more environmentally conscious agricultural practices, society can anticipate global environmental improvements.
Works Cited
Alcorta, Alexandra et al. “Foods for Plant-Based Diets: Challenges and Innovations.” Foods (Basel, Switzerland) vol. 10,2 293. 1 Feb. 2021, doi:10.3390/foods10020293. Accessed 20 November 2024.
Blanco-Canqui, Humberto, and Rattan Lal. Restoration of Eroded and Degraded Soils. Springer Netherlands, 2008.
Brown, Nicholas et al. “Tort tradeoffs in cases of pesticide drift: A legal and economic analysis.” PloS one vol. 17,10 e0276418. 24 Oct. 2022, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276418. Accessed 20 November 2024.
Carvalho, Fernando P. "Pesticides, Environment, and Food Safety." Food and Energy Security, vol. 6, no. 2, 2017, pp. 48-60. ProQuest, doi.org/10.1002/fes3.108. Accessed 15 November 2024.
Cavicchioli, R., Ripple, W.J., Timmis, K.N. et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity: microorganisms and climate change. Nat Rev Microbiol 17, 569–586 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0222-5. Accessed 17 November 2024.
Chislock, Michael F. et. al. “Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic Ecosystems.” Auburn UNiversity: Department of Animal Sciences, 2013, www.wilsonlab. com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2013_NE_Chislock_et_al.pdf. Accessed 17 November 2024.
Cornejo, Jorge Fernandez et al. “Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture: 21 Selected Crops, 1960-2008.” United States Department of Agriculture, no. 124, May 2014, www.ers.usda. gov/webdocs/publications/43854/46734_eib124.pdf. Accessed 22 November 2024.
Daniel, Carrie R. et al. “Trends in meat consumption in the USA.” Public health nutrition vol. 14,4 (2011): 575-83. doi:10.1017/S1368980010002077. Accessed 12 November 2024.
DeMartini, Alayna. “Reducing the Environmental Impact of Cow’s Waste.” The Ohio State University, 25 October 2017, cfaes.osu.edu/news/articles/reducing-the-environmental-im pact-cows-waste. Accessed 22 November 2024.
Dudley, N., & Alexander, S. “Agriculture and biodiversity: a review.” Biodiversity, 2017, 18(2–3), 45–49. doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2017.135189. Accessed 18 November 2024.
“European Union Scraps Pesticide Proposal.” The Associated Press, 7 February 2024, www.npr.org/2024/02/07/1229719323/european-union-scraps-pesticide-proposal-in-another-concession-to-farmers. Accessed 22 November 2024.
Gomiero, Tiziano. 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge." Sustainability 8, no. 3: 281, 10 March 2016. doi.org/10.3390/su803 028. Accessed 12 November 2024.
Harris, Nacy, and David Gibbs. “Forests Absorb Twice As Much Carbon As They Emit Each Year.” World Resources Institute, 21 January 2021, www.wri.org/insights/forests-absorb-t wice-much-carbon-they-emit-each year#:~:text=Using%20this%20more%20granular%20information,tonnes%20of%20CO2%20per%20year. Accessed 13 November 2024.
Howden, Mark, et al. “Adapting agriculture to climate change.” Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization, vol. 104, no. 50, 11 December 2007, www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.0701890104. Accessed 1 November 2024.
“How Industrial Agriculture Affects Our Soil.” FoodPrint, 8 October 2018, foodprint.org/issues/how-industrial-agriculture-affects-our-soil/. Accessed 18 November 2024.
Lal, Rattan. “Carbon Emission from Farm Operations.” Environment International, vol. 30 issue 7, 2004, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412004000832. Accessed 18 November 2024.
“Land Use, Land Value, & Tenure.” Economic Research Institute: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 13 September 2024, www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-land- value-tenure/. Accessed 19 November 2024.
Layman, Emma. “Feeding Global Warming: Assessing the Impact of Agriculture on Climate Change.” University of North Carolina Chapel Hill: The Pit Journal, 2015, pitjournal.unc.edu/2023/01/12/feeding-global-warming-assessing-the-impact-of-agriculture-on-climate change/#:~:text=Deforestation%20and%20soil%20degradation%2C%20both,(Foley%20et%20al.). Accessed 29 October 2024.
Lynch, John, et al. “Agriculture's Contribution to Climate Change and Role in Mitigation Is Distinct From Predominantly Fossil CO2-Emitting Sectors.” Frontiers, 3 February 2021,www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.518039/full. Accessed 4 November 2024.
McLeman, Robert A et al. “What we learned from the Dust Bowl: lessons in science, policy, and adaptation.” Population and environment vol. 35,4 (2014): 417-440.doi:10.1007/s11111-0 13-0190-z. Accessed 20 November 2024.
Millstein, Seth. “How Livestock Farming Affects Climate Change, Explained.” Sentient Media, 24 July 2024, sentientmedia.org/how-does-livestock-affect-climate-change/. Accessed 22 November 2024.
Mitroi, Roxana, et al. “Pollutants Resulting from Intensive Poultry Farming Activities and Their Impact on the Environment.” E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 286, 2021, p. 3018, doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202128603018. Accessed 18 November 2024.
“Northwest No-Till Farming for Climate Resilience.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/northwest-no-till-farming-climate-resilience. Accessed 22 November 2024.
“Organic Agriculture.” U.S Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Service, 18 September 2024, www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agricul ture/. Accessed 11 November 2024.
Pathak, Vinay Mohan et al. “Current status of pesticide effects on environment, human health and its eco-friendly management as bioremediation: A comprehensive review.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 13, 16 August 2022, www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/arti cles/10.3389/fmicb.2022.962619/full. Accessed 17 November 2024.
Prager, Katrin et al. “Soil degradation, farming practices, institutions and policy responses: An analytical framework.” Project Sustainable Agriculture and Soil Conservation, Dev., 22: 32-46, 25 January 2011. doi.org/10.1002/ldr.979. Accessed 12 November 2024.
Ruomeng, Bi et al. “Degradation strategies of pesticide residue: From chemicals to synthetic biology.” Synthetic and systems biotechnology vol. 8,2 302-313. 23 Mar. 2023, doi:10.1016/j.synbio.2023.03.005. Accessed 17 November 2024.
Squalli, Jay, and Gary Adamkiewicz. “The Spatial Distribution of Agricultural Emissions in the United States: The Role of Organic Farming in Mitigating Climate Change.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 414, 2023, p. 137678, doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137678. Accessed 6 November 2024.
Tudi, Muyesaier, et al. “Agriculture Development, Pesticide Application and Its Impact on the Environment.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 3, 2021, p. 1112, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031112.
Discussion Questions
1. The focus of Grant’s essay is agriculture on a national scale. What are some of the advantages of having a national (in this case, American) focus? What are some of the disadvantages? If you are wondering how to start answering this question, I invite you to consider:
a) Who is this essay likely to resonate with?
b) What kind of information does Grant provide, and who might find that information convincing and creditable?
c) What groups of people would likely benefit from reading this essay?
2. Grant’s essay is a research essay. He not only presents research that he has found but offers his own analysis on the research in order to support his overall argument. What writing strategies does he use to find a balance between integrating information and offering an analysis of the information he provides? How might you use these strategies if you had to write your own research essay?
Author
