Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>]

Sustaining the Family Farm
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics
University of Missouri Columbia
College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/Faculty/JIkerd/papers/Lethbridge-Family%20Farms.
htm

Historically, the family farm has been the mainstay of North American
agriculture. When people thought of farming, they thought of a husband,
wife, and their children, living and working full-time on a farm that they
owned and managed. However, the full-time family farm has not been the norm
for some time, as more and more families have had to supplement farm income
by seeking employment off the farm. Many farming operations now owned and
managed by families look more like animal factories or mono-crop
plantations than family farms of the past. Today, many people in the
agricultural establishment – including commodity organizations,
government agencies, agricultural universities, and agribusiness
corporations – are suggesting that family farms are outdated and are no
longer sustainable. And many seem to question whether family farms are even
worth saving, if in fact we could save them.



Are family farms sustainable? Are they worth saving? If not, then
agriculture quite likely is not sustainable, and consequently, human life
on earth is not sustainable. I am not suggesting that it is impossible to
sustain agriculture without family farms, but I am suggesting that no one
to date has suggested a logical means by which that might be done. The
industrial agricultural operations that are displacing family farms in
North America today quite clearly are not sustainable. It makes little
sense to allow family farms to disappear when they are our only realistic
hope for building a sustainable agriculture for the future, and thus, for
sustaining civilized society.



First, I need to define what I mean by family farms because different
people define family farms differently. A common definition of a family
farm is a farm owned by a family, where the family makes the important
management decisions, and the family provides most of the labor. While
these may be characteristics of most family farms, to me, a true family
farm is defined by the fact that the farm and the family are inseparable.
To me, family farms can be full-time or part-time, they can be family
owned, leased, or rented, and non-family members can do much of the work on
the farm, as long as the farm workers become a part of the “farm’s
family.”



On a true family farm, the family would be vitally different if they did
not live and work on their specific farm and the farm would vitally
different without the specific family that now farms it. The family and
farm are essential parts of the same inseparable whole. On a true family
farm, the farming operation changes as the family changes, with each family
member taking on different roles as they mature. A family farming operation
evolves to accommodate each new generation of farmers. The family considers
the needs of the land, the animals, the farm, as well as the needs of the
family, in making all decisions. The farm is a reflection of the family and
the family is a reflection of the farm in the local community and in
society as a whole. A farm that simply makes money for family members to
spend is not a family farm.



Contrary to popular belief, there are still a lot of family farmers in
North America. Many of the true family farmers today are identified with
labels such as organic, biodynamic, ecological, practical, innovative, or
holistic. The “families” may or may not be married couples with
children but the people who farm together are committed to each other. They
typically market their livestock and crops into specialized niche markets
or market fresh or value-added food products directly to their customers.
They market through farmers markets, roadside markets, community supported
agriculture organizations (CSA), or by mail order using the internet.
Increasingly, these new family farmers collaborate with like-minded
independent food retailers – supermarkets, restaurants, public
institutions – to gain access to larger numbers of like-minded customers.
But, these new family farms are defined by the same characteristics as
traditional family farms; the farms and the families are inseparable.



Many people question whether even these new family farms are sustainable. I
have to admit that most probably are not truly sustainable, in the sense of
being able to maintain their productivity and value to society
indefinitely, at least not under existing conditions using existing know
how. Economic viability remains the most elusive of the
ecological/social/economic trilogy of sustainable farming. Access to
higher-volume markets shows promise of being the missing economic link for
which these ecologically sound and socially responsible farmers have been
searching. Also, the economic efficiency of these new approaches to farming
will undoubtedly improve over time, as our understanding of sustainable
systems evolve and new supporting technologies are developed. Regardless,
these new family farms clearly are our best hope for sustaining North
American agriculture in the future.



