When farming began, humans discovered that they needed to spend less energy for finding (growing) more food. In those times, all labour was human toil. Communities developed. In really bad times, when it took more energy to farm, than the food contained, communities had to pack up and move on, or die. They often did both. Up until the start of the industrial revolution, humans needed to farm in an energy-efficient way in order to survive, but fossil fuel changed all that. Fossil fuel has been so cheap and convenient that it immediately replaced human labour and draught animals. It was used to transport produce far across the world and to travel far out to sea to catch fish. It is often quoted that the loaf of bread you buy today, cost six times more energy to bring it to the supermarket than you will gain from it as food, and this does not include the solar energy that went into it and the heat needed for baking. The following table gives energy balances for three types of farming the same crop of corn. It shows that the energy efficiency of cropping has eroded because of the use of fossil fuel, but the energy efficiency of human labour improved dramatically.
 
 

The basic idea behind farming is that we harvest the energy from the sun to feed ourselves. The sun's energy is free but we have to do some work to obtain the fruits of our labour. For human labour farming (left column), the gain in energy from the crops was nearly 13 times the energy put in. Using draught animals (middle column), this reduced to 6.3 but four times less labour was needed. In modern farming the grain provides only three times the amount of energy that was expended from fossil fuel but labour was another 7 times less. The energy 'subsidy' in this case is 30%. We don't realise how much our various foods are 'subsidised' by fossil fuel energy like in the third column above. The table below shows the magnitude of energy subsidies for various food crops. Those exceeding 20% should give cause for concern.
 

What the table shows is that energy foods are still energy-efficient but protein foods are marginally so. Humans have always valued protein foods higher than grains and beans and didn't mind spending more energy to obtain these.

Please note that in none of the calculations and measurements of energy efficiency, account is taken of down-slope effects, the cost of polluting soil, rivers and the ocean. If energy were to be used to clean these up, all world cropping would indeed turn out to be both energy inefficient and uneconomic!

If farming were to supply all energy needs for humans, which could be the situation when all fossil fuels have run out, while nuclear power remains unacceptable, then the amount of soil needed would require two more world planets at today's population levels and consumption rates. By the time Earth's population stabilises, another 4 worlds would be needed! This illustrates humans' dependence on fossil fuel. The human 'ecological footprint', the amount of land needed to sustain one person, is estimated at 4.3 ha/person (at Canada's living standard) but only 1.5 ha of productive land are available per person, if the world is shared fairly. The following table may illustrate that the world is not shared fairly at present (Source: M Wackernagel, Our ecological footprint. 1998.):

A human footprint would typically allocate 55% for energy cropping, 5% for roading and housing, 15% for food cropping, 11% for pasture, 14% for forest products.
 

Let's look at the major improvements that have been made to farming in the past 100 years (and some concerns). Each point needs more discussion but it is assumed that the reader is familiar with the issues.

