The following is an analysis of Herb Field’s editorial titled “Saving Farmland.” The author’s purpose was to inform the reader about Pennsylvania’s program on preserving farmland. His thesis is clearly stated, although it doesn't appear until the third paragraph: “Pennsylvania has the best, most ambitious farm preservation program going, a model for the country.” The author is also trying to persuade the reader that Pennsylvania, even with it’s many problems, does rather well at preserving farmland. In fact, the author further states that, “Pennsylvania is to receive the largest annual allocation of federal farm preservation funds ever made -- $3.9 million.” Despite this seemingly uninspiring subject, Fields communicates well with his readers …show more content…
that he uses words his audience is familiar with, and he does not go over their heads with five-dollar technical words. Field’s most difficult sentence, “this is a program that should not be sacrificed for short-term physical considerations, but rather one that, if anything, needs more dollars,” is still understandable by the average reader.
The author does not give background details on saving farmland, but he makes his point by stating facts that support his opinion. For example, “last year’s farm bill includes a $400 million six-year federal commitment to this effort (farmland preservation), which should prove especially helpful to the leading state in this regard.” Fields gets his point across by stating many useful details such as “including the 5,339 newly protected acres, Pennsylvania now has a total of 263,000 acres preserved in 51 counties.” Fields shows keen awareness of his local audience by stating, “Lancaster County ranks in the top two or three counties in the country in the amount of farmland preserved.” Besides using examples of interest to Pennsylvania readers, the author also makes a hidden appeal to emotion by listing how many counties are protected nationwide. If one does the math, there is preserved farmland in one county per state/territory. Clearly, one would agree that this number is appalling, especially since farming is so steeped in our nation’s …show more content…
heritage. The author presents one drawback to Pennsylvania’s preservation efforts. He stated, “that even though Pennsylvania’s preservation efforts are commendable, it is still not enough.” There are still 1,600 farmers on a waiting list to sell the development rights to their lands. The author does not list any facts or reasons as to why these farmers are selling their development rights, - his only opinion is that the farmers are tempted by developers or they simply need or want to get out of the farming business the quickest way possible.
He does not address the issue “why are farmers selling” which makes the article unbalanced. The author could have written a more effective editorial if he listed, why farmers are selling the development rights to their land. Field should have included a quote from American Farmland Trust (AFT) to better balance his article. AFT states, “Today, the American farmer receives less than ten cents of every food dollar and sells their commodities for 1950’s prices.” AFT further states, “to recover these lost profits, farmers are opting to sell parts or all of their land to developers.” Had this information been included in Fields' piece, one lingering question would have been answered for curious readers. In conclusion, Field’s editorial was more informative than persuasive in stating that Pennsylvania is among the top leaders in farmland preservation. But he slaps the reader in the face with a simple dose of reality. Once farmland is developed, we forever forfeit land’s use for
agriculture. Field’s also makes the reader think and/or wonder if all the farmland in Pennsylvania were developed, how would Pennsylvanians feed themselves? Or on a broader scale, if all of the farmland in the United States is developed, how would the United States sustain themselves? For many readers, being newly aware of this issue alone is worth the time to read Field's opinion. Credible information is persuasive, so Fields is successful in his major purpose.
From 1865 to 1900, production of crops increased, and prices dropped. (Document A) These crops were shipped east, where they were eaten and exported to other countries. This was due to technology, but government policy caused economic conditions in the west barely improved as a result. In fact, despite the success many farmers experienced, many in the west still struggled to put food on the table.
