Small Farms: The Foundation for Long-Run Food Security from Missouri.edu

[Guest guest]

Interesting article

from Univ. of Missouri. Italics mine.

www.MajestyFarm.com

" Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car

keys to teenage boys. " P.J. O'Rourke

http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/IllSmall.html

Small Farms: The Foundation for

Long-Run Food Security[1][1]

Ikerd[2][2]

American

agriculture is in the midst of a “great transition.” Agriculture

as we have known it, with family farms and viable rural communities, is being

rapidly transformed into an industrial agriculture, with factory farms and

dying rural communities. Such times of change are times of great risks but

also times of great opportunity. There are no guarantees of survival or

success. But, an understanding of the forces of change can be quite helpful in

coping with the risks of change and in realizing the opportunities. The forces

driving change in American agriculture today are the continuing forces of

industrialization.

The

industrialization of agriculture is not a new phenomenon. The trend toward

specialization, standardization, and consolidation – toward

industrialization – began around the turn of the 20th century,

with the mechanization of agriculture. However, the chemical technologies that

emerged from World War II, particularly commercial fertilizers and pesticides,

accelerated the industrialization process. Until recently, the most obvious

consequence of this process had been larger farms, fewer farms, and fewer farm

families. But, farmers and families, real people, were still making the

decisions concerning what was produced, how it was produced, who it was

produced for, and they considered how their decisions might affect the land and

their neighbors.

Until recently,

the specialization, standardization, and consolidation of farming had been

driven by the decisions of individual, family farmers. Farmers freely chose to

adopt the new mechanical and chemical technologies, many of which were

developed through publicly supported research, because they seemed to promise

increased profits. These technologies invariably promised greater production

efficiency, which would reduce cost per unit of production, leaving the farmer

with a wider profit margin. Increased efficiency generally meant that each

farmer could produce more than before, in fact, needed to produce more to justify the new technological investment and

to realize the full benefit of the new technology.

However, the

“early adopters” were the only farmers to realize increased

profits. As more and more farmers adopted a new technology, a new kind of

machine or agri-chemical, total production invariably increased, because each

farmer now was compelled to produce more. The new technologies allowed farmers

to reduce costs per unit, but only if they produced more units. With increased production, market prices invariably

fell, leaving even the innovators no better off than before. The later adopters rarely had a chance to recoup

their investment before prices fell and profits were gone. In cases

where the government supported commodity prices, land prices rose instead, with

the same net effect on profits. Eventually, technological adoption was

motivated by survival rather than profits, and those farmers who adopted too

late didn’t survive.

Some farmers had

to fail so others could expand – could farm more land or produce more

livestock – in order to realize the full benefits of the new

technologies. In fact, prices invariably stayed low enough long enough to

force enough farmers out of business to accommodate the new industrial

technologies. And, after each

“technological adjustment” was complete, there was always another

round of technology waiting for adoption. Chronic crisis and continuing farm

failures have been a necessary consequence of agricultural

industrialization.

The current

“corporatization” of agriculture is but the final stage of the

industrialization process. As the new technologies have required larger and

larger operations to justify the new investments, capital requirements have exceeded the credit capacity of all but the

largest of individual farmers. Many farmers have formed family corporations to

enhance their ability to raise investment capital. Increasingly, however, only

the “publicly owned” corporations are able to meet the agricultural

capital requirements of an increasingly industrial agriculture.

Economists now proclaim corporate contracts as farmers’ only means of

gaining access to the technology, capital, and markets they will need to be

competitive in the 21st century. Most of the land and basic

production facilities are still owned by individual farmers and family

corporations, but production increasingly is carried out under direction of

giant agribusiness corporations.

The

industrialization and corporatization of American agriculture has been

supported by government policies – including government farm programs and

publicly supported research and education programs. The overriding objective

of such policies has been to increase the efficiency of agriculture for the

ultimate benefit of consumers, in the form of lower food prices. The political rhetoric in support of family farming

has continued; but government programs obviously have supported continued

specialization, standardization,

and consolidation, which have ensured the demise of the family farm.