• less work: mechanisation of labour by the use of tractors, harvesters, pumps, water reticulation and more. The use of fossil fuel now plays an important part. But it has caused people to leave the country in favour of the cities, making it more difficult and unpleasant to live on the land.
• faster transport: produce is now transported to its destinations much faster than before because of better roads, larger trucks, air planes and mechanised loading and unloading of ships. Produce can now be delivered fresher. But recycling of wastes has become uneconomical.
• refrigeration: refrigeration has made the transport possible of fresh meat, fish, fruit and vegetables. It has shortened the path from farm gate to customer considerably. Refrigeration has also made possible to store fresh farm products for long periods in frozen condition. The ability to store food, levels its seasonality. But those in control of freezing stores, could often make higher profits than the farmers. Although food could be delivered to the other end of the world where the seasons are opposite, the reverse happened too, intensifying competition.
• artificial fertiliser: nitrogen fertiliser has now become available in large quantities and low costs because of the industrial Haber-Bosch nitrogen fixation process. The low cost of fossil fuel has made this fertiliser affordable even for low-income countries. But the temptation is high to apply it to excess. Increased yields are possible at concentrations that are damaging to soil and environment.
• scientific knowledge: better understanding of farm processes, improved food for animals, improved health, better targeting of costs and much more. But farmers now depend on expensive and patented sources of seeds and artificial insemination and more.
• chemical pest control: the availability of very effective herbicides, fungicides and pesticides, has made a major difference to farming, reducing labour costs, increasing yield while reducing the risk of crop failure. But these chemicals were often used to excess, in order to improve the look of the product. They ended up in waterways, aquifers and the sea, affecting natural ecosystems in the process.
• higher yield varieties: crop varieties have been improved steadily for higher yield. But seeds are no longer free and high yield varieties need more food in the form of fertiliser and water. It also reduces the biological diversity in crop species.
• shorter season: crop varieties have been improved to ripen earlier so that they can be planted in colder climates with shorter summers.
• doublecropping: several modern crop varieties allow two crops in one growing season. But often the soil degrades much more quickly this way.
• synchronised ripening: modern crop varieties now ripen such that the entire crop can be harvested in one operation.
• earlier/later ripening: to provide competitive advantage and to lengthen the season of availability, crop varieties are continually being bred to ripen earlier or later in the season.
• pest resistance: many crop varieties now have been bred with resistance to common diseases. It reduces the amount of chemical pest control and increases yield, while reducing the risk of crop failure. But such properties may, over time, migrate to the pest species, making them resistant too.
• antibiotics and hormones: to improve health and production of farm animals. But human endocrine systems are sufficiently similar to the animals they eat, to be affected by these medications.
• improved pollination: the knowledge of bees has improved pollination and the quality of the fruit.
• better keeping: varieties have been bred to improve their keeping ability, being less sensitive to rot and physical damage. But these improvements were often made at the expense of tastinesss.
• better quality: the size, colour, look, taste and other qualities are continually being improved. Indeed, the farm products of a hundred years ago would look very poor, compared  to those available today. But often the look of the produce is more important than its nutritional value or taste.
• hybrid species: new hybrids (cross between two species) appear regularly to add to the existing variety, often combining the good qualities of two species, while reducing their less desirable qualities.

It is caused by competition in a freemarket economic system. Farmers compete in an open market where demand and supply govern prices (theoretically). In case of shortage, prices go up and reversely, in case of overproduction, prices slump. Through economic oscillations, farmers will eventually produce precisely what is demanded, no more, no less. The market stabilises.
The freemarket system exerts a relentless pressure to produce more efficiently, to make more with less. Much of the world's progress in trade and industry is driven by this freemarket 'invisible hand' which makes people produce what others want, not by decree or planning or foresight, but by the simple desire to make money. It is an excellent system of delivering the cheapest product to the most people. But it has a number of serious shortcomings, which will be treated in a separate section on this web site.

Farmers face a number of freemarket pitfalls:

• vagaries of weather and climate: the difference in production between one year and the next is unpredictable, so farmers do not have sufficient control over their production, not like a factory of TV sets. Very few businesses have this kind of exposure to risk. The freemarket system has no sympathy for this and farmers must compete with others for products like finance.
• independence: farmers are highly independent operators, partly because of their isolation but perhaps more so because they all compete against each other. One man's profit is another man's loss. This drives prices down. Suppliers benefit from each farmer buying his own implements rather than sharing farm machinery between neighbouring farms.
• small holdings: through continuous improvements in productivity, and increased mechanisation, traditional farm sizes have become too small for modern operations. The process of amalgamation of adjoining farms is difficult and slow, and depends on individual initiative. The jump from one unit to two is often too large to be justified economically. No government programmes are in place to assist this process.
• large investment: farm prices are continually driven up because of the large difference between urban land suitable for housing and farm land suitable for farming. People buy farms for 'lifestyle' living, for very high prices. Land does not have a price that is related to its agricultural productivity because any land can be converted to a housing estate. As a consequence, farmers need to fork out a large sum of equity, which is often not justifiable from the level of production. It is true that the money comes back after selling up, but in the meantime returns on investment are low and capital repayments high. Farmers would not be able to borrow money from the sharemarket because they would not be able to compete with the dividends that other industries are able to pay from their much larger returns on investment.
• overproduction: because of their low profit margins, farmers are constantly pushed to overexploit their land, resulting in high risk of soil degradation and loss, and down-hill ecological effects.
• limits to growth: unlike industrialists and global corporations who are basing their existence on the unlimited growth of capital, farmers are physically limited by the size and limitations of their land. They cannot expand their production facilities to meet demand, like a manufacturing industry can. As a consequence, the pressure on producing more from the same land, is high.
• foreign sourcing: farmers cannot uplift their production to a foreign country with cheap labour, as most industries can. So they have to compete with their own high labour costs.
• low international trade volume: the volume of human food traded internationally is very low compared to total world production. The amount of excess food is traded on the international market, causing enormous fluctuations in price. An agricultural country like New Zealand, depending mainly on international trade of its agricultural products, is very much affected by the vagaries of this market.
• poor negotiating position: farmers are in a poor position to negotiate a good price for their produce because nature and markets are in control. The crop ripens and needs harvesting. Most produce cannot be stored on the farm, and must be sold when harvested. At the same time, the produce of all competitors reaches the market. A price glut occurs. Farmers cannot withhold their produce or their labour in order to manipulate price, but the middleman can. Those who are able to store the produce, have the power to withhold it from the market, thus driving prices up. Here is where the profits are made.
• remote living: many farmers live in remote places, incurring high costs for supplies, fertiliser, shopping, mailing, banking, education and the like, while not being able to enjoy the achievements of culture as is possible in large cities. As farm labour was made redundant by increased mechanisation, people left for the cities, attracted by jobs and higher wages. It has depressed local farming communities. In a freemarket system, resources are drawn towards a gravitational centre, by economic forces not unlike gravitation itself. Money attracts money. If this is left unchecked, farming communities everywhere are left behind without the necessary infrastructure, leading to poor living conditions, reduced profits and ultimately threatening the health of the land.

• farmers own their means of production: contrary to those working on the factory floor, farmers own their means of production (the land). They are their own bosses and cannot be hired and fired at short notice, but they can do so to paid farm labour.
• land cannot be exported: the global developments of the past twenty years have seen capital and jobs flow to undeveloped nations with very low wages, taxes, social security and environmental protection. It is here that unfettered capitalism makes its scandalous profits from overexploiting human workers. With wages as low as $40 per month in China, a pair of shoes can be produced for US$5, to be sold for US$80 in developed countries. The reason this modern capitalism became possible, is through the free flow of capital and trade and by social injustice. The means of production (the factory) can now be exported, and with it the jobs, but not the people, who are left behind without their jobs. Farmers are fortunate that their means of production (the land) cannot be exported, so that they are spared some of the ravages caused by the new global capitalism. But competition with low-wage economies remains real.

Most of the land is privately owned, although in some countries it is owned by the Government or by the nobility, who lease it out. In some places, the land is shared as a commons, without an owner. These three forms of ownership do make a difference to how the land is managed.

• a commons: (commons = provisions shared in common) Where land is shared but not owned, such as rangelands for grazing, herders are pressured by competing with other herders. As a result, each will graze it to his maximum ability, resulting in overgrazing and degradation of the land. Something similar happened in the oceans.
• leasing: the land is leased from a property owner or the government. The land is farmed for profit and because land degradation happens very slowly, temptation exists not to maintain it well and to overexploit it.
• private ownership:  The land is bought and sold. Farmers farm it for profit and sell it for profit. So they should be interested in maintaining soil quality, tracks and fences. But often, during the lifetime of one owner (20-30 years), the amount of soil degradation may not be very noticeable.

