Walking the Talk of Sustainable Agriculture[1]
The sustainable agriculture “movement” is now at least a decade old. Some may be uncomfortable referring to sustainable agriculture as a “movement.” However, a social movement means nothing more than a sustained organized effort by advocates of a common goal or purpose. And, organized efforts to develop a more sustainable agriculture – an agriculture that can last – has been advocated by enough people for long enough to qualify as a legitimate social “movement.”
Most seem to agree that the sustainable agriculture movement began, at least in the United Stated, when Congress approved a provision of the 1984 Farm Bill which was dubbed as Low Input Sustainable Agriculture, or LISA. Some may contend that sustainable agriculture was just a continuation of the organic farming movement of the 50s and 60s. Others may argue that both the organic and sustainable farming movements are simply continuations of earlier movements, kept alive by farmers who refused to adopt chemical-farming technologies that have dominated agriculture since World War II.
However, sustainable agriculture represents a merging of three different streams of concern. Organic farmers and environmental groups were concerned with the impacts of agricultural chemicals on the natural environment and on human health. Some conventional farmers and agricultural groups were concerned about the impacts of rising costs and falling prices on the agricultural economy. Small farmers and rural advocacy groups were concerned about the impacts of an industrial agriculture on farm families, rural communities, and society as a whole. These three movements joined in defending the LISA program against attacks by agribusiness groups and their allies within the agricultural establishment.[3] These groups held together to save the political identity of the movement by redefining and renaming LISA as the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education or SARE program. Obviously, the SARE program is not synonymous with the “sustainable agriculture movement.” But, the persistence of the SARE program, in the face of relentless efforts to disable or destroy it, bears testimony to the movement’s continuing strength and durability.
Since the early 90s, the sustainable agriculture movement
has continued to grow from within and has picked up allies among likeminded
groups. The issues of economic
globalization, corporate consolidation of the food system, confinement animal
feeding operations, biotechnology, and other more general food safety, health,
and nutrition issues have all helped to strengthen the sustainable agriculture
movement. The movement now encompasses
thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of advocates and active proponents
scattered across the continent and around the globe. At least three annual “sustainable
agriculture” conferences in the
A lot of time and effort was spent in the early days of the movement trying to “define sustainable agriculture.” Some of the earlier questions concerning definition were genuine; sustainability was not a concept that easily fit accepted classification schemes for science-based definitions. Sustainability had undeniable social and ethical dimensions, which made many physical scientists both uncomfortable and skeptical. It was not a bottom-line, economic issue, which alienated the economic and business community. Many different definitions were suggested and many advocates proposed abandoning the word “sustainable” altogether – it was just too difficult to define, and it seemed to alienate too many people. But, the sustainable agriculture movement has persisted and its name has persisted with it.
Today, there is no longer any
real lack of understanding concerning what sustainable agriculture means or
what it requires – at least not among those who are willing to take the issue
seriously. Almost invariably, when
someone today challenges an advocate to define what they mean by sustainable
agriculture, the challenger is simply trying to create confusion in the minds
of others, to avoid being forced to address the real questions of
sustainability. They know intuitively
that the answers to those questions will reveal the reality that conventional
industrial farming systems quite simply are not sustainable.
Sustainability still doesn’t have a "simple little definition"
because it is not a "simple little concept." But, being difficult to define doesn't make
the concept of sustainability any less important. Who is wise enough to provide "simple
little definitions" of love, of hope, of faith, or even of economics or
profit? Yet, few would argue that we
can't deal with such things, because we can't define them, or that they aren't
important. People generally have a good
understanding of the "really big" issues, such as love, hope, faith...
and sustainability, even if they can't easily define them.
Nevertheless, it is certainly worth our continuing time and effort to try to
find ways to communicate the concept of sustainability more effectively to
those who, for the first time, are linking the concept of sustainability to
agriculture. The most basic definition
of sustainable agriculture is “an agriculture that will last” – an agriculture
that can maintain its productivity and value to society, indefinitely. A sustainable agriculture must meet the needs
of people of the present, while leaving equal or better opportunities for those
of the future.
