Large farms are probably beneficial for the labor conditions that exist today, because the labor conditions that exist today were designed to benefit large farms.

Rural places were very different, say, at the beginning of the 20th century, when the agrarian ideal was still possible or at least the touchstone of our relationship with agriculture and rural places. It sounds like Manuel is a migrant laborer, and for migrant laborers, who do not live in the communities where the farm is located, and who do not (obviously) own their own land, it may be the best situation to be in a highly organized, bureaucratic work environment where government oversight can better ensure fair work conditions. But the idealized agrarian work environment was about people who lived in the communities where the farms were located (and this is something that many people are trying to get back to), who were neighbors helping neighbors, or just the poor, landless helping the richer, landed.

One of the problems with the agricultural ownership patterns of today that makes agrarianism practically impossible is that rural communities have changed fundamentally, from providing food for local or regional tables to providing food for a global marketplace. This necessitates large farms in order to be able to compete, and since large farms, by definition, mean fewer landowners, we have fewer people who are invested in the rural landscape and fewer people who are actually tied to rural places by "productivist" (agricultural) means. So rural people are, by and large, not working in the fields. Who works in the fields? The people we can pay the least, who we are not obligated to: migrant laborers.There is a rift, between all people and the land, and between people and people.

I am not trying to diminish the importance of migrant labor, either for our own food economy or for the places that benefit from money sent home. But I think that saying "big is better" is a teleological argument. It is because it happened that way - the final purpose is explained by the events that led to it. Well, duh. There are alternatives, and these alternatives include forging new relationships between people and the land. Relationships that are built on more than labor conditions, but (just possibly) actual mutual obligation, to neighbors, to land, and even to consumers.

BTW - I have worked in agriculture, and almost entirely with Mexican migrant crews, in a cherry orchard that exported cherries all over the place, even Japan. So it was a globalized, if small, operation. I really don't want this to seem anti-migrant labor. But I think that migrant labor is a product of the agricultural structure, and I do think that it can have negative consequences for the home country, and for the families that are separated.

Thats more or less my take on this article. I work in agriculture as well, and the tough part about a lot of the things being written about agriculture these days come from folks who are completely disconnected from agriculture, and thne decide they are going to do an "inside" story about it. Its certainly an admirable goal, but as you pointed out, a lot of the time they miss the larger picture.

If someone like this writes an article promoting small, organic farms, they usually miss issues such as the inability to produce enough quantity at a price the majority of folks can afford. They also overlook the inefficiences and yes, environmental problems that can be associated with organic and small scale farming (increased soil erosion from constant tillage to replace chemical weed supression being one example..yes I know there are ways around this too, but its an example).

If someone writes an article extolling the virtues of of large scale monoculture, non diversified farms, they usually leave out the benefits of having a more balanced food production model (what happens if there's a disaster in California...no more veggies for anyone in the rest of the country?) Also, while things may be better on the absolute bottom teir for workers on a large farm, there is virtually zero chance Manuel is going to be able to own a farm of his own, where as on a smaller farm (at least locally here in Northern VA) getting in on the ground floor can lead to learning the skills to run your own small operation one day.

Finally, the article doesn't say it, but it really only applies to produce farming. Grain farmers don't employ much "migrant" labor..in fact many are family operations or solo operations. Same goes for small and midsize livestock producers. Most of the time, the folks doing the work have some "skin in the game" as far as the success of the operation.

The trouble with seeing both sides of an arguement is that there is no easy answer like "EVERYONE SHOULD ONLY EAT ARTISAN BREAD AND ORGANIC LETTUCE!" or "Large insdustrialized agribusiness is the only way to feed the world!" The answer is probably some of column A and some of column B. Do I want to live in a world where all produce comes from California and farming is reduced to "agri-ghettos" around the country...heck no. On the other hand, I small scale organic model cannot supply enough food given people's current eating habits and the world's population.