• tax breaks: Governments can encourage permaculture by allowing tax breaks for typical costs of establishment, compliance costs and so on.
• certification: Permafarms can be certified so that bulk buyers have a guarantee of origin. Such is done already for organic farms.
• labelling: Permaproduce can be labelled so that end buyers can make a decision in favour of the environment. In this manner, end buyers can 'subsidise' good agricultural practice.

Organic farming
The practices of organic farming are based on the ideas behind permaculture, enforced by a strong belief that everything 'chemical' is therefore bad for human health and the environment. Organic farming therefore shuns both synthetic fertilisers and biocides. It also bans food irradiation and genetic modification. Organic produce is sold to a growing population of health-conscious people who share this belief. They are also prepared to pay a much higher price and don't mind a few natural 'freckles' on organic fruits. This makes an enormous difference to the amount of chemical pest control needed. In fact, organic farms use only 'natural' biocides. The organics movement is well organised and organic farms are not only certified, but also verified regularly. One could say that the viability of organics begins with the buyer.

However, there are problems with any system that is based on beliefs rather than knowledge, reason and logic. To claim that a chemical substance made naturally differs from one made synthetically, is just absurd. Plants certainly do not make this distinction [1]. But to minimise the use of pesticides and herbicides is commendable. In the chapter on economy, we've shown the many improvements that happened to farming because of science and technology, and organic farming benefits equally from these (is not chemical), being able to produce more from less land. Organic farmers also see no harm in using copious amounts of fossil fuel (is not chemical), like other farmers do, and they do not mind ploughing the land either (is not chemical).

Where organic farming fails to feed the world, is summarised here:

• less productive: Organic farming is destined to be less productive because it relies on natural fertility from weathering. By not using fertilisers, at least 50% productivity is not achieved. But when permacultural practices as outlined above are followed (these are not part of the organics dogma), the soils may stay healthier, while retaining their fertility.
• lost fertility: By not applying the nutrients in shortest supply from the bedrock, the fertility of the soil ends up at its lowest productive (natural) capacity. A little amount of fertiliser in the concentrations of nutrients in shortest supply, can raise the soil's 'natural' fertility considerably over the long term. Note also that the nutrients exported inside the produce are not replaced.
• high cost: Organic farming is more labour intensive and produces less.
• poor produce: The quality of organic produce is often compromised unnecessarily, resulting in short shelf life and difficulties storing the produce. Moulds on fruit skins can also be less healthy (carcinogenic) than traces of fungicides.
• unsustainable: Organic farming does not address the sustainability issues discussed in this section. An organic farm can be perfectly certified, while not sustainable in the long run.

[1] Note that many confuse the taste of organic produce for their quality. Modern cropping, particularly in glasshouses creates an environment in which plants can grow excessively, resulting in bland tasting produce. Had such vegetables been produced in the open, they would have grown more slowly while accumulating more 'taste'. But this has nothing to do with either sustainability or organics.

The problem is not new, and everywhere in the world people are trying to do something about it. The problem is not small either, since it effectively concerns all soil modified by humans. There are no standard solutions, since every type of soil and every climate and every way of using it, creates vastly different circumstances. How then can we pretend to offer the solution to all problems? Well, we can't. But somehow people have underestimated the importance of cycling and retaining nutrients, mainly because of underestimating the importance of the soil biota. Here is where soil fertility is made and retained. If farmers become more aware that they are farming soil, rather than produce, we may head in the right direction. But there are many areas where helpful improvements can be made.

