Science in farming — agree or disagree that it always brings major benefits

Modern farming would be unrecognisable to a farmer of a century ago, and it is often claimed that scientific progress in agriculture invariably brings major benefits. I agree that the gains have been enormous, but the word 'always' overstates the case.

The achievements are undeniable. Higher-yielding varieties of rice and wheat allowed food production to grow faster than the population during the twentieth century, averting famines that had been widely predicted. Mechanisation removed much of the back-breaking labour from harvesting, while drip irrigation and soil sensors now allow farmers to apply water and fertiliser only where they are actually needed. Refrigerated storage and improved transport have also cut the proportion of a harvest that rots before it reaches a market, which matters as much as growing more in the first place.

Even so, several developments have brought consequences that were not intended. The heavy use of pesticides has been linked to sharp declines in bees and other pollinators, on which a third of our crops depend. Growing a single high-yield variety across vast areas leaves the land vulnerable to a single disease and gradually exhausts the soil. Expensive machinery, meanwhile, tends to favour large operations: smallholders who borrow to buy a tractor can find themselves trapped in debt, and farm labourers lose work. In such cases the technology is not the problem so much as the way it is introduced.

My conclusion is therefore a qualified one. Science has transformed agriculture for the better, and will have to do so again as the climate changes. But the benefits are not automatic: they depend on sensible regulation, on training for farmers and on watching for effects that appear only after a decade.