In order to last, a sustainable
agriculture must be ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially
responsible. If a system of agriculture
destroys the productivity of its natural resource base – water, air, or soil –
it eventually will lose its ability to produce, and thus, is not
sustainable. If a system of agriculture
fails financially, it is not sustainable, no matter how ecologically sound it
may be. And, if a system of agriculture
doesn't meet the needs of society, as consumers, producers, and citizens, it
will not be supported by society, and thus, is not sustainable. All three dimensions of sustainability are
necessary – like the three dimensions of a box.
A box without height, width, and length is not a box, and a farm that is
not ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible is not
sustainable.
In somewhat different terms, the concept of sustainability applies the Golden
Rule both within and across generations.
We should take care of ourselves, if we are able, but also care for
others, as we would have them care for us, were we not able to care for
ourselves. And, we should care for those
of future generations, as we would have them care for us, if we were of their
generation and they were of ours. As Ben
Franklin once said, philosophical and religious "commandments" such
as the Golden Rule "are not good for us because they have been commanded
of us, but are commanded of us because they are good for us."
For people who feel no ethical or moral responsibility to take care of the
earth for the benefit of those of future generations, ecological sustainability
may seem foolish. To those who feel no
ethical or moral responsibility to consciously and purposefully consider the
needs of others today, societal sustainability seems naive. To those who choose to pursue only their
individual economic self-interests, sustainability seems irrational. The ethical and moral foundation for
sustainability reflects a more enlightened concept of self-interest.
Caring for others is not a sacrifice, but instead, is a privilege, because the
positive relationships that result from our mutual concerns for each other are
valuable, even essential, to a desirable quality of life. Stewardship of nature, for the benefit of
future generations, is not a sacrifice, but instead, is a privilege, because
stewardship of the earth adds purpose, meaning, and thus, quality to our lives. When we live sustainably, we pursue a more
enlightened self-interest, which recognizes and values the individual,
interpersonal, and spiritual dimensions of our lives. Sustainability ultimately is about sustaining
a desirable quality of life.
This is the rhetoric of sustainability.
No matter how logical or persuasive the arguments, however, they will
not persuade those who are unwilling to address the questions sustainability
raises about the dominate values of contemporary society as well as
conventional agriculture. They will not
believe an ecologically benign agriculture is necessary until they see and feel
the impacts of ecological degradation for themselves. They will not believe a socially just
agriculture is necessary until their family is split apart or their community
is lost. They will not believe that an
economically equitable agriculture is necessary until they face
bankruptcy. The only hope to reach the
skeptics is to convince them that a sustainable agriculture will improve their
quality of life – here and now, not sometime in the future. And they won’t believe that until they see it
for themselves.
The true believers of sustainability also need tangible evidence that the prospects for creating a sustainable agriculture are real. Much of the optimism that bloomed early in the movement for a quick and easy transition to sustainability has faded with the passing of time and continued resistance to change. However, the movement has not failed as many of its opponents predicted – it has not even faltered. It is now obvious that the transition to sustainability will take much time and effort, but the questions remain of how much time, how much effort, and how can we convince others, maybe ourselves, that the movement can succeed? So, even the believers need solid evidence that the rhetoric of sustainability can be transformed into tangible reality.
Thankfully, thousands of farmers
all across
There are literally thousands of these new farmers all
across
While there are no “blueprints” for the New American Farm[4], some basic characteristics are emerging. First, these farmers see themselves as stewards of the earth. They are committed to caring for the land and protecting the natural environment. They have a deep sense of respect and commitment to caring for the land and the things of nature. They work with nature rather than try to control or conquer nature. They fit the farm to their land and climate rather than try to bend nature to fit the way they might prefer to farm. Their farming operations tend to be more diversified than conventional farms – because nature is diverse. Diversity may mean a variety of crop and animal enterprises, crop rotations and cover crops, or managed livestock grazing systems, depending on the type of farm. By managing diversity, these new farmers are able to reduce their dependence on pesticides, fertilizers, and other commercial inputs that squeeze farm profits and threaten the environment. Their farms are more economically viable, as well as more ecologically sound, because they farm in harmony with nature.