At the signing of the new “Farm Security and Rural

Investment Act of 2002,” the President said, “The farm bill will strengthen

the farm economy… will promote farmer independence, and preserve the farm

way of life for generations.” These same kinds of claims have been made

for every U.S. Farm Bill since the 1930s. Yet, the farm economy has

continually floundered and American agriculture has limped from one crisis to

the next. And now, independent family farmers are becoming a rarity. This new

Farm Bill will not do any of the things promised. It simply continues the policies of the past, which subsidize wealthy

landowners and the agribusiness corporations, at the expense of family farmers.

The new Farm Bill won’t promote farmer independence or preserve the farm

way of life. It most certainly will not provide for either “farm

security” or “food security,” nor will it improve the lives

of people in rural America

With increasing

corporate control of the food system, even those independent producers with

lower cost than the contract producers are finding it difficult to compete.

The corporations now control much of the new technology, particularly

biotechnology, to which farmers can gain access only through contractual

arrangements. Large corporate processors increasingly procure nearly all of

their raw materials through contracts, thus denying market access, or at least

denying competitive markets, to non-contract producers. The corporatization of

agriculture is now driven much more by the quest for increased market share and

greater market power than for increased production efficiency.

Family

corporations are not all that different from individuals; their decisions

reflect the basic values of the family. Even with “closely held”

corporations, with few stockholders, decisions can still reflect the basic

social and ethical values of the owners. However, once the number of

stockholders becomes large, as in large publicly held corporations, and

management is essentially separated from ownership, the motives for decision

making become profits and growth. Most of the stock in such corporations is

owned by mutual funds and pension funds, and the stockholders are concerned

foremost, if not completely, with growth in the value of their investment. A corporately controlled agriculture is fundamentally

different from the agriculture we have known in the past.

Americans

are losing control over American agriculture. Increasingly,

the decisions concerning what will be produced, how much will be produced,

where it will be produced, how it will be produced, and who will produce it,

are being made, not by American citizens, but by multinational corporations.

The people who own the land and do the work may still be Americans, but someone

else, somewhere else, is making the decisions. For the most part, contractual

arrangements determine who makes the decisions, leaving “producers”

as little more than landlords, tractor drivers, or hog house janitors, but certainly not

with the traditional role of “farmer.”

The

agribusiness corporations dictating the terms of these contracts are legal

entities but they are not people. They have no families, no friends, no

communities, and increasingly, no national citizenship. The people who work

for these corporations are real people and are citizens of some nation –

with families, friends, and communities. But, once corporate ownership is

separated from management, as in the case of most publicly held corporations,

the people within corporations have no choice but serve the economic needs of

the corporation for profits and growth. The multinational agribusiness

corporations that increasingly control American agriculture have stockholders

scattered throughout the world, and thus, have no citizenship.

Increasingly, the

multinational corporations will find it more profitable to produce somewhere

other than in America.

Our land and labor costs are simply too high for America to compete with places

such as South America, Australia, South Africa, or China in production of basic

agricultural commodities – corn, soybeans, hogs, cattle, cotton, rice,

etc. We have higher-paying employment opportunities for our labor and

higher-valued residential uses for our land. Eventually, the agribusiness

corporations, having no commitment to producing in America, simply will move their

operations elsewhere – to somewhere that will give their stockholder a

higher return on their investment.

In their

struggle to stay competitive in global markets, American producers will feel

compelled to accept contractual arrangements that result in the exploitation of

both land and people. The industrialization of poultry and hog production,

with large-scale confinement animal feeding operations, provides a prime

example of such exploitation. These operations consistently pollute the rural

environment with odors and waste, yield minimum returns at best for laborers and

investors, and drive family farming operations out of business. Even so, they

are becoming the only means by which producers can gain access to markets. The

same basic trend is already well underway in dairy; and with genetic patenting

and biotechnology, corporate control of crop production will soon follow.

