The official newsletter of the Land Stewardship Project
JAN/FEB/MARCH 1997 VOL. 15, NO. 1
COVER STORY: The Feeding Frenzy of Globalization (World Trade seems to have an insatiable appetite. It is eating away at the roots of sustainable agriculture?)
LSL QUESTION & ANSWER: An interview with LSP co-founder Ron Kroese
LETTERS: Easements, PDR, statewide land use framework, happy chickens
LSP NEWS: Staff Changes, MISA review, Van Der Pol column, land use legislation, new SFA head, join a CSA farm, PDR/TDR meeting
LSP OFFICE UPDATES: Western Minnesota, Policy Program
FEATURE: New LSP-Extension mentoring program looking for farmers
FEATURE: Pork Funds used in surveillance of LSP
FEATURE: Factory farming's worst nightmare (Local democracy is offering a way for rural citizens to keep industrial ag from taking up residence)
BOOK REVIEW: Return to Pleasant Valley: Louis Bromfield's Best from Malabar Farm & His Other Country Classics
RESOURCES
CALENDAR
World trade seems to have an insatiable appetite. Is it eating away at the roots of sustainable agriculture?
By Brian DeVore
"American farmers: We feed the world" isn't hip anymore. That popular feel-good phrase ÷ and its many variations ÷ appeared on many a bumper sticker and belt buckle during the 70s and 80s. But these days, it's been replaced by a two-word mantra: "Global competitiveness." It's shorter, more business-like. It has roots in the world-is-a-supermarket belief that every last one of us from New York to New Ulm is affected by and has a role to play in the global economy. In short, the appreciative tone of yesteryear has been supplanted by a command: "Farmers, you must feed the world, or our country is doomed economically."
What happens when a pat on the back becomes marching orders? Can sustainable family farms rooted in the land and community coexist with transnational corporations that roam the world at will?
"These are exciting times," says Tom Cochrane of the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council, an umbrella organization for various agribusiness and commodity organizations. "It isn't a matter of world trade growing ÷ it's a matter of how much and in what form. There isn't any way we can't compete with anybody in the world on a level playing field."
A version of Tom Cochrane's enthusiasm is being repeated in farm state after farm state. And why not? Agriculture is America's number one net exporter, with a trade surplus approaching $30 billion. The U.S. controls a quarter of the world trade in bulk agricultural commodities.
And that world is getting more crowded all the time. The planet's population is projected to double every 46 years at the current growth rate. In mid-1996, the world population was nearly 5.8 billion people. By 2050, it could be as high as 12.5 billion, according to the United Nations. We're adding the equivalent of another Mexico every year and another India every decade, according to the Population Reference Bureau.
But there are indications the global ag trade express has room for only a few select passengers, and the sustainable family farmer isn't one of them. Fred Kirschenmann, a Windsor, N. Dak., organic grain and livestock farmer who writes frequently about the role of farmers in the conventional marketing structure, says the foundation of a sustainable agriculture is diverse cropping and livestock systems. The current global agricultural trading system is the antithesis of that.
"The global market is only interested in a few commodities," he says. "It's that demand to produce crops for global trade that drives monoculture agriculture."
Indeed, America's powerhouse role in the world farm trade scene is based on a handful of raw commodities like corn and soybeans that can be produced and shipped cheaply. The U.S. Feed Grains Council recently reported that the use of corn and other coarse grains is projected to increase 15 percent through 2005, with world export sales increasing 50 percent in the next decade. U.S. farmers provide 46 percent of the world's corn, 51 percent of its soybeans and 12 percent of its wheat, according to the 1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Such an emphasis on corn and one or two other raw commodities makes farm communities more like "colonies" than members of the world community, says Kirschenmann. The raw resources of these colonies are mined and taken elsewhere. Even "adding value" to these commodities by exporting corn-fed pork ÷ the world's most widely consumed meat ÷ does little more than move commodification up the food chain.