Second, these new farmers build relationships. They tend to have more direct contact with their customers than do conventional farmers. Most either market their products direct to customers or market through agents who represent them with their customers. They realize that as consumers each of us values things differently because we have different needs and different tastes and preferences. They produce the things that their customers value most. They have a strong sense of respect for people and appreciation for the value of human relationships. They are not trying to take advantage of their customers to make quick profits; they are trying to create long-term relationships. They market to people who care where their food comes from and how it is produced – locally grown, organic, natural, humanely raised, hormone and antibiotic free, etc. – and, they receive premium prices by producing foods their customers value. Their farms are more profitable as well as more ecologically sound and socially responsible.
These
new farmers challenge the stereotype of the farmer as a fiercely independent
competitor. They freely share
information and encouragement. They form
partnerships and cooperatives to buy equipment, to process and market their
products, to do together the things that they can’t do as well alone. They are not trying to drive each other out
of business; they are trying to help each other succeed. They refuse to exploit each other for short
run gain; they are trying to build long-term relationships. They buy locally and market locally. They bring people together in positive,
productive relationships that contribute to their economic, ecological, and
social well-being. They value people,
for personal as well as economic reasons, and want to build and maintain good
human relationships.
Finally, to these new farmers, farming is as much a way of life as a way to make a living. They are “quality of life” farmers. To them, the farm is a good place to live – a healthy environment, a good place to raise a family, and a good way to become a part of a caring community. Many of these farms create economic benefits worth tens of thousands of dollars, in addition to any reported net farm income. Their “quality of life” objectives are at least as important as the economic objectives in carrying out their farming operations. Their farming operations reflect the things they like to do, the things they believe in, and the things they have a passion for, as much or more than the things that might yield profits. These new farmers are connected spiritually – finding a sense of purpose and meaning for their lives through farming. They respect their neighbors, their customers, the land, and animals because to do so is an ethical and moral thing to do – adding quality to their lives. However, for many, their products are better and their costs are less because by following their passion they end up doing what they do best. Most new farmers are able to earn a decent income, but more important, they have a higher quality of life because they are living a life that they love.
The new sustainable farmer is a thinking farmer. Sustainable farmers must understand nature, in order to work with nature, and understand people, in order to build relationships with other farmers, neighbors, and customers. Sustainable farming requires an ability to translate observation into information, information into knowledge, knowledge into understanding, and understanding into wisdom. Agriculture has been characterized as the first step beyond hunting and gathering. But historically, farming was still considered a low-skill minimum-thinking occupation that almost anyone could do. Industrialization then was said to be the next step beyond agrarianism – beyond agriculture. Higher skilled factory work was considered a step up from farming. Certainly, these new sustainable farming systems involve some hard work, but their success depends far more on thinking than on working. Sustainable farming is the “mind work” of the future, not the “factory work” of the past.
As with all true “mind work,” there are
no recipes to guarantee success or sets of “best management practices” to
insure against failure. These new
farmers must fit their farming operation to the uniqueness of their farm – to
their “place” within both natural and human communities. They must find their own market niche and
develop their unique relationships with their particular customers. They must find a way of farming that fits
their unique perception of a life of quality.
That said, a decade of experiences with these new farmers, from all
across
In the
Grass-based dairies seem to offer the
best economic opportunities with the least investment, for those who have the
necessary skills and temperament. A
successful grass-based dairy farmer must gain some sense of fulfillment from
the long hours of hard work that inevitably comes with any family dairy
operation. However, with fewer cows,
less feeding, and more time spent managing pastures, the new dairies require
fewer routine chores and provide more mental stimulation than do typical
feed-based dairy operations. The greater
economic opportunity from grass-based dairies, compared with grass-based meat
production, is linked with the potential for selling a greater value of product
per acre of pasture. But, the most
telling difference between dairy and beef production is that dairy operations
require more labor and management per cow, and thus, will support more workers
and thinkers per cow.
