@deckdancer and I were conversing this evening, and he had this question about mass farming practices. My response ended up being a little lengthier than I anticipated, but I was also trying to be concise (which is hard for John the Verbose, lol)
I've been having a lot of thoughts about plants and mass farming practices tonight, and while I know horticulture isn't exactly your specialty, I wanted to hear your thoughts on the disconnect between the symbiosis of nature vs the mass farming practices we use today, and their effects on us today as a society?
One thing I've noticed over the last 10 years is how stressed the corn fields look when we've had year after year of drought conditions. The leaves curl along the edges and look like dessicated spears. Corn is a huge water hog, and an inefficient hog at that. Most of the water is ultimately lost to evapotranspiration meaning the water table doesn't even recharge at all from irrigation.
So much of that corn goes to ethanol plants and livestock feed, so it still has a high demand, but many of the crops just die or are stunted before they can be used. Before irrigation technology was widespread, places like Minnesota grew more wheat. Minneapolis was (and still is) where so many big flour mills are, but now the wheat grain comes in from the high plains. Wheat is what we should be growing for our climate already, but corn became popular because of irrigation. Wheat uses much less water, and some cultivars can be harvested twice a year.
Factory farming of corn has changed noticeably in my own lifetime. I remember the rows used to be a bit farther apart. You could run between the rows and pretend to be the "children of the corn." My dad said he could remember when he was younger there were much wider gaps in the rows of cornfields. We've bred them for higher yield and to be planted closer together that both of those factors mean they need much more water than they used to. Some farmers plant rows so close together you almost can't walk between them now.
A lack of diversification is also a problem as well. The past three years have been really bad for corn, but for many farmers, it's their cash crop. Soy beans have become a novelty... alfalfa a rarity... and I'm shocked if I ever see any wheat at all. Monoculture crops (even beyond grains) are begging for any one-off minor catastrophe to jeopardize the whole crop. If a plant disease or infestation pops up, it will spread much faster than if we had varied crops, and of course it would have a more detrimental effect if that one monoculture crop gets destroyed. Palm oil farming is another example of a fragile monoculture.
Diversification is easier said than done though. You can't use a single type of harvester machine for all crop types. The Cherokee would plant things together: Corn, pumpkins/squash, and vine beans. They understood for generations that those "Three Sisters" thrived better together than by themselves. The beanstalks would climb the corn, the beans would put nitrogen and nutrients back in the soil, and the squash/pumpkins would reduce evaporation from the soil. The large gourd leaves would reduce the amount of sunlight on the ground, inhibiting weed growth. All that today would still require harvesting by hand, and unfortunately it is considered too unprofitable. It would be suitable for people with gardens, self-sufficient homesteads, or small-scale farms (and we gotta WANT to get into that, too).
The big problem is (I think) that first we would need a large-scale, multifaceted cultural shift. Ethanol as biofuel is not as sustainable as the industry wants us to believe. As much as I love beef, we gotta reduce our consumption of large livestock. Cattle need a lot of corn and a lot of water. Other farm animals are more efficient in terms of resources required per pound of meat. That's a statement that sounds great for reducing corn and water usage, but other monoculture crops have their own unique pros and cons.