Before

corporate agriculture abandons America,

they will have turned much of rural America into a

“third-world” wasteland. Polluted streams and groundwater,

abandoned waste lagoons, eroded and depleted topsoil, depleted aquifers, rural

crime, a de-skilled workforce, and decaying rural communities; these will be

the legacies of the corporatization of American agriculture. Americans

will fight back with more environmental rules and regulations, but eventually,

short-run economic considerations will prevail. Ultimately, however, the

corporations will find it cheaper to produce food and fiber elsewhere in the

world. And with a global, “free market” economy, there will be

nothing to keep them from moving their agricultural operations elsewhere.

We don’t need a lot of data, facts, or figures to

understand what is happing to American agriculture; it’s just plain

common sense. In making agriculture more efficient, we have chosen industrial

technologies and methods, which have resulted in fewer, larger farming

operations, and now, in corporate control of agriculture. In the process, we have lost both the security of our

farms and the food security of our nation. These outcomes are the

logical consequences of the objectives and strategies we have pursued. We have

sacrificed our security for the sake of efficiency. It’s not all that

difficult to understand; it’s just common sense.

Economists

argue we need not be concerned about becoming dependent upon the rest of the

world for our food. They suggest it is only logical that America moves

beyond farming in the new global era of economic development, that we have

higher valued uses for our land and labor resources. We will be even better

fed at a lower cost, they say, because food can now be produced cheaper

elsewhere in the world. But in times of crisis, a nation that can’t feed

itself is no more secure than is a nation that can’t defend itself. Perhaps we won’t abandon agriculture

completely, but we could easily become as dependent on the rest of the world

for our food as we are today for our oil. Perhaps, we can keep our

food imports flowing, as we do for oil, but how large a military force will it

take, how many “small wars” will we have to fight, and how many

people will be killed.

Many consumers, members of the public, seem to agree with the

economists. They don’t see anything wrong with a corporately controlled,

industrial agriculture, and they are not particularly concerned. As long as the

corporations can give them food that is quick, convenient, and cheap, they are

not going to ask too many questions. They aren’t all that concerned

about where their food comes from, who produces it, how it is produced, and

what the consequences are for rural people and for the land. Many trust the

competitive forces of a “global free market” economy to ensure that

the needs of society are met.

However, a growing number of people are concerned about the

corporate industrialization of agriculture. They are concerned about what it

is doing to the lives of farm families who are losing control of land that has

been in their families for generations. They are concerned about people in

rural communities who have supported and been supported by those family farms.

They are concerned about the low-pay and long hours in the food processing

factories that have moved into some of these chronically depressed rural

areas. They are concerned about the landfills, toxic waste dumps, and giant

livestock feeding operations that pollute the once pristine rural environment

with dangerous chemicals, biological wastes, and hazardous stench. They are

concerned about the ability of the soil to continue to produce after the

topsoil is eroded and it is saturated with chemicals and about the quality of

water subjected to similar abuses. They are concerned about the safety of

their food and safety of the people who work to produce it. They are concerned

about the negative impacts of an industrial agriculture on the people who farm

the land, who live in rural areas, who eat the food. They are concerned about

those of future generations who will still be as dependent upon the land for

their sustenance, their very survival, as we are today. They are concerned

about the sustainability of agriculture.

This growing concern for agricultural sustainability is

raising some “common sense” questions about our food system. It

asks, how can we equitably meet the needs of people in the present, while

leaving equal or better opportunities for those of the future – not just

how can we make food quick, convenient, and cheap? It asks, how can we develop

an agriculture that is ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially

responsible – not just how can we make agriculture more economically

efficient? It asks, how can we ensure our long run food security – not

just our current abundance? Sustainability asks how can we sustain a desirable

quality of human life on this earth, individually, socially, and ethically

– both for ourselves and for those of future generations?