Regardless of what we may think of family farms, North Americans need to
move into the future with a clear understanding that industrial farming
systems quite clearly are not sustainable. We simply cannot sustain the
current trend toward the industrialization of agriculture. Industrial
agriculture’s lack of sustainability is not a matter of personal opinion,
it is a logical conclusion based on some of the most fundamental laws of
science, the laws of thermodynamics. We might be able to sustain industrial
agriculture for another couple of decades, or perhaps another fifty years,
but ultimately, it is certain to lose its productivity. In meeting our
needs today, it is degrading and depleting the natural and human resources
of the earth, leaving nothing with which to meet the needs of future
generations.



Sustainability ultimately depends upon our use of energy because anything
that is useful in sustaining life on earth ultimately relies on energy. All
material things that are of any use to us – our food, clothes, houses,
automobiles, – require energy to make and energy to use. All human
activities that are of any use to us – working, managing, thinking,
teaching, – require human energy. This human energy is extracted from the
things people use. Physical scientists lump all such useful activities
together and call them “work.” Thus, all work requires energy.



In performing work, energy is always changed from more-concentrated to
less-concentrated forms. Material things, such as food, gasoline, wood,
plastic, and steel actually are concentrated forms of energy. Materials or
matter can be changed into energy, as when we eat food or burn gasoline.
Energy also can be changed into different forms, as when we burn natural
gas or breathe oxygen. However, the total energy embodied in matter and
energy always remains the same, unchanged. When the energy stored in matter
is released in the process of performing work, it always changes form,
becoming more dispersed and disorganized, but no energy is lost. This is
the law of energy conservation, as in Einstein’s famous E=MC2. At
first, it might seem that we could simply go on recycling and reusing
energy forever. If so, sustainability would be inevitable.



However, anytime we use energy to perform work, some of the usefulness of
energy is lost. Once energy is used to perform work, before it can be used
again, it must be reconcentrated, reorganized, and restored. But, it takes
energy to reconcentrate, reorganize, and restore energy. The energy used to
reconcentrate, reorganize, and restore energy, is simply no longer
available to do anything else. It has lost its usefulness; meaning it has
lost its ability to perform work. This is the law of entropy; the tendency
of all closed systems to tend toward the ultimate degradation of matter and
energy; a state of inert uniformity of component elements; an absence of
structure, pattern, organization, or differentiation.[1] As a burning log
releases radiant energy, for example, the log turns to ashes; its
structure, pattern, and organization is destroyed as it tends toward
entropy. The barren surfaces of the Moon or Mars are scenes about as close
to entropy as any of us have seen. Since this loss of useful energy is
inevitable, it might seem that sustainability is impossible. And in fact,
life on earth would not be sustainable without the daily inflow of solar
energy, which could be used to offset the usefulness of energy lost to
entropy.



Industrial systems are very efficient in using and reusing both natural
resources and human energy, but they do nothing to offset the inevitable
loss of usefulness of energy due to entropy. That’s why they are so
efficient; they don’t “waste” energy doing things for future
generations. All forms of industrial development inevitably deplete the
natural capital embodied in natural resources. Thus, industrial
agriculture, by the logic and reason of the most basic laws of science,
quite simply is not sustainable. Industrial farms, like other industries,
are essentially resource-using systems; they use land, fertilizer, fuel,
machinery, and they use people, but they do nothing to replace the energy
that is inevitably lost in the process of performing useful work.



Industrial farmers don’t use the solar energy from the sun to restore the
productive capacities of their farms; instead, they transform solar energy
into crops and livestock that are sold off the farm to be used up
elsewhere. In fact, our industrial food systems use about ten calories of
fossil energy, in addition to solar energy, for each calorie of food energy
produced, using about 17% of the total fossil energy used in the U.S. An
industrial agriculture invests in buildings, machinery, equipment, access
to land, and other means of resource extraction and exploitation; but it
invests nothing in regeneration or renewal of resources to support future
generations. It’s simply not economically efficient to do so.



Meanwhile, the world is running out of cheap energy. Peaks in oil
production, for example, have been found to occur when approximately half
of the total amount of oil in a particular oil field has been extracted,
which typically occurs some 30-40 years after its initial discovery. [2]
Beyond that point, extraction becomes increasingly difficult and costly and
total production inevitably declines. U.S. domestic oil production peaked
in 1970, thirty-plus years following the peak in U.S. oil discoveries. The
peak in global oil discoveries occurred in the mid-1960s. While experts
disagree on the exact timing, a peak in global oil production is destined
to occur early this century, and nothing can be done to prevent it.



