Healthy soil and sustainable growing

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

Survival Strategies for Small Farms1
John Ikerd, Agricultural Economics Professor Emeritus, University of
Missouri
http://www.cfap.org/smallfarms/survivalstrategies.htm


To put the survival of small farms in perspective, we need to begin with
the issue of survival for “all farms” – the survival of American
Agriculture.  Until a decade or so ago, few questioned the ability of the
American farmer to compete with anyone in the world.  We were considered
the global leaders in production technology, with the most highly educated
and efficient farmers, farming the best agricultural land in the world.
However, in recent years, the U.S. share of global exports has plummeted,
taking farm profits down with it.  American farmers are well into their
fourth straight year of economic “emergency” – resulting in $7 - $9
billion per year in “emergency” government payments, in addition to an
already generous farm program.  American farmers today are among the most
heavily subsidized in the world with little apparent hope of their
regaining the competitive advantage in world markets needed to restore
profitability.  The future of American agriculture truly seems to be in
jeopardy.



In his book, “The End of Agriculture in the American Portfolio,”
economist Steve C. Blank envisions the end of the American farm – a
vision grudgingly shared today by a growing number of farmers and others in
American agriculture.  American agriculture is destined to end, he argues,
but this should be no cause for alarm.  He contends that the end of
American agricultural production is the result of a natural process that is
making us all better off.  He foresees a time in the not too distant future
when the U.S. will import nearly all of its foodstuffs from other
countries.  Costs of land and labor in the U.S. will be too high for
American farmers to be competitive in a global food economy.  He argues
that creeping globalization of the food system is not some corporate
conspiracy but is simply the result of the struggles of farmers and
agribusiness, in America and around the world, logically pursuing their
individual economic self-interests.  This pursuit of individual economic
self-interest ultimately will best serve the long run interests of society
as a whole, he claims.



Blank’s fundamental arguments are based on the basic premise that
economic considerations ultimately will prevail over all others.  First
American farmers will be forced to abandon production of basic agricultural
commodities – corn, soybeans, hogs, cattle, cotton, rice, etc. – in
favor of high-investment, high risk crops – such as wine grapes, berries,
organic vegetables, etc.  High risk, high-return enterprises will be the
last agricultural alternatives offering farms any hope of realizing profits
from employing high cost land and labor.  However, increasing affluence
will allow increasing numbers of people to escape from the cities in search
of a quieter, safer, healthier lifestyle in the countryside.  As land
prices continue to rise, agribusiness eventually will abandon America
completely because they will be able to employ their management and capital
more profitably in other countries.



Although Blank doesn’t make a major issue of it, he assumes that
corporate agribusiness will replace family farms because corporations are
“more efficient” farmers than are families.  As American agriculture
comes increasingly under the control of corporate agribusiness - through
ownership, contracting, or various types of strategic alliances – it will
respond even more efficiently to competitive global markets.  Once
corporate ownership becomes separated from management, through public stock
offerings, a corporation becomes incapable of pursuing any objectives other
than maximum profit and growth – its stockholders will accept nothing
less.  Corporations are not human; they have no heart or soul.  Thus,
corporations have no sentimental attachment to any particular parcel of
land, community, geographic region, or nation.  If economic costs of
production are less in some country other than the U.S., as they almost
certainly will be, then that’s where America’s food will be produced.
Agricultural technology, capital, and management can be shifted easily from
America to other countries around the globe – as we have seen in the
production of other industrial goods.



However, Blank claims we should not be concerned because Americans still
will be well fed.  This is all a quite logical result of the workings of a
free market economy, he says.  It simply will be more efficient in the
future to produce America’s food elsewhere on the globe.   In fact,
American’s transition out of agriculture will be a sign of national
economic progress.  Agriculture is any nation’s first step toward
economic development – abandoning hunting and gathering for a more
efficient means of providing food and fiber.  However, agriculture requires
only low-skilled, manual labor and few management skills, and thus, farming
is not capable of sustaining economic progress over time.  Manufacturing
represents a natural evolution from unskilled labor to skilled labor, to
mechanization, and management of large, complex industrial systems of
production.  Over the past two centuries, industrialization has been the
mark of economic progress as nations move from agriculture to
manufacturing.