Many of the new grass-based dairy farmers
make a good living selling raw milk through traditional marketing
channels. They realize a far larger
gross margin per cow – reflecting greater returns to their land, labor, and
management – than do grain-based feeding operations. By utilizing management intensive grazing –
sometimes referred to as planned grazing or rotation grazing – grass-based
dairy farmers are able to reduce the high costs of purchased feed, equipment,
fuel and repairs, medication, etc., generally associated with confinement
livestock feeding operations. Some
producers cut costs further by milking only seasonally, taking maximum
advantage of pastures by drying off all of their cows at once in
mid-winter. Grass-based dairy farmers
are able to make more money, even while milking fewer cows that yield less milk
per cow, because they are able to reduce costs through more intensive
management.
Generally, it is has not been reasonable
to expect to be able to pay for the farm by farming. Thus, beginning farmers have had to rely on
off-farm income or a generous relative to get started in farming. However, there are numerous first-hand
testimonials that it is possible to buy a farm and pay for it in a reasonable
amount of time with a well-managed, grass-based dairy operation. The potential may become even higher as
grass-based dairy farmers find ways to realize the higher potential market
value of “grass-based milk” resulting from growing evidence of superior health
benefits of milk produced from grass.
Switching from conventional to organic
milk production also is a relatively easy step for the grass-based dairy
farmer. Well-managed pastures require
few chemical inputs – replacement of commercial nitrogen fertilizer being
perhaps the greatest challenge. Less
reliance on feed grains reduces costs of purchasing organic grain for
grass-based dairies compared with conventional dairies. Whenever organic farmers are able to market
milk direct to local customers, or even direct to local retailers, the value of
their milk may be expressed in dollars per quart rather than dollars per
hundredweight. And, on-farm milk
processing – pasteurizing, homogenizing, and bottling – is becoming
increasingly affordable, even for very modest sized dairy operations.
The potential for grass-based dairies are
even greater for those with the skills and aptitudes to turn milk into
higher-valued specialty products, such as cheese, yogurt, or ice cream. Cheeses made from sheep and goat milk may
sell for “dollars per ounce.” Of course,
producing and marketing high quality cheeses and other processed products from
milk produced by sheep, goats, or even cows, requires highly specialized skills
and often, years of experience. In other
words, the work is personally, professionally, and economically rewarding
because it requires a lot of individualistic, creative thinking.
The potential for grass-based meat
production, from beef, sheep, and goats, is similar to that of dairy, except
meat production typically requires more land and more livestock to generate a
comparable amount of income. However, by
marketing meat directly to local customers, the value of meat per animal may
actually be greater than the per animal value of milk sold to processors. Some grass-based meat producers increase both
the efficiency of their intensively managed grazing system and the variety of
their products through multi-species grazing of cattle, sheep, goats, and even
poultry on the same farms. Also, the economic value from the greater health
benefits of “grass-fed” meats may be easier to realize through direct sales to
health conscious customers. Economic
limits are more a matter of being unwilling and unable to “think outside of the
box,” than of the type of animal produced.
Organic production is another mean of
adding value to grass-fed meats, since the USDA has recently developed
standards for organic livestock products.
Again, organic production is a relatively easier transition from a
grass-based than conventional system of production. When producers sell direct to local
customers, they also may receive premium prices for meats produced without
hormones and antibiotics, raised under humane conditions, or given free range –
all are highly compatible with grass-based systems. In some instances, doctors may recommend that
patients with allergies or potential sensitivities to antibiotics or hormones
seek out producers who can supply meats without such additives.
Pastured poultry and free-range chickens
and eggs are among the fastest growing of the new farm enterprises. I have never talked with a pasture or
free-range poultry producer who couldn’t sell more birds or eggs than they were
able to produce, at almost any price they choose to charge. Of course, part of this phenomenon is due to
the fact that producers have been limited to processing a limited number of
birds per farm per year, through state regulations of on-farm processing. Until recently, commercial inspected
processors of individual farmer-raised birds have been generally unavailable –
a direct result of the industrialization of poultry. First time consumers of pasture raised and
free-range poultry and eggs are immediately aware they are eating something
fundamentally different from the “factory produced” poultry and eggs they have
bought in the supermarket. The taste,
texture, and color of grass based poultry and eggs are markedly different – in
much the same way that a vine-ripened, freshly picked tomato is different from
a gas-ripened, rock-hard tomato from the supermarket. Thus, the issue of price becomes secondary.