As farmers specialize in fewer commodities, their share of agriculture's financial pie shrinks, according to University of Maine economist Stewart Smith. In 1910, the farmers' share of agriculture's total economic activity was 41 percent. By 1990, that share had dropped to 9 percent.
"The more diverse the system, the more the farm share," says Smith. "Exports of specialized crops tend to specialize farmers, so it follows that it reduces their share."
And these specialized farmers are throwing their lot in with commodities that are proving harder to make consistent profits on.
Take Minnesota for example. Since the 1970s, corn yields in that state have experienced more severe highs and lows than ever before. Agricultural economist Philip Raup concludes that this kind of roller coaster ride in yields can only be partially explained by weather patterns. He says one main factor may be that during the past 20 years high-yielding corn varieties that rely on intense plant densities and high rates of nitrogen fertilizer have become the norm. Such an intense production system may be making corn more sensitive to temperature and rainfall variations, writes Raup in a recent analysis of crop yield history.
This diversity-killing commodification has many long-term costs, as well. A farm that relies on just one or two soil-damaging crops can often use petroleum-based fertilizers to stave off any immediate, clear-cut damage to its year-to-year production potential. But the World Resources Institute has estimated that net operating income for a Pennsylvania corn and soybean farmer would be reduced 55 percent if long-term "soil depreciation" costs were included in the cost of production. According to that estimate, more than half of the net operating costs of such a farm are being shifted to future generations ÷ generations that will probably need that soil to feed themselves. The increased erosion that comes with lack of soil- building crop rotations results in annual off-farm damage to the environment of $10.2 billion, according to one U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate. These costs are not part of the price tag attached to a shipload of corn headed to Japan.
The rush to be globally competitive demands a lot of time, money and attention, overshadowing everything else in the process. Commodity groups now spend huge chunks of checkoff dollars on developing foreign markets, and the USDA has an entire agency devoted to trade. Meanwhile, promotion of local farmer-to-consumer markets is left up to a rag-tag collection of nonprofit groups, state agencies and private citizens.
But perhaps even worse than being ignored is being targeted for elimination, lest the lumbering giant of global competitiveness is slowed in its progress. Global trade is being used to justify a whole host of negative actions against rural America. Manure lagoons. Opening up highly erosive land to row crops. Lax water quality standards. Name the practice, and "global competitiveness" is being used as the rationalization.
"The whole system is set up to produce as cheaply as possible," says William Heffernan, a University of Missouri rural sociologist. "That means countries that ignore the public costs of soil erosion, water degradation and health costs to workers will be the leaders."
Even seemingly innocuous efforts to promote the buying of locally-grown food products ÷ such as the "Minnesota Grown" program ÷ can be seen as barriers to global competitiveness. According to Karen Lehman of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the European Union has already complained about at least one state's "buy local" campaign, charging that it's "using a public money to discriminate in favor of local products," a no-no in the era of NAFTA and GATT.
Perhaps the ultimate sacrifice to the god of globalization is coming in the form of local control. In many farm states, local townships and county governments are the last point of defense against inundation by huge livestock factories. These governments are using local input to create ordinances directing the placement of these facilities. Now politicians are taking notice. Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson made it clear recently that he would just as soon see the elimination of the ability of local governments to regulate livestock factories. Otherwise, he says, we will lose our ability to be "globally competitive."
So what's a sustainable farmer to do?
Missouri's Heffernan is fond of answering that question with a pithy statement: "We need to learn as much about the global system as we can ÷ and then figure out how to unhook from it."
But how does one unhook from an entity that like some sort of bad odor, truly seems to be everywhere at once? Heffernan says just reducing input costs on a farm through sustainable methods is a form of unhooking. But that can only go so far: Lowering costs of production to the absolute limit does little good if the price of the commodity keeps dropping below profitable levels. And even farmers who have diverse, sustainable operations are often producing more commodities than can be consumed locally, making some sort of exporting necessary.
Heffernan says sustainable farmers must capitalize on their strengths ÷ flexibility, safe food, personal accountability ÷ and stop trying to whip the multinationals at their own game.