However, as we enter the 21st century, America is moving beyond
industrialization – to a new post-industrial era of economic development.
 We already have seen the foundation of the U.S. economy shift from
manufacturing to the service sector of the economy.  Some service jobs tend
to be low-skill and low paying, such as in fast foods and electronic data
entry.  However, many service positions are high-skill office work,
requiring high levels of education and training - such as finance,
brokerage, marketing, communications, education, research, systems design,
and all sorts of consulting.  Such jobs are more productive and command
higher salaries than do manufacturing jobs.



In the 21st century, America will become part of the “new economy” –
new information systems will allow corporations in the “more advanced”
nations to create, manage, and control the agricultural, manufacturing, and
service sectors of the economies of other nations.  Those who create,
manage, and control things inevitably reap greater economic benefits than
those who produce, manufacture, and actually do things.  Agriculture and
manufacturing are but stepping stones to higher levels of economic
development.  Blank contends that it’s simply time for America to abandon
agriculture and move ahead to its next stage of economic development.



Greater specialization among nations is made possible by globalization of
national economies.  In a seamless, global economy, some nations can
specialize in agriculture, others in manufacturing, others in services, and
others in providing homes for corporations that create, manage, and control
the economic enterprises of other nations.  Current world trade
negotiations are being carried out for the expressed purpose of creating a
single global economy within which all nations are free to pursue their
economic competitive advantages.  Anything that restricts trade is seen as
an obstacle to global economic progress – an obstacle that must be
removed for the sake of greater economic efficiency.



In summary, Blank believes that the open spaces of rural America will be
transformed from farms into living space for a growing and increasingly
affluent population fleeing the problems of urbanization.  Cornfields are
unable to compete with condominiums for farmland.  The Mississippi Delta
can’t compete with the Silicone Valley for farm workers.  Farming is a
low-skilled, “primary” industry that has no place in an advanced,
“high-tech” economy.  Rural ways of life will give way to urban ways of
life as farms become residential ranchettes.  Virtual communities of
people, interconnected by the Internet, will replace real communities of
people who meet face-to-face in church or at the grocery store.
Agriculture will no longer be a significant factor in the future rural
economy.  Most people in rural communities will be employed elsewhere –
perhaps by companies thousands of miles away.  Americans will be well fed,
but our food will come from other countries where it can be produced
cheaper.  People of all nations will benefit as they are allowed to pursue
their economic competitive advantages in a global economy.  Today’s
farmers will find future employment, but not as farmers, or at least as
farmers in America.  Blank claims the only forms of truly sustainable
agriculture in America will be those compatible with urban life – mainly
golf courses, ornamental nurseries, and turf farms.  The American farm, as
we know it today, will be “a thing of the past.”



Blank’s conclusions regarding the future of American agriculture, and of
the global economy, are all quite reasonable and logical within the context
of contemporary economic thinking.  If the usual assumptions of economic
theory were an accurate reflection of today’s reality, then Blank’s
predictions would be quite reasonable.  But, there is still hope that newly
enlightened thinking will prevail over the current dogma of economics, that
the twenty-first century will not bring the end of the American farm, but
will bring a new and different kind of farming in America – a new
“sustainable” American farm.


Challenging the Conventional Wisdom of Economics

The conventional economic wisdom in America today seems to be that only the
markets are capable of ensuring that the right things are done, and are
done efficiently.  Supply and demand are seen as the only true arbiters of
value.  If something is profitable, it should be done, if it is
unprofitable, it shouldn’t.  Anything that interferes with the markets;
the government, public attitudes, or cultural values, for example; by
definition creates economic inefficiency and is bad for society.  Few
people are aware of the origin of these beliefs, and even fewer seem
willing to challenge them.  In fact, the few who dare to question the
sanctity of the markets are quickly attacked by people in powerful places
with obvious self-interest in perpetuating the myth of the markets --
including an army of economists.