Changes in extraction methods and uncertainty regarding Middle East oil
reserves make precise calculations difficult, but most forecasters now
predict a global peak in oil production somewhere between 2006 and 2010.
Even Exxon-Mobil has forecast a peak within five years.[3] After the peak,
oil production is expected to decline an average of 2-3% per year, dropping
by about 70% over the next fifty years. The peak in natural gas in
projected to occur within a few years of the peak in oil, and if coal is
used to offset shortfalls in other fossil fuels, the 200-year coal reserves
become something like 50 years. Alternative fossil energy sources are all
limited, expensive, and energy inefficient. Our fossil energy dependent
agriculture is on the verge of running out of energy.



In addition, industrialization not only uses up the natural resources
required for sustainability, it also uses up the human resources. The law
of entropy applies to social as well as physical energy. All human
resources – labor, management, innovation, creativity – are products of
social relationships. No person can be born or reach maturity without the
help of other people who care about them personally, including their
families, friends, neighbors, and communities. All organizations, including
farms and businesses, also depend on the ability of people to work together
toward a common purpose, which depends upon the civility of the society in
which they were raised.



Industrialization inevitably dissipates, disperses, and disorganizes social
energy, or social capital, because it weakens personal relationships.
Maximum economic efficiency requires that people relate to each other
impartially, which means, impersonally. People must compete rather than
cooperate if free markets are to work efficiently. When family members work
away from home, they have less time and energy to spend together, and
personal relationships are threatened. When people shop in another town
rather than buying locally, personal relationships among community members
suffer from neglect. Industrial economic development inevitably devalues
personal relationships and disconnects people, and thus dissipates social
energy. There are no economic incentives for industries to invest in
renewing or restoring personal relationships within families, communities,
or society. It’s always more economically efficient to find new people
and new communities to exploit. Thus, industrialization inevitably tends
toward social entropy.



Economies are simply the means by which we deal with relationships among
people and between people and the natural environment in complex societies.
There are simply too many of us to barter with each other and to produce
our own food, clothing, shelter. Economies actually produce nothing; they
simply transform physical energy and social energy so they can be traded or
exchanged in impersonal marketplaces. All economic capital, meaning
anything capable of producing anything of economic value, is extracted from
either natural capital or social capital. Thus, when all of the natural and
social capital, or energy, has been extracted and exploited, all of the
energy in the system has been dissipated, and can no longer produce
anything of economic value; the system has reached a state of economic
entropy.



Living systems, however, are self-making, self-organizing, and
regenerative; they recreate pattern and structure, tending toward greater
diversity, away from entropy. [4] The new family farms respect these basic
principles of living systems and thus are our best hope for agricultural
sustainability. Living organisms, including soil microorganisms, plants,
animals, and people, have the natural capacity to be productive while
devoting a significant portion of their life’s energy to renewal and
regeneration. Living plants also have the capacity to capture, organize,
and store solar energy that can be used by other living things to offset
the energy that is inevitably lost in the processes of performing work.
Obviously, an individual life is not sustainable because every living thing
eventually dies. But, communities of living individuals clearly have the
capacity to be productive, and at the same time, to devote a significant
part of their life’s energy to conceiving and nurturing the next
generation, thus sustaining the life of the community. The new family farms
are regenerative living systems and thus clearly have the capacity for
permanence as well as productivity. The most critical question today is
whether they can achieve economic permanence.



Those who question whether family farms are worth saving tend to focus only
on productivity rather than both productivity and permanence. Obviously,
industrial farms can be more efficient in the short run, because they
invest nothing in either the natural capital or social capital needed to
sustain future generations. Anything an industrial organization invests,
must promise a positive expected return for current investors and anything
an industrial farm invests in must promise a positive return for the
current farm decision maker. Industrial management is about managing for
the economic bottom line, and it makes no economic sense to invest in
something from which someone else is expected to realize the return. Family
farms, on the other hand, make investments that make sense in terms of the
overall well-being of the family, which is inseparable from the well-being
of the farm, and is directly related to the well-being of society. Family
farms seek balance and harmony between productivity and permanence, between
economic efficiency and ecological, social, and economic sustainability.



