The Origins of “Get Big or Get Out”

In the early 1970s, American agriculture stood at a critical juncture. Earl Butz, appointed as Secretary of Agriculture by President Richard Nixon in 1971, ushered in a radical shift in agricultural policy that would transform the landscape of American farming for generations8. Butz’s approach was crystallized in his now-infamous mantra to farmers: “get big or get out,” coupled with his encouragement to plant “fencerow to fencerow”8. These weren’t mere suggestions but represented a fundamental reimagining of American agriculture.

Butz dismantled many New Deal-era farm support programs that had previously stabilized food prices1. Instead of managing supply, he promoted maximum production and emphasized exports to handle inevitable surpluses1. His policies were initially celebrated during a brief boom period when the Soviet Union negotiated a multiyear contract for wheat and feed grains in 1972, causing wheat prices to double and corn prices to triple15.

During his tenure from 1971 to 1976, Butz engineered legislation that sharply reduced federal subsidies for farmers and promoted a free-market policy14. His approach coincided with the rise of major agribusiness corporations and accelerated the decline of small family farms8. As one Reddit commenter noted, “Butz’s policies were intentionally crafted to leverage food as a tool of geopolitical strategy; he famously stated, ‘Food is a weapon.'”6

The Statistical Reality of Farm Decline

The impact of Butz’s policies is starkly visible in the agricultural census data. As your graph illustrates, the United States had approximately 4.2 million farms in 1970. By 1980, just a few years after Butz left office, that number had plummeted to 3.2 million.

The decline continued steadily in subsequent decades:

• 1990: 2.8 million farms
• 2000: 2.35 million farms
• 2010: 2.0 million farms
• 2020: 1.9 million farms

The most recent 2022 Census of Agriculture reveals that the number of U.S. farms has fallen below 2 million for the first time since the census began, with total farmland dropping to 880 million acres—the lowest since 185011. Between 2017 and 2022 alone, the United States lost 141,733 farms, representing a 6.9% decline13.

While the number of farms decreased, their average size increased—from approximately 400 acres in 1970 to 463 acres in 2022, a 5% increase from 20177. This statistics clearly reflect the consolidation that Butz’s policies encouraged: fewer, larger farms producing more food.

The Consequences for Rural America

The “Get Big or Get Out” mentality fundamentally altered rural America’s social and economic landscape. As smaller farms disappeared, so did the economic foundations of many rural communities4. The policy changes set in motion by Butz accelerated several disturbing trends:

Corporate Consolidation

Large agribusiness corporations gained unprecedented control over the food system. By 2022, farms with sales greater than $1 million increased from 79,386 in 2017 to 107,742 in 2022, while farms with sales greater than $5 million nearly doubled from 8,972 in 2017 to 16,2263.

Growing Inequality

The largest 1% of producers receive 24% of government commodity payments, and 10% get 73% of farm bill subsidies2. Meanwhile, many small to mid-sized farms struggle to survive. Many of the farms that failed between 2017 and 2022 were those with farm sales between $100,000 and $500,000, or farms with sales less than $10,0003.

Rural Community Decline

With fewer farmers came reduced economic activity in rural towns. As one farmer noted on Reddit, “My dad grew up on a very diverse farm with tons of revenue streams – exactly what kind of farm I want to do. But because of guys like Butz, Dad sold everything that wasn’t a milk cow and only did milk for near 30 years.”6

Human Costs

The toll on farm families has been severe. Musician John Mellencamp, a Farm Aid board member, pointed out a tragic statistic: “Suicides have replaced equipment-related deaths as the No. 1 cause of family farm deaths—so that’s why we’re still doing Farm Aid.”2

The Birth of a New Movement: “Get Small and Get In”

In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the problems created by the industrialization of agriculture. A counter-movement to Butz’s philosophy has emerged, which we might characterize as “Get Small and Get In”—emphasizing sustainability, diversity, and community over pure production and profit.

This movement encompasses several approaches:

Sustainable and Regenerative Agriculture

Many farmers are adopting practices that work with natural systems rather than against them, reducing dependence on chemical inputs and focusing on soil health10.

Local Food Networks

Building regional food systems that connect consumers directly with farmers has become increasingly popular. Small-scale farms are finding success with slogans like “Finer Tastes from Our Farm to You” and “Elegantly Fresh, Naturally Sustainable”5.

Support for Beginning Farmers

Initiatives to help new and young farmers establish viable operations are growing. The 2022 Census of Agriculture showed a slight increase in the number of beginning farmers and young producers under 35, providing some optimism amid the overall decline9.

Questioning the Status Quo

Current USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has explicitly connected the recent decline in farm numbers to “policies that furthered a ‘get big or get out’ mindset.”7 In February 2024, he posed a critical question: “As a country, are we okay with losing that many farms? Are we okay with losing that much farmland or is there a better way?”9

Organizations like Agrarian Trust are working to protect farmland and support a new generation of sustainable farmers. Their work explicitly challenges what they call “Butz’s Law of Economics” and seeks to create alternatives to industrial agriculture10.

The Path Forward

Fifty years after Earl Butz first told farmers to “get big or get out,” American agriculture continues to grapple with his legacy. The decline in farm numbers and the consolidation of agricultural production have transformed rural America and our food system in ways that many now recognize as problematic.

The emerging “Get Small and Get In” philosophy represents a different vision for American agriculture. While large-scale industrial agriculture remains dominant, the growing interest in alternative approaches suggests that the future of farming might not be determined solely by size.

The challenge for American agriculture in the coming decades will be finding a balance that can feed a growing population while preserving the environmental, social, and economic foundations that make farming viable for future generations. This may require moving beyond both “get big or get out” and “get small and get in” to create a diverse agricultural system that has room for farms of many sizes and types, united by a commitment to sustainability and resilience.

Conclusion

The bar graph you’ve shared powerfully illustrates a half-century of agricultural transformation in America. Behind those declining numbers lies a complex story of policy choices, economic pressures, and changing values. As we look to the future, perhaps the lesson is not that one size of farm is inherently better than another, but that diversity, sustainability, and community must be central to agricultural policy if we want a food system that nourishes both people and the planet.

For those interested in promoting the “Get Small and Get In” approach, the time may be right to champion this alternative vision through education, policy advocacy, and direct support for beginning and small-scale farmers. The statistics make clear that without intervention, the trend toward fewer, larger farms will likely continue—but they also reveal an opportunity to chart a new course for American agriculture.