The current belief in the sanctity of markets can be traced back to
statements by the British Economist, Adam Smith, in his book, The Wealth of
Nations, published in 1776.  “It is not from the benevolence of the
butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from
their regard to their own interest.  We address ourselves, not to their
humanity but to their self love, and never talk to them of our necessities
but of their advantages” (p.7).  Later, in reference to trade, Smith
states, “he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many
other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part
of his intention” (p. 199).  These statements provided the foundation for
contemporary economic wisdom – that pursuit of short run self-interests
is transformed into achievement of the public good, as if by an invisible
hand.



>From Adam Smith’s observations of more than 200 years ago, neo-classical
economists developed the fundamental assumptions that underlie “free
market” economic thinking even today.  Although contemporary economists
try desperately to rationalize arguments to the contrary, these conditions
must be in place before the invisible hand of competitive capitalism can
transform the pursuit of individual short-run self-interest into the
greater long-run good of society in general.



First, markets must be economically competitive – meaning numbers of
buyers and sellers so large that no single buyer or seller can have any
noticeable effect on the overall market.  In such markets, no one has the
power to retain profits by exploiting anyone else.  It must be easy for new
sellers to enter enterprises that are profitable and easy for sellers to
get out of unprofitable enterprises, so that producers are able to respond
to market signals of consumers’ wants and needs.  Consumers must have
clear and accurate information concerning whether the things they buy will
actually meet their wants and needs.  And finally, consumers must be
sovereigns – their tastes and preferences must reflect their basic values
– their tastes and preferences untainted by persuasive influences.



None of these assumptions holds in today’s society.  Today agricultural
markets are dominated by the large agribusiness corporations, certainly at
every level other than farming, and increasingly even at the farm level.
In addition, it is not easy to get into or out of any aspect of
agriculture, and it is becoming increasingly harder to even get into or out
of farming.  Consumers don’t get accurate, unbiased information
concerning the products they buy, but instead get disinformation by design,
disguised as advertising.  Finally, consumers are no longer sovereigns.
The food industry spends billions of dollars on advertising designed
specifically to bend and shape consumers’ tastes and preferences to
accommodate mass production and mass distribution, which enable corporate
control of agriculture.  There is no logical reason to believe that the
corporate agriculture of today is evolving to meet the changing needs or
wants of consumers.



Instead, corporate agriculture today is designed specifically to generate
profits and growth for corporate investors.  In fact, we no longer have a
competitive, capitalistic agricultural economy.  Capitalism requires that
individuals make individual decisions in a competitive market environment.
As corporations extend their control horizontally “within” the same
functional levels, such as marketing, storage, transportation, processing,
or retailing, they increase their ability to protect profits from
competitors.  As corporations extend their control vertically, “across”
functional levels, including additional different stages of production and
marketing, they gain control over decisions concerning how much of what is
produced, when it is produced, how it produced and for whom.  Those
decisions are made to maximize their short-run profits and growth, not to
meet the long-run needs of society.



In essence, as agriculture has moved from competitive capitalism to
corporatism, it has changed from a market economy to a “centrally
planned” economy.  Central planning didn’t work for the Communists, and
it won’t work for true Capitalists.  The problem wasn’t that the
Communists were not smart enough or that their computers weren’t large
enough.  Central planning is a fundamentally wrong-headed approach to
managing an economy – for corporations as well as governments.  The
corporate system of food production will prove to be fundamentally
incapable of effectively meeting the real needs of people.



Steve Blank’s vision of the future would place global food production
under the control of a handful of multi-national corporations that would
decide how much of what kind of food is produced where, and who gets to
consume it.  Americans would be at least as dependent on the rest of the
world for food as we are today for oil.  Perhaps we could keep the food
imports flowing, as we maintain the inflow of oil today.  But, how large a
military force would it take?  What new “Organization of Food Exporting
Countries” might be formed to control the market?  How many “small
wars” would we have to fight to keep a “renegade country” from
reducing our supply of food?  How many people would we eventually have to
kill?  Would “cheap food” be worth the cost we might ultimately be
forced to pay?