Sustainable farming systems must be ecologically

sound, economically viable, and socially responsible. All three are essential; more of one

cannot offset a lack of either of the other two. The three dimensions of sustainability are not a

part of some formal or legal definition, but instead, are a matter of common

sense. If the land loses its ability to produce, the farm is not sustainable.

If the farmer goes broke, the farm is not sustainable. And if a system of farming

fails to support society, it will not be supported by society, and thus, is not

sustainable. The economic, ecological, and social dimensions of sustainability

are like the three dimensions of a box. All are necessary. A box that is

lacking in height, width, or length, quite simply is not a box. A farming

system that is lacking in ecological integrity, economic viability, or social

responsibility, quite simply is not sustainable.

There is growing evidence that current concerns for the sustainability

of agriculture are well founded – that a corporate industrial food

system, in fact, is not sustainable. The threats to the natural

environment and to the quality of life of farmers, rural residents, and members

of society as a whole have continually risen as we have industrialized American

agriculture. The same technologies that support our specialized, standardized,

large-scale farming systems are now the primary sources of growing

environmental degradation. Commercial fertilizers and pesticides – essential

elements in a specialized, industrialized agriculture – have become a

primary source of growing concerns for environmental degradation and food

safety. And, industrialization has transformed agriculture, created for the

fundamental purpose of converting solar energy to human-useful form, into a

mechanized agriculture that uses more non-renewable fossil energy than it

captures in solar energy from the sun.

The long run food

security of America

ultimately depends on the sustainability of its agriculture. Once a nation

depletes or destroys the productivity of its agricultural base – its

soils, its irrigation aquifers, its biological diversity, its agricultural

knowledge base, its farming culture – its food supply is no longer

secure. If such a nation is strong militarily, it must be willing to go to war

to ensure its food supplies. If such a nation is weak militarily, it is

continually subject to “blackmail” from food producing nations. A

nation without sufficient agricultural resources is more vulnerable than a

nation without sufficient energy resources. People can live without gasoline

but not without food. A nation that allows its agricultural resources to be

exploited for short-run economic gains is more foolish than a nation that

exploits its energy reserves to ensure the wealth of its leaders. Fossil fuels

are non-renewable, and thus, eventually will be depleted. It’s just a

matter of when. Agricultural resources, on the other hand, are regenerative

and renewable – if they are nurtured, cared for, and conserved. The long

run security of any nation depends on its willingness and ability to ensure the

sustainability of its food and farming systems.

No one set about

intentionally to destroy the ecological integrity, social responsibility, or

economic viability of American agriculture. We simply lost sight of the

fundamental purpose of agriculture, to meet the needs of people – as

consumers, as producers, as members of rural communities, and of society. In

our preoccupation with making agriculture more productive, we have taken the

thinking out of farming; we have degraded the occupation of farming, and

diminished the intellectual, social, and economic rewards of being a farmer.

In our preoccupation with increasing economic efficiency, to bring down the

cost of food, we neglected to monitor what was happening to the overall quality

of life of people. In our preoccupation with increasing production today, we

neglected to monitor the ecological legacy we were leaving those of future

generations. In our preoccupation with remaining economically competitive in a

global economy, we have sacrificed our long run food security. We don’t need a lot of data, facts,

or figures to understand what has happened to American agriculture; it’s

just plain common sense.

Thankfully, a new

breed of American farmer has emerged to develop a new and better paradigm for

farming. They have emerged in response to growing concerns about the negative

ecological and social impacts of the corporate industrial model of

agriculture. These new farmers are concerned about the ecological, social, and

economic sustainability of agriculture. However, the success of this new type

of farming also has important implications for food safety, food quality, food

security, and our overall quality of life for all of society.

While there are no

“blueprints” for the New

American Farm[3][3], 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. 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 are 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 value 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, an 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.

