As the agricultural community dwindles, words like farming, ranching, livestock, and pesticides, have become dirty words to some. They have become words almost synonymous with environmental degradation, pollution, and emissions. 

If you ask most people involved in agriculture, they’ll tell you preserving nature is important to their livelihoods. They might point out how soil with proper pH and plenty of microorganisms offers better crop yields. They might discuss how the presence of livestock on a previously barren landscape can rejuvenate grasslands and bring native plants and animals back after being long dormant or absent.

Once upon a time, the United States was shaped by the notion of Manifest Destiny; the belief in the inevitable settlement of the Americas. That idea has been largely abandoned by modern farming in favor of practices that preserve and cooperate with the environment. Farmers and ranchers have learned from their forebears that weeds develop tolerance to herbicides, not unlike people developing tolerances to antibiotics. Early adopters of crop rotations discovered the need to replenish soil content by rotating in a new crop with a different nutrient make up.

In virtually every science-based business there is a recognition of evolution: as information and technology improve, so does the practice. And, while agriculture has evolved, the pervasive belief about agriculture is that it follows a doomsday cycle of using up the good parts of a location and abandoning it for literal and figurative greener pastures. 

The problem with this vision of agriculture is there are farms and ranches operating today in the same place in which they were established several hundred years ago. If farmers and ranchers are so nihilistic in their approaches to the environment, how do those farms and ranches continue to survive?

Even Washington state, a relatively young state in the Union, boasts several farms that were established before statehood. In a report compiled by the Washington State Department of Agriculture in 2014, it noted more than 400 farms reached centennial status and nearly 300 still existed in 2014. More impressive, the same report noted 253 of those farms were under the ownership of the same family that created them.

Environmental activists have made it their bread and butter to cast farmers and ranchers in a poor light. Yet, activists point to practices like minimizing logging without considering forest health or allowing wild horse and burro herds to roam free without management as better ways to address environmental needs. The zealotry built into these ideologies has contributed to catastrophic wildfires throughout the Western United States and an unchecked, feral equid population that has had a significant effect on the ecosystems they inhabit. 

The difference between farmers and ranchers and activists lies in what they witness. Farmers and ranchers are present for the entire life cycle of the plants and animals for which they care. It is their responsibility to determine how best to prepare soil, maintain a clean water source, provide food (fertilizer), and protect from pests (herbicides and pesticides), and more in the case of crops. In the case of livestock, clean water, a nutritious diet, safe shelter, veterinary care, proper transportation, a humane harvest, and more are all considerations that must be taken by their owners. 

Activism is often focused on a single moment in time or a single part of the agricultural cycle. Veganism advocates for the avoidance of consumption or use of animal products. Organic activists eschew the use of conventional pesticides and herbicides in crops and antibiotics in livestock. Still other activists push to end the ownership of animals entirely. Some activists are focused specifically on how animals are housed, believing all animals should be kept in a free-range environment rather than having fences and barns. In other cases, activists may espouse all these notions and more; there is a message to suit every preference.

When examining the messaging around agriculture, particularly messaging delivered from people outside agriculture, sifting fact from fiction becomes challenging. Activists narrow their focus to a singular event or scope rather than considering the larger context of an experience. If a claim seems outlandish or extreme, it probably is. In a world where almost anything is available with the click of a button, it can be easy to fall down a rabbit hole. But, sometimes, we all need to step back and consider a holistic view of life cycles and experiences.

Claims from activists that farmers and ranchers are the primary sources of pollution and climate change should ring false to everyone. When people take a moment to consider that farmers and ranchers need healthy soils, clean water, fresh air, and healthy animals to earn their living, it becomes harder to believe that polluting the environment would be part of their business practices. Perhaps, once a upon a time, care and consideration for the land were not part of the business model for many in agriculture but businesses that want to remain competitive must adapt to survive. Agriculture is no different from any other business in that sense.