The two main forms of agriculture are subsistence farming and agribusiness. Due to the lack of use of technology, subsistence farming requires intensive labour on the fields. Subsistence farmers are also unable to grow enough food for sale on a large scale and can only provide food for themselves.
In contrast, agribusinesses utilize modern technology and thus require lesser labour on the fields. The term "agribusiness" not only refers to the growing of crops in large scales for sale, but also various businesses involved in farming. Compared to subsistence farming, agribusinesses operate on a much larger scale.
Although both forms of agriculture have its own pro and cons, I support the change in form of agriculture from subsistence farming to agribusiness. While agribusinesses have a greater negative impact on the environment, they can make positive changes to both society and the economy that subsistence farming cannot.
Unlike agribusinesses, subsistence farming cannot contribute much to society and the economy in terms of investments, employment, infrastructure, food security and Research and Development.
Firstly, commercial farming projects attract investments and act as a platform for development. For example, when agribusinesses construct roads, warehouses, training institutions and other facilities for their staff, they are also contributing directly to the country's infrastructural development. In Kenya, the Mumias Sugar Company (MSC) has, over the years built 1500 miles of roads, 3000 homes, a social centre, a sports complex and many schools.
Secondly, agribusinesses require a massive labour force for their operations in both their processing factories and their farms. This creates job opportunities and help to reduce the country's unemployment rate. In Ohio, the entire food and agriculture complex accounts for employment of over 935,400 people, or about one in six jobs in the state.
Thirdly, since agribusinesses are profit-driven, it is likely for them...