Third, 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 as the

things that might yield profits. They are connected spiritually through a

sense of purpose and meaning for 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.

Finally, new

American farms tend to be independently owned and operated, smaller family

farms. Without farmers on the land, who care about the land and are able to

take care of the land, making decisions about how the land is used, agriculture

cannot be sustained. A corporately controlled, large-scale, industrial

agriculture quite simply is not sustainable – in America or

anywhere. In addition to being independently owned and operated, new American

farms also tend to be among America’s

smaller farms. They are not necessarily the smallest, as the smallest farms

tend to be hobby farms, retirement farms, and rural residences. But, neither

are sustainable farms typical among America’s larger farms.

Sustainable

farming is a product of balance, or harmony, among the ecological, economic,

and social dimensions of a farming system. A smaller farm lacking this harmony

is less likely to be sustainable than a larger farm that is more in harmony.

But there are sound, logical reasons to believe that the necessary balance and

harmony will be easier to achieve with a larger number of smaller farms than

with a smaller number of large farms.

Nature is

inherently diverse. Geographic regions are different, watersheds are

different, farms are different, and fields on the same farm are even

different. Industrial agriculture treats fields, farms, watersheds and even

regions as if they were all pretty much the same. Certainly, industrial

systems can be fine-tuned a bit here and there to make production practices of

one region fit another. Each state has a bit different set of best management

practices, and some further adjustments are made from farm to farm and field to

field. But, the fundamental systems of conventional production are all pretty

much the same.

The same breeds

and varieties, fertilizers and feeds, pesticides and antibiotics, machinery and

equipment, and business and marketing strategies are used across fields, farms,

and watersheds, in all regions of the country. The goal of research is to find

universal solutions to common problems -- to find ways to twist, bend, and

force nature to conform to some universal production and distribution process.

Industrial, large-scale mass production requires this type of uniformity. Biotechnology is but the latest in a long string

of futile efforts to force uniformity upon nature.

But nature is

diverse. Large-scale production creates inherent conflicts with this diverse

nature – and inherently threatens sustainability. Farms that conform to

their ecological niches avoid such conflicts. Some ecological niches may be

large, but most are quite small. Current concerns for agricultural

sustainability are based on strong and growing evidence that most farms have

already outgrown their ecological niches and could be more sustainable if they

were smaller.

Sustainable farms

must also be of a size consistent with their markets. Conventional wisdom is

that most markets are mass markets, and thus, farms must be large – or if

not, must market collectively. The conventional wisdom is wrong. Markets are

made up of individual consumers, and as consumers – as people – we

are all different. We don’t all want the same things. In fact, each of

us actually prefers something just a little bit different, and thus, values the

same things a bit differently.

Mass markets are

created by lumping together a lot of people who are willing to accept the same

basic thing – even though they might not prefer them. If mass markets

can be created, the food system can be industrialized, and dollar and cent food

costs will be lower. The lower price is a bribe to consumers to accept

something other than what they actually would prefer. Typically, they must be coerced as well as bribed to

accept what the industrial system has to offer. That’s why Americans

spend more for advertising and packaging of food than they pay the farmer to

produce it. It costs more to convince people to buy industrial food products

than it does to produce them.

Eighty cents of

each dollar spent for food goes for processing, transportation, packaging,

advertising, and other marketing services. Another ten cents goes to cover the

costs of purchased inputs – fertilizers, pesticides, fuel, etc. Farmers

currently get only about ten cents of each food dollar, on average, for their

contribution to the production process. One key to economic sustainability of

small farms is to capture a larger share of the consumers’ food dollar by

performing some, and bypassing others, of these marketing services. By

tailoring their production to consumer niche markets, and selling more directly

to consumers, small farmers have an opportunity to make more profits without

becoming big farmers.

