Casey Key

Maurice Irvin

CO150 009

07 September, 2017

“Farmland without Farmers” Summary and Analytical Response

In “Farmland without Farmers”, written March of 2015 in The Atlantic, Wendell Berry

writes an informative article about the decline of the farmland’s eyes-to-acre ratio. He asserts

how the decline associated with the rise of industrialized agriculture carries a negative effect on

the farming community’s culture and environment. Early in the article, Wendell expresses how a

professional’s observation on the land’s eyes-to-acre ratio is vital to a farmland’s health. The

professional, Wes Jackson, says the “eyes” are to be “...aware of the nature and history of the

place, constantly aware, [and] always alert for signs of harm and signs of health” (Berry, 116). A

lower eyes-to-acre ratio results in neglect of the crop, soil, and the organisms that live within the

soil. Berry makes a point of outsiders being oblivious to the abuse of the country nature caused

by this lowered eyes-to-acre ratio, and the monitoring of the land must be a responsibility of the

community. Berry goes on to explain how the use of industrial machinery in farming, used to

lower labor costs, lowers “eyes” per acre as the machine is now the one to interact with the land.

This disconnect between farmer and land prevents the necessary analysis of the soil and crop,

and instead the machine’s performance becomes of most concern to the farmer. Aside from

impacting the health of the farmland, the local community is impacted by the lack of stories from

experience toiling in the field and enjoying the surrounding nature, such as fishing in the

streams. The author explains that “by telling and retelling those stories, people [of the farmland

community] told themselves who they were, and what they had done” (Berry, 120). As people
“begin to replace stories from local memory with stories from television . . . [community] is lost”

(Berry, 120) A loss of shared experiences between farmers and town folk prevents a unified

sense of community. Berry believes the current economy cannot acknowledge or respect this loss

of community and culture, and instead focuses on the increased profits brought in by industrial

farming. He wants the reader to know that this increase in profits is not a measure of the health

of the land or its community, and argues that science and industry must give more respect for the

husbandry and slow pace that is required for a healthy harvest. With Berry’s experience and

history with the land, he notices a decline in water quality. The decline in water quality was

apparent due to the disappearance of the native black willows for a stretch of the Kentucky river.

Berry concludes that something must be seriously wrong with the water. Even after contacting

researchers, the exact cause is unknown, likely because the lack of researches with a personal

connection to the land. A proposed hypothesis of the damage being caused by the herbicide

glyphosate is addressed but dismissed because of lack of research on its relevant effects. In this

close-to-heart article, Berry develops a concise point against the industrialization of farming and

its negative impact on the eye-to-acre ratio.

Berry states that “the . . . problem of industrial agriculture is that it does not distinguish

one place from another” (116). His article achieves its purpose as a call to action (respect for

land) against industry and science in regards to farming. His call to action is directed towards

community-involved, concerned environmentalists. This audience assumes that the average

person’s habits are detrimental to the earth’s ecosystem and must be altered to continue long-

term habitation of the earth. Environmentalists elicit change in their communities and are open to

change for the better of the community. Individuals involved in their community are concerned
with how surrounding farms are treating their land, and involved individuals are able to

introduce policies to protect the land from “glyphosate” (Berry, 123).

Respect for the land is needed because Berry had noticed destruction to the land. Berry

effectively responds to the “disappearance of the native black willows” (Berry, 120), and the

“imposition of the corn-and-bean industry” (Berry, 116). For community-involved, concerned

environmentalists, this article is the appropriate genre to keep their attention while still

conveying the land’s need for respect from industry and science. When the author, Wendell

Berry, states how “ . . . the human organism and the soil organism [are] perfectly interrupted by

the machine” is an example of an interesting point that draws attention to the environment. It

evokes the thought of machine overstepping the bounds of agriculture negatively affecting the

nature of the soil.

Berry structures this article in four parts. The first section of the article is a focus on how

farmland requires close attention from it’s human caregivers to maintain the vital “eyes-to-acre

ratio” (Jackson, 116). Moving on from that point, Berry brings attention to the “sightlessness and

thoughtlessness of the imposition of the corn-and-bean industry.” He brings notice to the

ultimate futility of this new style of industrial agriculture. Next, Berry talks about how “farmers

cease to be country people.” This transition in culture negatively affects and causes a lack of

substance throughout the community. To finish the article, Berry talks of specific examples in

the environment of Kentucky that may have been caused by the industrialization of farming. The

author is not able to provide factual evidence of causation to his claims of river pollution, even

after consulting with professionals. Berry even goes on to say “beneficiaries of higher education,

of whom I am one, often give too much credit to credentials.” The author’s ardent tone for his

country land and his humble writing style help reinforce his use of ethos in this article.
"I have not given, received, or used any unauthorized assistance"