Pork raised on pastures and in open
facilities has much the same customer appeal, with the same basic quality
differences, as pastured and free-range poultry. Hogs and poultry, by nature, get a far larger
proportion of their nutrition from grain or other concentrates than do ruminant
animals. However, access to an outdoor
environment, being able to forage for grass and insects and to root in the
ground, affects the flavor of meat.
Also, the breeds of hogs and poultry supplying supermarket meats were
developed specifically for confinement production – maximum pounds of saleable
product, at a maximum growth rate, and at minimum cost. Thus, flavor, texture, and “substance” have
been sacrificed for the sake of economy.
The “outdoor breeds” simply tend to have more flavor and “substance”
than do the confinement breeds. Pastured
and free-range pork has an added advantage over beef, lamb, or poultry in that
pork is highly marketable in processed as well as fresh forms. Thus, cured pork and sausages provide
excellent opportunities for enhancing both the value, storability, and the
“shelf life” of pork products.
All grass-based and free-range animal
production have the built in advantage of being highly marketable to customers
who are concerned about the social and ethical consequences of industrial food
and farming systems. Grass-based systems
are uniquely adapted to family farming operation because they rely on intensive
management, meaning more management per acre and dollar invested, and thus,
smaller farms. Grass-based systems also
offer a variety of opportunities for people with different skills and
management abilities to be productive, and thus, are well suited to “family
farms.” Grass-based, free-range
production systems are naturally humane environments in which to raise animals
– pastures being most similar to their natural habitat. Certainly, animals can be made to suffer in
such systems, but suffering is virtually unavoidable with factory systems of
production. So, most well managed
grass-based and free-range systems result in products that can be marketed as
raised under humane conditions on family farms.
Animal production systems need not be
completely grass-based or free range to be legitimate family farms, to treat
animals more humanely, or to minimize the negative environmental and social
impacts typical of “animal factories.”
For example, hoop-house hog production systems utilize deep bedding and
composting of solid waste to minimize environmental impacts, and are productive,
economically viable alternatives to conventional “hog factories” for family
farmers. Many grass-based meat producers
feed grains and other feed concentrates to make their products more acceptable
to their customers, but they feed grain to animals while still on pastures or
minimize the period in confinement.
The key to success with sustainable
livestock and poultry systems is to work with nature, giving animals their
natural sources of nutrition in their natural environment as nearly as
possible, to minimize costs of production.
Then, to realize the full value of sustainable production, producers
must develop and maintain relationships with customers who value the unique
quality characteristics of sustainably produced products. In addition, producers and customers alike
must realize and appreciate additional social and ethical benefits, quality of
life benefits, from knowing they are supporting more ecologically sound and
socially responsible systems of production.
In many areas of the country, sustainably
produced crops – grains, vegetables, berries, etc. – seem to offer even greater
potential for success than do livestock enterprises. Organic grain production has been the
mainstay of the sustainable agriculture movement in the
More recently, continued rapid growth in
markets for organic grain has sparked interest among some of the larger
commercial grain producers. New USDA
standards for organic grain production provide farmers with specific sets of
prohibited and allowed production practices, making it possible to produce
“organic crops” without adopting an “organic philosophy” of farming. Many new “industrial organic” growers will
simply substitute allowable “organic inputs” for prohibited “chemical inputs”
rather than learning to work with nature.
When they destroy the natural productivity of one piece of land, they
will simply move to another. It remains
to be seen how long these “industrial organic” operations can continue, but
they will almost certainly narrow the organic premiums and limit the near-term
economic opportunities for “philosophically organic” producers.
The most successful organic producers
today are moving away from marketing “organic commodities” and are moving
toward marketing “organic products.”