Egan notes, “No group of people took a more dramatic leap in lifestyle or prosperity, in such a short time, than wheat farmers on the Great Plains” (Egan 42). The revenue from selling wheat far exceeded the cost of producing the wheat, so the large profit attracted people to produce more and more wheat. On top of the high profit from wheat, the Great War caused the price of wheat to rise even more. The supply of wheat rose with the price, but Egan points to information to demonstrate that the rapid increase in production can lead to overproduction, which is damaging to the land. Also, the invention of the tractor also lead to overproduction of the land by creating the ability to dramatically cut the time it took to harvest acres. When the prices for wheat began to fall due to overproduction, this caused the farmers to produce even more output to be able to make the same earnings as when the prices were higher. The government also played a part in promoting the overproduction of the land. The Federal Bureau of Soils claimed that, “The soil is the one indestructible, immutable asset that the nation possessed. It is the one resource that cannot be exhausted, that cannot be used up” (Egan 51). Egan points to factors such as a high profit margin, the Great War, tractors, increased outputs when wheat prices fell, and governmental claims that caused the people to overproduce the land of the Great Plains. Egan then gives examples of how the overproduction destroyed the land. Egan explains that the farmers saw their only way out was to plant more wheat. This overproduction tore up the grass of the Great Plains, thus making the land more susceptible to the severe dust storms of the Dust
Pollan introduces his argument by providing statistical evidence which shows the mass amount of money that is spent on corn. He appeals to the audience's logos by revealing that “taxpayers will pay farmers 4 billion
For around three cents per acre, 15 million in total, the land would have been as if one was giving land away in modern days. But even when the purchase was made, it was a steal. But this is exactly what was needed, land, and more land. A place to grow larger, somewhere to call ours. But even then that we bought the land, we did not know what was upon the land. To even have any knowledge of what was in the land, there were ones who were paid to be sent out to see what the land had to offer us. This was a very scary risk for him as he didn’t know if the land would have anything to offer. Though these peoples main purpose was to map out the land for it to be sent out. But if anything were to come up wrong in the purchase, Jefferson’s reputation would be ruined. Not only would they think that his opinions were useless, but he would no longer be a man anyone will
From the beginning, Steinberg paints a biased picture of lawn culture that puts the reader on guard. It is clear that is he is going to be critical, indeed mocking, of those who care deeply about lawns, sometimes as an environmental offense and sometimes just as an absurdity. One must assume that the history he writes about lawn is accurate, but when he begins to interpret the history, he makes it seems as if grass is a much bigger deal in the mind of every American than it actually is. As someone who has spent his entire life living in the suburbs surrounded by houses with respectable lawns, I know that my lawn occupies a minimal amount of my conscious thought and perhaps only a marginally higher portion of my neighbors thoughts. Steinberg is telling me that I care more about lawn that I do which I know is false. With Steinberg’s fundamental assumption that Americans are obsessed with lawns under question, one must question the appropriateness of the examples he uses to prove his point. Therefore, Steinberg would have to provide concrete examples that demonstrate a superior understanding of lawns...
Mrs. Richards makes mention about the American farmer and the struggles they are facing at the present time. Mrs. Richards mentions that the farmers would be blamed for rising food cost if they asked to increase their profit margins. Mrs. Richards goes on to mention that we as a nation are buying more food from foreign countries instead of supporting the farmers right here in the United States of America, and how this is causing
One point of Berry’s argument is that he believes that the land is falling more and more into the hands of speculators and professional people from the cities, who in spite of all the scientific agricultural miracles still have more money than farmers. Big technology and large economics has caused more abandonment of land in the country than ever before. Many of the great farmers are clearly becoming different because they lack then manpower and money to maintain properly. The number of part time farmers and ex-farmers increases every year due to the problems
In recent history, farming in America has changed dramatically, and Naylor’s farm is representative of many in the American Corn Belt. Though it began growing a variety of crops and keeping livestock too, Naylor now only plants corn and soybeans. In Naylor’s grandfather’s days, the farm fed the whole family with just enough left over for twelve others. Now, Naylor indirectly feeds an estimated 129 people, but this does not mean his farm is any more successful. In fact, Naylor’s farm cannot financially support his family.
In his 2009 article “The Omnivore’s Delusion”, Blake Hurst takes a stand against the numerous non-farmers who are attempting, and in some cases succeeding, to degrade and ‘clean’ the farming industry. Hurst’s main points of contention are the lack of true knowledge these intellectuals have on the inner workings of today’s farms and their insistent belief that the farmers themselves “…are too stupid to farm sustainably, too cruel to treat their animals well, and too careless to worry about their communities, their health, and their families” (24).
To begin, he introduces the idea that the food production farms aren’t these "happy farms" society makes us believe they are. For instance, the author Michael Pollan explains how farms began to expand causing corn to produce rapidly, leaving massive quantities of
The film “Iowa- An American Portrait” was narrated by Tom Brokaw. It described the land, people, education, work, religion, and family life of Iowa. One of the main topics of the film was the general view of Iowa- the Farm State. Iowa has more than two- hundred- thousand farms; ninety- eight percent of Iowa’s total land is used for production; with ninety percent of total land being used for the production of food.
Mr. Middleton, a journalist, compiled an article describing, in his opinion, the flaws of the Endangered Species Act. He then attempts to back his opinion with studied analyses, researched facts, and testimonies. To summarize Middleton’s (2011) perspective, “Rather than provide incentives for conservation and environmental stewardship, the Endangered Species Act punishes those whose property contains land that might be used as habitat by endangered and threatened species” (p. 79). This quote is broad and generalized yet draws in readers and forces Middleton to spend the rest of the article backing this statement with more logic based facts.
New York Times, p. 1. Riedl, M. (2011, March 30). Farm subsidies ripe for reform?
Farmers are essentially the back-bone of the entire food system. Large-scale family farms account for 10% of all farms, but 75% of overall food production, (CSS statistics). Without farmers, there would be no food for us to consume. Big business picked up on this right away and began to control the farmers profits and products. When farmers buy their land, they take out a loan in order to pay for their land and farm house and for the livestock, crops, and machinery that are involved in the farming process. Today, the loans are paid off through contracts with big business corporations. Since big business has such a hold over the farmers, they take advantage of this and capitalize on their crops, commodities, and profits. Farmers are life-long slaves to these b...
and also supply lamb to local butchers. This can sometimes prove to be a costly enterprise for