Healthy soil and sustainable growing

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

Of course, farms and ranches can also be too small to be sustainable –
they can't generate enough income, can’t take care of the land, nor
provide a good place to live.  But, farmers who rely on “alternative”
farming methods – reduce input costs, market in the niches, build
relationships, etc. – can generate more net income with fewer acres of
land and fewer dollars invested.  An intensively managed sustainable farm
may generate fifty cents, or more, in net farm income for each dollar of
sales.  Thus, a farm with $100,000 in sales can generate $50,000 in net
farm income and a farm classified by USDA as “non-commercial” may add
$25,000 or more to farm household income.
- John Ikerd, Why Do Small Farmers Farm?, in Small Farm Today Magazine,
September-October, 2003
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/SFT-WhyFarm.htm


A lot of time and mental energy has been spent by people attempting to
classify farms.  What is a small farm, a family farm, a corporate farm, and
so on?  But, the more important question may be, “Why do people farm?”
Questions of whether a farm is large or small, a family farm or a farm
business, or controlled by an individual or corporation simply reflect the
purpose or reason for farming.  If we consider “why farmers farm,” I
suggest we will find three different types of farms: commercial farms,
lifestyle farms, and stewardship farms.

The USDA currently defines farms with less than $50,000 annual sales as
being “non commercial,” implying that their purpose is something other
than making money.  “Residence/lifestyle” farms and “retirement”
farms are defined as farms with operators who have principal occupations
other than farming, implying the farm is mainly “a place to live.”
USDA's criteria for "limited resource" farms provide little insight into
"why" these farmers are farming.  Farms with sales over $50,000, where
farming is the “principal occupation” and resources are not limited,
are presumed, by default, to be a "commercial farm" – farms intended to
generate significant income for the farm operator.  While we may question
the specific criteria, USDA’s “types of farms” at least give some
recognition to the fact that one’s reasons for farming are relevant.

To USDA’s “commercial” and “lifestyle” farms, I would add a third
farm type: a “stewardship” farm.  The principal purpose of a
stewardship farm is to conserve and care for the land and other natural
resources of the farm.  The most obvious examples of stewardship farms
today are farms in the Conservation Reserve Program.  In this case, the
government is providing a stewardship incentive.  But, I believe there are
thousands of "farmers" who own and manage farmland for the primary purpose
of stewardship, without government incentives.  Of course, many of these
landowners expect the value of land to increase enough to offset property
taxes and other costs, so they are not necessarily making economic
sacrifices.  But, stewardship farmers may neither “live on the land”
nor attempt to “make money” from farming.

The principal purpose of a "stewardship" farm is to pass the land on to the
next generation in as good a condition, or better, than when it was passed
to this generation.  The principal purpose of a "commercial" farm is to
generate economic returns – regardless of whether it is controlled by a
family or a corporation.  The principal purpose of a “lifestyle” farm
is to provide a good "place to live" – regardless of whether the farm
operator is employed elsewhere or is retired.

USDA’s classifications of farms reflect an implicit assumption that the
primary purpose of farming is "commercial" – that a real farm is a
“farm business.”  They define a farm with less than $50,000 in annual
sales as "noncommercial," because they assume it would be difficult to
generate a significant amount of net farm income on a farm this small.  Net
farm incomes average only about 15-17 percent of total sales on farms
producing basic agricultural commodities, such as corn, wheat, soybeans,
hogs, cattle, cotton, wholesale vegetables, fruits, berries, etc., using
"conventional" farming methods.  Thus, $50,000 in gross sales would only
generate about $8,000 in net farm income.  When the National Commission on
Small Farms included farms with up to $250,000 in their definition of
"small farms," the implicit conclusion was that since farms of this size
usually generate around $40,000 in net farm income, they are not very big.

Likewise, when using acres as a measure of size, the justification
generally comes back to "how big a farm does it take to generate a
significant amount of net farm income."  Invariably, the assessment assumes
the farm produces basic farm commodities using conventional methods of
production and marketing.  Over the decades, more and more land and sales
of commodities have been required to generate enough income to support a
family.  Thus, farms have had to become larger and larger over the years
and decades just to maintain an acceptable level of living for farm owners
and operators.