Organic grain producers are finding ways to differentiate their grains
from those of other producers – specifically from the “industrial organic”
producers. They are finding niche
markets for specific varieties and qualities of soybeans that the “industrial
producers” are reluctant to grow, because of low yields or stringent production
and handling requirements. Some new
farmers are growing long-neglected specialty grains, such as tritacale, spelt,
kamut, quino, or even popcorn. Many are
cleaning, processing, and packaging their grains for direct sales to individual
customers, soliciting and taking orders by mail, telephone, or Internet. Many are marketing their grains not only as
organic or pesticide free, but also as being grown on family farms using
socially responsible systems of production and processing.
Organic and locally grown vegetables,
berries, and fruits are perhaps the most widely recognized of all sustainable
farming systems. Retail markets for
organic foods have been growing at a rate of more than 20 percent per year for
more than a decade, with organically grown vegetables leading the way. A typical market garden relying on minimal
equipment and family labor probably averages something like five acres in size
and returns around $15,000 to $20,000 in returns to land, labor, and
management. A typical market garden
relying on hired labor and field-scale equipment probably averages around 25
acres and returns around $45,000 to $60,000 to the farmer’s land, labor, and
management. Most of the smaller
producers market directly to their customers, through farmers markets, roadside
stands, community supported agriculture (CSA) organizations, or other direct
marketing methods, and thus, realize the full retail value of their products.
As with organic grains, strong market
demand has sparked the interest of “industrial growers,” and a few large
organic corporations now control a large segment of the wholesale market for
organic fresh produce. As with grains,
independently operated family farmers have had to focus on direct marketing
methods to maintain their economic viability.
Many smaller producers have decided it is not worth the time, money, and
effort for them to remain “certified organic” under the new USDA program. So, many will continue to farm organically
and communicate directly with their customers concerning their farming methods,
rather than sell “certified organic.”
The numbers of farmers markets and CSA
organizations have grown so fast over the past decade that any reported
statistic is woefully out of date. The
important questions for any given producer is not how many such markets exist, but
instead, how close is the nearest farmers market, how many farmers markets are
within a reasonable driving distance.
Or, how many CSAs already exist and how many more can the local market
support? Or maybe, how many cars pass my
farm each day or how many people would come to my farm if I gave them a good
reason? In other words, the relevant
questions are: what are “my” opportunities to market directly to customers in
“my” community.
The primary advantage for sustainable
vegetable, fruit, and berry producers is their ability to choose plant genetics
for flavor, nutrition, and variety rather than for durability during harvest,
transportation, storage, and display.
The very best sweet corn, for example, is on the table within a few
hours of harvest, and this quite simply is not possible with the conventional
system of production and distribution.
And, the difference in flavor between vine-ripe tomatoes and supermarket
tomatoes is legendary. Thus, the
greatest opportunities for sustainable production of vegetables tend to be for
those located in urban fringe areas, or at least near reasonably sized
population centers. However, since
two-thirds of all farms in the
Fruits and some berries are less
perishable than are most vegetables, and thus, may be marketed to more-distant
customers. Processing of fruits and
berries into preserves, jams, juices, etc. further increases marketing
possibilities and widens the logical market area. However, product quality and distinctiveness
and customer relationships are no less important in distant markets than in
local markets. Successful sustainable
producers must offer products that are different, and better in the minds of
their customers, than similar products available from elsewhere. Organic markets also have been profitable
alternatives for some fruit and berry producers – both domestic and
export. Organic fruit production, in
particular, seems to be more challenging than is organic grain or vegetable
production, and thus, has been more difficult to industrialize. But, organic certification or other types of
eco- or family-friendly labels cannot substitute for personal relationships in
either distant or local markets.
The variety of opportunities for
sustainable farming is far too great to enumerate. Literally thousands of farmers all across
Of course, many so-called sustainable
farming operations do not succeed, and thus, turn out to be
non-sustainable. Most such farms probably
fail economically, but their lack of economic viability is often rooted in
their lack of ecological integrity or failure to provide an acceptable social
quality of life.
Some new farmers come into farming from
non-farm backgrounds with unrealistic and idealistic expectations regarding the
fundamental nature of farm life.
Sustainable farmers are thinking farmers but they are also working
farmers – thinking worker or working thinkers, but not thinkers who don’t
work. This linking of working and thinking
makes sustainable farms unique, and thus, is the key to their success. Those who are willing to think, but not work,
or are willing to work, but not think, and worse yet, neither think nor work,
are destined to fail.
