Printable version from NI Global Issues for Learners of English:
Bigger is better
WRONG: Not when you look more closely!
1. Large farms are NOT more productive
Large farmers usually plant only one crop over all of their land (monoculture). Therefore, a large farmer who grows corn, for example, probably produces more corn per hectare than a small farmer who grows corn.
However, the large farmers often use heavy machinery in their fields, so they have to leave the land between the rows of corn empty. That land produces nothing - or it produces weeds, which have to be controlled with herbicides.
MONOCULTURE - growing only one crop on large areas of land
HERBICIDES - chemicals that kill certain plants
Small farms are more productive
On the other hand, small farmers, particularly in developing countries, often grow more than one crop on the same piece of land (see picture). In between the rows of corn, for example, they will grow another crop.
In addition, small farmers are more likely to rotate animals and crops on the same land (with the extra advantage that the animals fertilize the land naturally). During one year, therefore, many small farmers will get more than a dozen crops and animal products from their land.
So, although small farmers get less of any one crop per hectare than large-scale farmers, in reality their land usually produces much more in total per hectare. Data about farm size and total production has been collected from 15 countries in the Third World. In every case, smaller farms are much more productive than large ones: from 200% - 1000% more productive per unit of land.
Small farms are more productive in the United States, too: the dollar value per hectare from farms of 11 hectares or less is more than 10 times greater than the dollar output of larger farms.
FERTILIZE adding something to the soil that makes plants grow better
ROTATE - changing the kinds of plants that are grown to keep the soil in better condition
2. Small farms are better for the community
This is true in both the rich world and the developing world.
In the United States, in places where large corporate farms dominate the area, nearby towns tend to fail and die. The use of high-tech machinery means that fewer workers are needed, and the land itself is owned by distant corporations, not families who live on the farms.
In contrast, towns which are surrounded by family-owned farms are more lively and more healthy. The income from the farms stays in the area, going into the local economy, helping to create jobs and keep businesses going. These towns have more local businesses, more schools, parks, churches and other facilities. They provide better services and people tend to be more active in the community.
In Brazil, similar benefits can be seen. In the 1980's, an organization (MST) was started, to help poor people to take over the unfarmed land of wealthy landlords. Usually, around 3,000 families would move on to the land and start small farms on it.
At first, the mayors of nearby towns were strongly opposed to the take-over of the land, but then they saw the advantages of having so many small farmers in their neighbourhoods. Before, the economies of these rural towns had been poor, but when the farmers came, they started to sell their produce in the towns and to buy goods from the local businesses. The economies improved. Now many mayors from depressed towns actually ask MST to come and take over the unused land near their towns.
LANDLORD - someone who owns the land and charges rent for its use
MAYOR- the leading official in a town or city
DEPRESSED - with a poor economy
Information taken from the article Kicking the Chemical Habit by Peter Rosset in the May 2000 issue of the New Internationalist.
© 2000: the New Internationalist
NI Global Issues for Learners of English > Issues > Pesticides > Bigger isn't Better
Last Modified: 05 July 2000