The following actions may help to improve sustainability:

• soil farming: Putting the sustainability principles discussed before, in place. Each situation is different, but the principles remain the same. By knowing these, farmers should be able to improve soil fertility in a sustainable way. In many, often inexpensive ways, farmers and gardeners can reduce soil erosion considerably.
• roading: major improvements can be made to the amount of erosion from roading and roadside maintenance.
• research: Practical research into local soil types and properties, farming systems, sustainability, reduced use of fertilisers and biocides, water resources and more. Research helps a nation to retain and widen its natural advantage. But results must be made available freely and dispersed widely.
• monitoring: Both erosion and soil fertility should be monitored by taking actual samples. Since all damage to the land ends up in the sea, monitoring sea water is the most sensible thing to do. Coastal ecosystems are stressed world-wide, and major restrictions on farming must result, in order to save the sea.
• fertilisers: Fertilisers are needed in many ways: to improve crop yields, to prevent and reduce erosion, to improve the soil. When used with care, they are a formidable weapon for achieving sustainability.
• society's involvement: The health of its soils is of critical importance to society, so it should help to preserve its most precious asset, by:
• educating: Educating everyone involved with soil, from home gardener to kibbutz, from poor to rich, about the essence of soil, how it works and what it needs. This web site aims to do so, but no public funding was possible. TV programmes for farmers should be encouraged and funded.
• care groups: The movement towards sustainability is helped by establishing care groups for land, rivers, lakes, estuaries and coasts. A lot of work needs to be done by a lot of people. People need to organise themselves in order to make information transfer affordable, to get things done and to help each other. Funding of these care groups appears to be a good investment.
• advice: Making agricultural advice affordable and widely available, so that farmers learn to do things right and that they can continue learning while working.
• soil testing: Making soil testing affordable and widely available, so that property owners can make informed decisions about how to manage their soils.
• erosion testing: Soils should not only be tested for erosion but also for degradation and fertility. Farmers can be advised of the risks of their methods on the type of soil they have.
• water use: A central database should be kept of the capacities of natural lakes, groundwater and aquifers and the amounts of water extracted from them.
• fertilisers: Fertilisers should be subsidised for remote areas, marginal farms, hill country and for supervised soil improvement projects.
• marketing: Society should oversee agricultural markets so that farmers do not become marginalised while profits go to middlemen and importers. The international trade in farm products is rather temperamental and societies that depend largely on the benefits of agricultural exports, should make efforts to shield their farmers from excessive trading risks. Farmers are not traders.
• financing: Farmers face high capital costs with low returns, a situation shunned by capital financing. Society should make special arrangements for farm finance.
• tax breaks: While not encouraging tax evasion, society should make tax breaks available to encourage farmers to put environmental measures in place, and to improve the land.
• insurance: The natural risks that farmers face, from harsh climate extremes, global warming, acid rain and more, are not normal business risks and society should be prepared to cover these.
• purchasing land: Society can purchase abandoned or unproductive land, so that it can be reforested and made productive for natural ecosystems.
• infrastructure: The loss of people from agricultural regions, is worrying. Attracted by the lure of jobs and earnings, the countryside loses its people and infrastructure. Society should give incentives to counteract this gravitational force.
• redistribution: Governments can help to redistribute land to accommodate larger but fewer holdings as farming becomes more efficient, while also more profitable.
• foreign ownership: People must think carefully about what it would mean if all the land was owned by foreigners. Would this still be their country? Obviously some rules about ownership are necessary.
• biosecurity: With the free markets come free pests that may wipe a nation's natural advantage and farmers' economic sustainability. It is the task of Government to set strict rules for the importation of agricultural products; strict enforcement of these rules; and remedial action when an emergency arises. The cost of biosecurity cannot be charged to farmers.
• global 'free' markets: Since 1970 there has been a rush of manufacturers moving to developing nations with cheap labour. They have been able to relocate their means of production for increased profits, which repay their investment in as little as five years, but farmers can't. Although global markets have become increasingly free for manufactured products, particularly those being re-exported to the country of origin, those same markets have been unresponsive to farm products. The future cost of fuel for transport and consequential relocation of production facilities, is not sufficiently taken into account. A nation should protect itself from these 'hit and miss' economic gamblings that could be devastating to long-term commitments like farming.