The conventional

wisdom is that niche-marketing opportunities are limited and can support only a

handful of farmers. Again, the conventional wisdom is wrong. Since all people

want something slightly different, the ultimate in niche marketing would be to

give every individual precisely what they want. All consumer markets are made

up of individuals – totally, not just in part. Thus, all markets in

total are made up of niche markets. The question is not how many niches exist,

but instead how many different niches does it make sense to serve? The

relevant answer, at least at present, is that more than enough market niches

exist to support as many small farmers as might choose to direct-market to

consumers. A lack of niche markets need not place a lower limit on the size of

farms. The number of farms can be as many and their size as small as needed to

accommodate the ecological niches of nature.

The most

compelling argument in support of sustainable farms being smaller is that

sustainable farms must be more “intensively” managed. Wendell

Berry puts it most succinctly in his book, What are People For,

" ...if agriculture is to remain productive, it must preserve the land and

the fertility and ecological health of the land; the land, that is, must be

used well. A further requirement, therefore, is that if the land is to be used

well, the people who use it must know it well, must be highly motivated to use

it well, must know how to use it well, must have time to use it well, and must

be able to afford to use it well. " Intensive management is possible only

if farmers have an intensive relationship with the land – if they know

it, care about it, know how to care for it, take time to care for it, and can

afford to care for it – only if they love it. And, one farmer can only

love so much land.

Industrialization

degrades and destroys the relationship between the farmer and the land.

Industrialization is management “extensive.” Specialization,

standardization, and centralization allow each farmer to cover more land,

supervise more workers, and handle more dollars. Industrial management is

“extensive” in that each manager is able to manage more resources.

Extensive management makes it possible for each farmer to make more profits in

total, even if profits per unit of production are less. But, as the attention

of each farmer is spread over more land, more laborers, and more capital, each

acre of land, each worker, and each dollar receives less personal attention.

The relationship of the farmer with the land, and with the people of the land,

is weakened. If the large farmer no longer knows the land, no longer cares

about it, forgets how to care for it, doesn’t have time to care for it,

or can't afford to care about it, how well will the land be used? How can it

remain productive? How can a large farm be sustainable?

A small farm can

be managed “intensively.” Intensive management allows a farmer to

manage less land, using less labor, while handling fewer dollars. By managing

fewer resources more intensively, the farmer is able to make more profit per unit

of output, and thus, make more total profits – even if total production

or output is less. As the farmer has more time and attention to give to each

acre of land, each worker, and each dollar, the farmer’s relationship to

the land and the people of the land is strengthened. The small farmer has an

opportunity to know the land, to care about it, to learn how to care for it,

has time to care for it, and can afford to care about it. The land on a small

farm can be used well and it can remain productive. A small farm can be

sustainable.

The

fundamental purpose of farming is to harvest solar energy – to transform

sunlight into food and fiber for human use. It might seem

that even God favors the larger farmer because a large farm covers more space,

thus, catching more sunshine and rain. But, God also has given us a choice of

making either wise or foolish use of the gifts of nature with which we are

entrusted. Our industrial agriculture currently uses more energy from fossil

fuels than it captures in solar energy from the sun. This can hardly be deemed

wise and efficient use. But as a consequence, a small farmer can be more

economically, socially, and ecologically viable than a large farm, simply by

being a more effective harvester of the solar energy. In essence, a more

intensive manager is a better harvester of the sun.

Some ecosystems

and farming systems are easier to manage effectively than are others, and thus,

require less attention per unit of resources to manage sustainably. Those

requiring less intensive management can be larger without sacrificing

sustainability. For example, a sustainable wheat/forage/cattle farm may be far

larger than a sustainable vegetable/berry/poultry farm. But the sustainable

wheat/forage/cattle farm is likely to be far smaller than the typical

specialized wheat farm, forage farm, or cattle ranch. And the sustainable

vegetable/berry/poultry farm is likely to be far smaller than the typical

specialized vegetable farm, berry farm, or poultry operation.