Family farms are managed for the well-being of people, not just for profits
or wealth. People are multidimensional beings with social and spiritual
needs as well as individual material needs. People need relationships with
other people; we are social beings, by nature. People need to have a sense
of purpose and meaning in life; we are spiritual beings, by nature. Our
lives derive their purpose and take on meaning within the context of some
higher unseen level of organization or order. A true family farm reflects
the humanness of the family in their relationships with their farm, their
community, and with society. They are good neighbors and good citizens
because caring for others adds happiness and joy to their lives. They take
care of the land and care for the other things of nature, because
stewardship gives purpose and meaning to their lives. Family farming is a
way of life, as well as a way to make a living. But it is not just about
the quality of family life, it is also about sustaining a desirable quality
of life for society as a whole. If we value the future of human society,
family farms certainly are worth saving.



A difficult time of transition lies ahead as the economy moves from
industrialization to sustainability. If family farmers are to survive this
transition, they must manage for sustainability as well as profitability.
Living systems must be nurtured and guided rather than controlled, thus no
simply step-by-step process exists, or will ever exist, to ensure a
successful transition to sustainable farming. A sustainable farm is a
living organism; it must continue to renew itself and evolve to accommodate
its ever-changing natural and social environment. However, several general
strategies flow quite naturally from an understanding of where we are today
and where we need to go in the transition from industrialization to
sustainability.



First, new family farmers should focus on quality, nutrition, and safety. A
rapidly growing environmentally conscious food market is reflected in the
growing popularity of organic foods. Related growth in a socially conscious
market is reflected in the current explosion in popularity of local foods.
Local markets, allowing personal connections between farmers and food
customers, seem to have grown even more rapidly as organic foods have moved
into the impersonal mainstream supermarkets. The people in this new
sustainable/local food culture clearly give a high priority to ecological
and social integrity, but they will not and need not compromise on the
basic quality, nutrition, and safety of their food. They may not be so
concerned about cosmetic appearance, packaging, and convenience, but they
are perhaps even more concerned than are mainstream consumers about flavor,
nutrition, and safety.



Second, new family farmers should focus on ecological, social, and economic
sustainability. The new food culture is not just concerned about
pesticides, growth hormones, and GMOs. They are concerned about the impacts
of their food decisions on the natural environment, on the treatment of
farmers and food industry workers, on who benefits from the process of food
production and who pays the costs. Obviously, they do not ignore food
prices, but they willingly pay premium prices for their food if they are
sure that nothing and no one is being exploited in the production process.
They are more than willing to pay farmers a fair return for their time and
efforts, if they have confidence in the ecological, social, and economic
integrity of the foods they are buying.



Third, the new family farmers should focus on their uniqueness. Each family
farm is unique, in terms of its natural resources, its location, or the
personal abilities and aspirations of the family members. New farm families
must focus on the unique advantages they have in producing specific foods
to meet the unique needs and preferences of the discriminating consumers of
the new food sustainable/local culture. Other farmers can produce high
quality, safe, and nutritious foods. Other farmers also can differentiate
themselves from the industrial mainstream by producing foods that have
ecological, social, and economic integrity. If a farmer develops a
profitable market niche market based on these factors alone, their profits
will not be sustainable. As other farmers decide to produce essentially the
same products for the same customers, the profitability of such markets
will disappear. The economic sustainability of a family farm depends on its
uniqueness, on those things that other farmers cannot replicate.



