This is a simplistic analysis. Farmers have to time things around season, weather events, water availability (e.g. almost dry wells), floods, and many other variables changing all the time. For example, after heavy rains machines can't get into the field because they get stuck. And if you plant right before rains then when the mud dries it becomes too hard for seedlings to break it. Making all this work is very hard.

Of course, many places are out of control blindly dumping fertilizer and herbicides. But that's mostly China and Third World countries. It would be smart to focus first on fixing things there. It's the same as with CO2 emissions. Don't put unrealistic demands in developed countries while leaving the rest to do whatever.

Are you replying the the right comment? I offered no analysis. I'm just not into Lysenkoism or generalized anti-intellectualism on principle. I don't think it is productive to attack the people making an argument instead of the argument itself, especially when you make the most negative assumptions about who they are.

I'm sure that there is merit in what you say and that you probably have experience. My only experience in farming was directly in the fields, none in any sort of decision-making.

Do you really think that farmers in developing countries have it easier than those in developed countries? That they can more easily afford the cost of environmental regulation?

The carbon footprint of the average American or Canadian is about 14 tones per year. For India, Indonesia, and Brazil it's about 2 tons per year. Thus it is fair to expect developed countries to do more to tackle climate change.

Having said that, industrial agriculture done right is better for the environment because it's more efficient. The amount of land needed to feed an average person is minimised, thus there's less pressure to convert forests, grasslands and peat bogs to farmland.