Sustainable farms

need not be small in terms of acres farmed or total production, but they will

need to be managed intensively. And intensively managed farms will be smaller

than will otherwise similar farms that are managed extensively. Neither land

nor people can be sustained unless they are given the attention, care, and

affection they need to survive, thrive, and prosper, that attention, care, and

affection can be more easily given on a smaller than larger farm.

We can encourage a

transition from large to small farms by redirecting farm policy toward issues

of long run security – toward making it both possible and profitable for

family farmers to make a decent living on a small farm. It’s absurd to argue that current farm policies

ensure food security, while those policies subsidize the very systems of

production and corporations that are placing our food security at risk. We at

least need to quit subsidizing the corporatization of agriculture. Ultimately,

however, the survival and success

of America’s

small family farmers will depend on the farmers, not on the government or

industry. Family farmers cannot

preserve their independence by becoming increasingly dependent upon the

government. Farmers cannot preserve a farm way of life by becoming

“hired hands” for agribusiness corporations. A farm is secure only

when the farmer’s economic and social relationships are relationships of

choice, not relationships of necessity. Once the survival of a farm becomes

dependent on a contractor, a banker, a lawyer, or the government, there is no

farm security. A nation is secure only when it is able to feed itself in a

time of crises. Once the nation becomes dependent on multinational

corporations for its food, there is no national security.

In fact, the long

run food security of the nation rests in the hands of these new family farmers

who have broken away from the global industrial food system and have developed

relationship markets with local customers. During some future global crisis,

we may well be forced to rely on farmers in our local area or region for our

very survival. If so, we will need even more farmers on the land who know how

to work with nature to produce more without relying on costly commercial

inputs. If so, we will need even more farmers who have developed direct

relationships with their neighbors and their customers – who have created

value, as well as reduced costs by marketing more directly to local customers.

We will need even more farmers who care about the land, care about people, and

care about their country. And farmers who are capable of supplying local

markets, for the most part, operate small family farms.

Can America depend

on these new family farmers? We can if we make it possible for them to remain

true family farmers, sustainable farmers, instead of forcing them to exploit

the land, their customers, and each other in vain attempts for economic

survival. These new farmers are real people. Unlike multinational

corporations, they have hearts, they have souls, and they have families,

communities, and citizenship. They are not going to quit farming and move away

from their family and friends, just because they could make more money

elsewhere. They are rooted in the place where they grew up, where they have

family, and would like their children to “take root” in those

places as well. They are Americans. They love this country. They are not

going to renounce their citizenship and leave this country just because they

could make more profit farming in some other country. And the vast majority of

these new farmers are on America’s

small farms.

What can the rest

of us do to help? We can buy more of our food at our local farmers’

markets. We can join a Community Supported Agriculture group. We can seek out

and encourage local farmers who are willing to sell direct to customers. We

can encourage local grocers and restaurateurs to buy from local farmers at

every possible opportunity and patronize those who do so. And, we can

encourage our friends, neighbors, and professional associates to buy local as

well. We can become involved in local and national political issues that

affect local farmers’ access to land, markets, capital, and appropriate

technology. But equally important, we can do everything in our power to

support the new American farmers. Ultimately, our food is no more secure than

are our relationships with each other and our relationships with the land. And

for most of us, our relationship with land is through these new sustainable

farmers, and most of these farmers are on America’s small farms.

[1][1]

Presented at “A Time to Act: Providing Educators with Resources to

Address Small Farm Issues,” sponsored by University of Illinois,

Agroecology/Sustainable Agriculture Program, Effingham and Peoria, IL, Nov.

13-14, 2002.

[2][2]

Ikerd is Professor Emeritus, University

of Missouri, Columbia,

MO – USA. E-mail: JEIkerd@...

web site: http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd

[3][3] For

50 real life examples, see “The New American Farmer – Profiles in

Agricultural Innovation,” the SARE Program, USDA, Washington DC.

($10 US – call: or e-mail: sanpubs@...

, also available free on line at http://www.sare.org/newfarmer )