Fourth, new family farmers should focus on finding like-minded customers.
If you can’t find anyone who values your products, there is no advantage
in having unique products, processes, or locations. Farmers who break away
from the industrial food mainstream have a distinct advantage in finding
customers who share similar values in the new sustainable/local food
culture. If the new farmers are willing to seek them out, like-minded
customers can be found just about anywhere in North America. Many farmers
who today have CSAs or sell directly from their farms, made the initial
connections with their current customers at farmers markets. At farmers
markets, they could try out a wide variety of products and meet a variety
of customers, and thus, had an opportunity to find people who valued the
things they could and wanted to produce. Many farmers now moving into
higher-volume retail food markets understand the opportunities and
challenges, because they have had direct contact with specific members of
the sustainable/local food culture through direct marketing activities.



Fifth, new family farmers should focus on developing personal relationships
with their customers. Finding customers that value what you do and how you
do it isn’t enough; your customers must also value who you are. Even if
your products, processes, or locations cannot be duplicated, they can still
be approximated, which limits your advantage in the marketplace. But you
are unique and so are your customers, and relationships between you and
your customers are even more unique. Perhaps even more important, positive
personal relationships have not only economic value but also intrinsic
value. And, personal relationships linked to functional activities such as
making a living and eating can be even stronger and more valuable than are
relationships of chance. The new food culture values personal
relationships. As farmers move into higher-volume markets, ways must be
found to maintain some sense of personal connectedness among consumers,
retailers, farmers, and the land, or the primary market incentive for
sustainability will be lost.



Sixth, new family farmers should focus on integrity and empathy as the
ethical cornerstones of farming and living. The Institute for Global Ethics
has conducted surveys, interviews, and focus groups with people around the
world, asking people, “What do you think are the core moral and ethical
values held in the highest regard in your community?”[5] Answers
obviously varied widely, but five values consistently ranked high in
virtually every inquiry. They were honesty, fairness, responsibility,
compassion, and respect. Actually, it’s just plain common sense that if
we expect to maintain positive personal relationships we have to treat
other people, as we would like to be treated, with honesty, fairness,
responsibility, respect, and compassion. Different people have different
values, but these values we share in common.



The first three, honesty, fairness, and responsibility, can be combined to
define the principle of integrity. A person of integrity must be reliably
honest and fair and must accept responsibility for their actions or
inactions. Relationships of integrity are relationships of trust and
trustworthiness. The values of respect and compassion can be combined to
define the principle of empathy. Empathy requires that we visualize
ourselves in the place of another, and then, treat the other person, as we
would like to be treated. Empathy goes beyond integrity, at times requiring
that we be more than fair to a person in need and be respectful of even
those who do not respect us. The people of the sustainable/local food
movement are not merely searching for a reliable source of fresh, local
food; they are searching for ways to reconnect with people of integrity in
trusting and caring relationships. In return, they are willing to trust
their farmers and to reward them both personally and economically, as they,
themselves, would like to be rewarded.



Seventh, and finally, new farmers should focus on being happy rather than
making money.

Most family farmers who have gone broke in the past did so while focusing
on the economic bottom line. After all, happiness is the ultimate purpose
of everything that we do, regardless of whether it’s making money, making
friends, or farming. Happiness has been a focus of philosophical discussion
throughout human history. However, we don’t need to study philosophy to
know that personal income or wealth alone cannot make us happy. We know
that positive relationships with other people – trusting, caring, loving
relationships – are essential to our happiness. We were created as social
beings. We know that to bring happiness relationships must be honest, fair,
responsible, caring, and respectful. Farmers that seek rightness in their
relationships will find happiness in life. And as they extend this sense of
rightness to their relationships with the earth, they are building the
foundation for a sustainable society. I have met a number of farmers who
started making more money when they broadened their focus to include
stewardship and overall quality of life. Regardless, happy people always
seem to have enough money.



True family farms today are very different from the family farms of the
past. So, it’s difficult to speculate on what family farms of the future
might look like. My best guess is that in the next 20-years or so the new
family farms will become the new mainstream of family farms. Thus, family
farms of the future will look a lot like the new family farms, meaning like
the true family farms of today.