Toward a More Enlightened Future

Thankfully, as society becomes more enlightened, we are beginning to
understand the true costs of cheap food.  We are beginning to realize that
the industrialization of agriculture, while enhancing economic efficiency
and reducing food costs, has brought with it unanticipated ecological and
social costs.  The industrialization of agriculture, characterized by
specialization, standardization, and centralization of control, has put
farmers in direct conflict with their ecological, social, and economic
environment.  Cheap food most certainly has not benefited most farmers
economically.  As farms have become more specialized and more mechanized,
they have become larger in size, and so, fewer in number.  The struggle for
ever-greater economic efficiency has forced many farmers to fail so that a
few might survive - by buying their failed neighbor’s land and growing
larger.  Does it really make sense to displace farmers of other countries
as we have displaced ours - in our continuing pursuit of even cheaper food?



Also, we are beginning to realize that we are destroying our natural
environment in the process of trying to produce cheap food.  We are mining
the soil through erosion and depletion of its natural productivity in the
process of maximizing production and minimizing dollar and cent costs of
production.  We are polluting our streams and groundwater with residues
from the pesticides and commercial fertilizers necessary for large-scale,
specialized industrial crop production and with wastes from giant
confinement animal feeding factories.  We are destroying the genetic
diversity, both below and above the soil, which is necessary to support
nature’s means of capturing and transforming solar energy into energy for
human uses.  Does it really make sense to export our ecologically
destructive farming methods to other nations – in our continuing quest
for cheap food?



We are just beginning to realize that we are destroying the social fabric
of our society in the process of trying to make agriculture more efficient.
 We are destroying opportunities for people to lead productive, successful
lives.  We are turning thinking, innovative, creative farmers into tractor
drivers and hog house janitors.  There can be dignity in all work, but all
people should have opportunities to express their full human potential.
Consolidation of decision-making concentrates opportunities among the
privileged few while leaving the many without hope of a rewarding future.
Industrial specialization also tends to separate people within families,
within communities, and within nations.  We are just beginning to realize
that industrialization destroys the human relationships needed to support a
civilized society.  Does it make sense to destroy the social and cultural
fabric of other counties – in our quest for cheaper food?



The outdated economics that supports agricultural industrialization for the
sake of economic efficiency is fundamentally incapable of dealing
effectively with either the environmental or the social challenges
confronting agriculture today.  In economics, the environment and society
are external or outside of the decision making process - something that may
impact or be impacted by decisions but not part of the process.  In
reality, the economy, environment, and society all are parts of the same
inseparable whole.  A growing number of people are coming to realize that
society needs a more enlightened system of decision-making - one capable of
integrating economic, ecological, and social decisions.


Sustainability – The New Vision for the Future

A new vision for the future of American agriculture is just beginning to
emerge in response to the growing ecological, social, and economic
challenges confronting American farmers.  This new picture of future
possibilities is being painted by farmers who have been pursuing a more
“sustainable agriculture.”  The sustainability movement presents a
direct challenge to conventional economic thinking.  Sustainability
includes concern for self-interests, but it goes



beyond to protecting the interests of others, in families, communities, and
nations, and the interests of those of future generations.  All of those
involved in the sustainability movement share a common goal, to meet the
needs of the present while leaving equal or better opportunities for those
who follow - to apply the Golden Rule across generations.



There is a growing consensus that for anything to be truly sustainable over
the long run it must be ecologically sound, economically viable, and
socially responsible.  All three are necessary and none alone or no pair of
two is sufficient.  Economic viability is about self-interest, social
responsibility is a matter of shared interest and ecological soundness
ultimately is an ethical or moral responsibility that we choose to accept
for purely altruistic reasons.  Self-interest, social interests, and
altruistic interests are all considered positive and worthy of pursuit.
The pursuit of sustainability is a pursuit of an “enlightened
self-interest” -- pursuit of a high quality of life instead of just a
higher standard of living.  Without this enlightenment, we will not
voluntarily choose long run sustainability over short run greed.