The relationship between farm size and stewardship is quite different.  No
one states the nature of this relationship more eloquently than does
Wendell Berry.  "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" (Berry, What are People For, p 206).  He goes on to write,
"Farming by the measure of nature, which is to say the nature of the
particular place, means that farmers must tend farms that they know and
love, farms small enough to know and love, using tools and methods they
know and love, in the company of neighbors they know and love” (Berry, p.
210).

Obviously, a landowner could set a large tract of land aside as a natural
area, and in so doing, be a good steward of a "very large farm."  But such
a farm or ranch would not generate much income or produce much of economic
benefit to society.  If land is to generate income and create a good place
to live, the land must be "used" but "used well."  And thus, most farms and
ranchers must be "smaller" than they are today.  The emphasis on the
"commercial" purpose of farming has encouraged, essentially forced, most
farms to become so large that farmers can no longer "use the land well."
Each farmer can only know and love so much land.

The relationship between farm size and farm "lifestyle" is similar to that
of size and stewardship.  With respect to the physical environment; open
space, fresh air, scenic landscapes, etc.; residence farms may be any size,
and up to a point, larger may seem better.  Beyond some point, however,
farms or ranches get larger at the expense of their neighbors and their
communities, regardless of whether the motive for expansion is commercial
or residential.  And, the quality of the farmer or rancher's relationships
with his or her "neighbors" ultimately affects the quality of "the place
they live."

Wendell Berry's words apply, just as accurately, to relationships among
rural people as between farmers and the land.  If our rural communities are
to remain healthy, desirable places to live, they must preserve the health
and productivity of people, their physical, emotional, and spiritual
well-being; the people, that is, must be treated well.  A further
requirement is that if people are to treat each other well, they must know
each other well, must be motivated to treat each other well, must have time
to treat each other well, and must be able to afford to treat each other
well.  If our rural communities are to remain good places to live, we must
have communities of people who love each other.  And, we cannot have
communities of people who love each other if some feel that they must drive
others away so they can buy more land.

This brings us to a fourth purpose for farming, farming for sustainability.
 Sustainability requires that farmers be motivated by the purposes of
economic viability (commercial), ecological integrity (stewardship), and
social responsibility (lifestyle).  If farmers or ranchers focus on any one
of the three, without giving conscious purposeful consideration of the
other two, they inevitably threaten the sustainability of their farming
operations.  Farms or ranches that focus on economic viability, i.e.,
commercial farms, eventually will become too large to "use the land well"
and inevitably degrade their relationships with their neighbors.
Similarly, farms that focus only on individual lifestyle, excluding concern
for neighbors, productivity, or the natural environment may threaten
sustainability.  And, farms or ranches that focus solely on stewardship do
nothing to support healthy community relationships or to provide for the
food and fiber or employment needs of people.  In all three cases, by
focusing on a single purpose, they threaten sustainability.  Largeness is
not the cause of the lack of sustainability of a farm, but instead, is a
symptom of a narrow focus on a single purpose of farming – most
typically, on commercial farming.

Of course, farms and ranches can also be too small to be sustainable –
they can't generate enough income, can’t take care of the land, nor
provide a good place to live.  But, farmers who rely on “alternative”
farming methods – reduce input costs, market in the niches, build
relationships, etc. – can generate more net income with fewer acres of
land and fewer dollars invested.  An intensively managed sustainable farm
may generate fifty cents, or more, in net farm income for each dollar of
sales.  Thus, a farm with $100,000 in sales can generate $50,000 in net
farm income and a farm classified by USDA as “non-commercial” may add
$25,000 or more to farm household income.  Regardless, farms that are "too
small" do relatively little harm to the economy, the environment, or to the
community, and thus, to the sustainability of agriculture

The fundamental purpose of a sustainable farm or ranch is to create a
desirable quality of life.  Quality of life has economic (commercial),
ecological (stewardship), and social (lifestyle) dimensions.  A desirable
quality of life requires balance and harmony among the personal (economic),
ethical (ecological), and relational (social) dimensions of life.  It’s
simply easier to balance the commercial, stewardship, and lifestyle
purposes for farming on a small farm.  Why do small farmers farm for
sustainability?  They are farming for quality of life.