On the family farm of the future, the farm and the family will be
inseparable. Farmers will take good care of their land, their crops, their
animals, and their workers, because they are all part of the farm’s
family. Farmers will manage their farms in ways that respect the values and
preferences of their customers, their neighbors, and society, because
relationships between the farm and the community are reflections of
relationships between the family and the community. Farm families will be
good stewards of both the land and of civil society because, as members of
the extended family of humanity, they will realize that we all have a debt
to those of the past that we can only repay to those of the future. The
farm family of the future will be a family of integrity and empathy.



The most striking outward differences between family farms of the future
and those of today may well be the functional roles of the extended farm
family. Family farms of the future must be prepared to extend themselves
vertically, whereas farms in the past have extended themselves
horizontally. Rather than becoming larger in scale, family farms of the
future will become better connected, meaning more effectively and
productively connected. They will extend back into the regeneration and
renewal of resources, including both natural and social capital, and extend
forward into marketing and distribution, connecting with their final
customers.



Different people within farm families, including the farms’ family
members, will have different aptitudes, skills, and aspirations, making
them uniquely suited for different roles in the extended family farms of
the future. Some will accept responsibility for stewardship of the land,
others for quality and efficiency of production, some will take the lead in
community matters and public relations, some will like the details of
finance matters, marketing, or distribution, while others will be at their
best with people, facilitating good customer relationships. However,
specialists will have no place on family farms of the future; everyone will
understand that they are in an essential part of an inseparable whole, a
living, social organization, a true family farm.



Perhaps the most important difference between family farms of the future
and those of today will be a new and different way of doing business. A new
organization, The Association of Family Farms, states on its website, “In
[the new] value chains… the producers, processors, distributors, and
retailers are partners bound by pledges and contracts that reflect shared
core values: sustainability, transparency, fair distribution of profit,
high quality product, and relationship with the consumer.”[6] Family
farms of the future will be a part of a new sustainable food economy.



The new food economy will still be a capitalist economy, but competition
will be tempered by the need to cooperate, profits tempered by the need for
permanence, and accumulation of wealth tempered by the need to share with
others. Participants will pursue a more enlightened concept of
self-interest, realizing their own economic success can be sustained only
by helping others to succeed and leaving opportunities for those of the
future to succeed as well. They will realize their own happiness and
well-being is linked with the well-being of the people around them and with
those of the past and future. They will manage for the triple bottom line,
giving equal priority to ecological, social, and economic performance in
their business endeavors. Today’s family farmers are among the leaders in
creating this new sustainable food economy.



Is the family farm being threatened today? Yes, it most certainly is. Even
so, is it sustainable? Yes, if we allow it to be. Is the family farm worth
saving? Yes, if we value the future of humanity. Can we save it? Yes, if we
embrace and support it rather than allow it to be destroyed. Somewhere on
the way to happiness, we became distracted by the pursuit of wealth.
Nowhere do we in North America seem more misguided and lost than in our
systems of farming and food production. Today, the new sustainable family
farmers are showing us the way back to happiness. The future of humanity
may well rest upon our finding the wisdom to follow them.


End Notes:

[i] Presented at the Tiffin Conference Series, 2006, The Prosperous Farm of
the Future, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, February 16, 2006.

[ii] John Ikerd is Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
– USA; author of, Sustainable Capitalism: A Matter of Common Sense,
http://www.kpbooks.com; web site:
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd.



[1] For a more in depth discussion of entropy, see John Ikerd, Sustainable
Capitalism: A Matter of Common Sense, Chapter 3 (Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian
Press Inc., 2005).

[2] For a good basic discussion of the issue of “peak oil,” see,
<http://www.communitysolution.org/peakqanda.html>
[3] Alfred J. Cavallo, “Oil: Caveat empty,” Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, May/June 2005 (vol. 61, no. 3), 16-18.

[4] For a more in depth discussion of living systems, see Ikerd,
Sustainable Capitalism, Chapter 5.

[5] Rushworth M. Kidder, Moral Courage (New York: William Morrow,
HarperCollins Publishers, 2005), 43.

[6] See The Association of Family Farms,
<http://www.associationoffamilyfarms.org/overview.asp>