Sustainable farmers seek to farm in harmony with the world around them.
They match their unique abilities and talents with their land, their
community, and their markets.  This requires a higher level of
understanding of themselves, their capabilities, their values, and their
purpose in life.  This requires a high level of understanding of consumer
tastes and preferences and of the uniqueness of relationship markets.  This
requires a higher level of understanding of the land and of nature’s
productive processes.  In general, sustainable farming requires more
intensive resource management - more thinking and creativity per acre of
land or dollar of investment.



Sustainable farming is thinking farming.  It requires an ability to
translate observation into information, information into knowledge,
knowledge into understanding, and understand into wisdom.  Certainly,
sustainable farming involves hard work, but farming sustainably is not the
“first stage of development beyond hunting and gathering.”  It is the
next stage, beyond “industrialization.”  Sustainable agriculture is
very much in harmony with a post-industrial paradigm for future economic
and human development.  Sustainable farmers are thinking workers - or -
working thinkers.  Contrary to Blank’s suggestion that America must
abandon agriculture as it moves beyond industrialization, America simply
needs to embrace this new kind of agriculture that brings with it a new
vision for the American economy and society.


Sustainability and Small Farms

With these perspectives concerning survival of American agriculture in
general, we can turn to the issue of survival of small and limited resource
farms and ranches in America.  The best hope for survival of American
agriculture, in general, is the survival of America’s small farms.  The
best hope for building a sustainable agriculture is to ensure the future
survival and prosperity of smaller, farm families.  Without farmers on the
land, who care about the land and are able to take care of the land,
agriculture cannot be sustained.  “Franchise farmers” and “corporate
farm hands” may be good people, fully deserving of dignity and respect,
but they are not farmers.  A corporately controlled, large-scale,
industrial agriculture quite simply is not sustainable - in America or
anywhere.



The sustainable farms in America’s future not only will be independently
owned, but they also will be smaller than farms of today.  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 are even different -- both
among and within.  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 practice 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.  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.  Farmers currently get only about ten cents of
each food dollar as a return for what they contribute to production, the
other ten cents goes for purchased inputs.  By tailoring 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.  Once 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.  Farms can
be as many and 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 (p. 147).”
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
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 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.


Survival Strategies for Small Farmers

The best survival strategies for small farmers are neither to get bigger,
give in to corporate control, nor to get out of farming.  The best survival
strategy for American farmers in general is to find ways to farm more
sustainably - to find harmony and balance among the economic, ecological,
and social - to pursue their “enlightened’ self-interests instead of
their greed.  This will require that farmers manage more “intensively”
- requiring more farmers per acre or dollar invested - rather than more
“extensively”- requiring more acres and dollars per farmer.
Grudgingly, farmers and others in American agriculture are beginning to
accept the inevitable.  Large-scale, corporate, industrial systems of
farming quite simply are not sustainable - neither for farmers nor for
society in general.  The survival of farming in America hinges on our
success in developing a new and different kind of American farming.  The
new kind of farming will demand that we have more farmers rather than
fewer, and that our farms be smaller rather than larger.



To survive and prosper in the future, small farmers must learn to rely on
their natural advantages in developing more sustainable systems of farming.
 They must learn to take better care of their land, keep it healthy and
productive - to farm in harmony with nature.  They must learn to care more
about other people - their family, neighbors, and community – and to
build positive, profitable relationships with their customers.  They must
learn to make a decent economic return from the farm, while keeping the
economic bottom line in proper perspective with the ethical and social
dimensions of their lives.  Families on small farms can learn to sustain a
higher quality of life without necessarily increasing their economic
standard of living.  The key to survival and success on a small farm is to
do things that will make small farms better rather than make small farms
bigger.


1    Presented at “Survival Strategies for Small and Limited Resource
Farmers and Ranchers” conference, sponsored by Risk Management Agency,
USDA, Agricenter International, Memphis, TN, July 23-25, 2001