Some new farmers are physically unable to
farm sustainably. Physical strength can
be built up through the exercise of hard work.
So, it is not necessary to be physically strong to begin farming, but is
necessary to become and remain strong to continue farming. There are numerous examples of farmers who
were successful organic farmers in their early years but began to falter, as
they grew older. Some gave up and quit
farming. Others, however, found ways to
diversify into marketing and processing, turning more of the physical work over
to others, and thus, were able continue.
Over the longer run, however, each generation of farmers must find ways
to bring younger people into their operations if their farms are to be truly
sustainable. Sustainable farmers know
that there is nothing wrong with hard work, it’s actually good for us, but our
physical ability to work inevitably diminishes with age.
Some new farmers fail because they are
mentally unable to farm sustainably.
It’s not that sustainable farming is beyond the mental capacity of
anyone, but many people simply cannot break away from the old mechanistic,
industrial worldview. Sustainable
farming will never make sense to these people.
They have a mindset constantly reinforcing their belief that the only
way to do anything effectively is to specialize, standardize, and centralize
decision making. They are incapable of
“thinking outside of the industrial box.”
These farmers see organic production as just another set of “best
management practices” and organic markets as just another way to “exploit
misguided consumers.” They may succeed
in wringing a few more dollars of profits out of their farming operations, but
their farms will never be sustainable.
Another fairly common reason for failure
among “sustainable” farmers is economic success. Some have become so successful financially
that they have drifted back into old, industrial ways of thinking. After a while, they begin to make some “real
money.” They then begin thinking, if
they just worked harder, borrowed more money, hired more workers, bought more
equipment, if the operation was just larger, they just might become
wealthy. Soon they are working so hard
that they don’t have time to spend with their family or to enjoy life. They have lost all personal contact with
their customers; they no longer treat their employees like real people, and are
deep in debt – perhaps making a lot of money, but nonetheless, are
miserable. The more fortunate sell their
successful operation to some corporation that is only interested in making even
more money. The less fortunate lose
their health, their family, their farm, and sometimes their life, because it
became “too successful.”
The “failure through success” phenomenon
is also common among farmer’s cooperative ventures – particularly, among the
“new age cooperatives.” Many such
ventures fail because they are operated like farmer-owned “corporations,”
rather than farmer-owned “cooperatives” – they don’t do anything very
“different.” Those few that succeed
become seen as direct competitors with their larger corporate
counterparts. If they become
sufficiently successful, they may be given an option – offered by their larger,
more powerful corporate competitor – either to sell out for a profit or to be
driven out of business. Those who choose
to sell may make a handsome return on their initial investment, but their
cooperative venture is over. Those who
choose to take on the corporate world, head-to-head, are almost certain to
fail.
The good news is that in spite of
difficulties, frustrations, and occasional failures, more and more farmers are
finding ways to succeed. Thousands of
new farmers all across
These new farmers are building
relationships of trust, integrity, honesty, and dependability with their customers,
with their neighbors, and indirectly, with society. They value sustainable farming for ecological
and social as well as economic reasons.
They market to the growing numbers of potential customers who are
willing to support ecologically sound and socially responsible systems of
production with their time and money.
They create farming systems that can last, for the benefit of all people
for all times. These new farmers are
walking the talk of sustainable agriculture.
[1] Prepared for presentation at the Nebraska
Sustainable Agriculture Society Annual Conference, Aurora, NE, February 22,
2003.
[2] John Ikerd is Professor Emeritus,
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO – USA.
E-mail: JEIkerd@AOL.COM web site: http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd
[3] The agricultural
establishment refers to USDA, the Land Grant Universities, Commodity
Groups, major farm organizations, and other advocates of continuing
agricultural industrialization.
[4] For 50 real life examples, see “The New
American Farmer – Profiles in Agricultural Innovation,” the SARE Program, USDA,
Washington DC. ($10 US – call:
802-656-0484 or e-mail: sanpubs@uvm.edu ,
also available free on line at http://www.sare.org/newfarmer )