c/7. 9 — Advances in Reproductive Biology and Their Effects on Animal Improvement • 171 
ment consultants, equipment manufacturers— 
has accelerated the trend toward specialization, 
and has given the commercial operator more 
time to concentrate on his specific contribution 
to the chain of production. 
Intensification is the increasing use of some 
inputs to production in comparison to others. 
Increasing the use of land and capital relati\ e to 
labor describes the dex elopment of LfS. agricul- 
ture, including li\ estock raising, in this century. 
The 'factory" farm typifies this trend. Herds 
and flocks are l)red, horn, and raised in en- 
closed areas, ne\er seeing a barnyard oi' the 
open range. The best e.xamples of land- and ca[)- 
ital-intensi\e systems are those of poultry 
(layers, broilers, and turkeys), confined hog pro- 
duction, drylot dairy farming, and some \eal 
production. 
The greater use of land has been encouraged 
by several factors, including impro\ ed corn pro- 
duction for confined hog feeding, programs of 
pre\entive medicine curtailing the spread of 
diseases in close spaces, and en\ ironmental con- 
trol (light, temperature, water, humidity) to in- 
crease output under closely controlled condi- 
tions. However, extensive ranching for beef and 
sheep is still common in the United States; the 
difficulties associated with detecting estrus 
("heat") in these species and their relati\ ely slow 
rates of reproduction ha\ e made it uneconom- 
ical to in\ est in them the capital necessary for 
intensi\ e farming. Furthermore, beef and sheep 
on extensi\e systems forage on marginal land 
that might otherwise hav e no use. Beeflot feed- 
ing, or the fattening of cattle before slaughter at 
a centralized location, is the only aspect of the 
beef industry that is land-intensive; in 1977, ap- 
proximately one-fourth of U.S. beef cattle were 
"fed.”' 
Linking phases of production to eliminate 
waste or inefficiencies in the system has pro- 
gressed with great speed. For some species, 
such linkages now extend from breeding to the 
supermarket (and, in the case of fast food 
chains, to the dinner table). Integration includes 
"Lyle P. Schertz, et al.. Another Revolution in U.S. Farming? 
USDA, ESCS, .Agricultural Economic Report No. 441, December 
1979. 
the linking of supiily industries (feeds, medi- 
cines, breeding stock) with production and then 
with marketing services (slaughtering, dressing, 
packaging). Entire industries and the Govern- 
ment in combination have produced a complex 
chain of operations that makes use of Govern- 
ment inspectors, the pharmaceutical industry, 
equipment manufacturers, the transportation 
industry, and the processed feed industry in ad- 
dition to the traditional commercial farmer. 
Because of this complex linkage, meat grades, 
cuts, and packaging have become fairly stand- 
ard in the .American supermarket. Shoppers 
have come to expect these standards; consum- 
ers wanting special services have learned to pay 
more for them. Thus, the American farm has 
changed radically ov er the past 30 years. This 
change has been described as follows:® 
As farming enterprises grow larger, their 
management have to equip themselves with in- 
formation and resort to technologists to help 
them reach decisions and plan for more distant 
goals. Industrial developments of this kind 
widen the range of farming activities, since the 
old style farmer, sensitiv'e to local markets and 
operating on hunches, remains as a contrast to 
those for whom farming is rapidly becoming 
more of a programme than a way of life. 
Resistance to change 
New technologies in U.S. agriculture and new 
ways of producing food and fiber have been 
both a cause and an effect of the movement 
from farms to cities in the 20th century. Com- 
mercial farmers, operating on thin or nonexist- 
ent profits and under extreme competition, 
have had strong reason to innovate. They have 
been forced by the availability of new technol- 
ogies either to do so or to watch their potential 
earnings go to the neighboring farmer. Various 
policies that have been adopted to soften the im- 
pacts of the "technological treadmill,” have 
somewhat slowed the exodus from the farms. 
They may have been adopted for social reasons, 
but they have also become increasingly costly to 
society. The taxpayer pays for them; the con- 
sumer pays as well for every failure to innovate 
on the farms. 
*Cundiff, et at, op. cit., p. 9. 