"We can't go toe-to-toe with them," he says. "If it's a system that requires a lot of capital, they will beat us. They are masters at generating capital."
Some farmers have figured out ways to tap into parts of the global market that differentiate sustainable food from the rest of the faceless commodity gravy.
Harlan, Iowa, farmer Ken Rosmann is receiving sometimes triple the usual price for soybeans by selling organically certified beans to Japanese customers who use it for tofu. In 1993, he and 34 other farmers from Iowa and Missouri started Heartland Organic Marketing Co-op. Foreign buyers have long sought out organically certified U.S. food products, but farmers have had mixed results going it alone in the world of food brokers, complicated transportation systems and international trade rules.
"We had all tried marketing individually and we were having problems," says Rosmann, who farms 500 acres of crops and livestock.
Using their joint marketing clout, the cooperative has grown to the point where it now ships 70,000 to 75,000 bushels of beans a year, about three-fifths of that to Japan. One member has an on-farm cleaning and bagging facility that prepares the beans for shipment. Although the domestic demand for organic tofu-quality soybeans has picked up in recent years, it's doubtful Heartland could have gotten such a strong start without global connections.
An even more ambitious sustainable marketing effort is being undertaken by a group of 334 North Dakotans. The venture, called AgGrow Oils, is attempting to take advantage of the mega-food companies' biggest weakness ÷ their inability to react quickly to change. At the heart of AgGrow is a "mini plant" located in Carrington which is scheduled to start processing oil seeds in November. This effort relies heavily on global trade for its success, but both the plant and the growing contracts are designed with sustainable agriculture in mind, says John Gardner, general manager of the Venture.
First the plant: The 200-ton per day capacity system doesn't use solvents to process oilseeds. This means the plant can be retooled to crush different types of oilseeds in a matter of hours. In contrast, most crushing plants can only process one or two oilseeds without a major, expensive retooling. For example, a crushing plant recently built in South Dakota that uses solvents will crush 1,500 tons of soybeans, and only soybeans, a day. That plant and its grower-owners are locked into the production of one commodity, even if markets and crop rotation systems demand something else.
About one-third of AgGrow's first year's production is scheduled to be exported overseas. Being able to shift gears quickly is important because its owners are shooting for several niche markets, not one bulk market.
Now the contracts: Farmers have the option of leasing out their contract to a neighbor. So if the crops being crushed by the plant this year ÷ cranbe, safflower, borage, canola ÷ don't fit in with a particular farmer's rotation, then he or she can opt out, and still draw income from the co-op.
This makes it possible for small- and medium-sized farmers to raise a variety of crops and time their rotations to suit the needs of the land and their resources, instead of some market on the other side of the globe.
"The ag industry is narrowing down the number of crops grown," says Gardner. "We're widening it, so we're kind of swimming against the stream."
If agricultural systems that encourage diversity over specialization are going against the flow on a river of globalization, then marketing systems that emphasize local production and processing aren't even in the same watershed. Across the country, people are buying food and fiber that's produced by the same farmers they may run into at the bank or worship next to in church.
Local food systems, also called "foodsheds," are built using a wide range of methods: Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), farmer's markets, "buy local" labels and campaigns, and the purchasing of meat direct from farmers. In the past decade more than 500 CSA farms have sprung up in this country. In California, the number of farmer's markets has doubled to 300 within the past five years. On the opposite coast, the state of New York has seen a similar phenomenal growth in local food initiatives: The number of farmer's markets has grown from 10 to 150 in 20 years, and the number of community gardens has almost tripled to 1,500 during the same period.
What constitutes a "local" food system can vary. In the crowded Northeast, it can encompass a few square miles. In sparsely populated North Dakota, the entire Upper Midwest may qualify as local.
Some of the efforts to fortify a foodshed are a direct reaction to a local incarnation of globalization. For example, a group of Calloway County, Mo., citizens fighting a Cargill hog factory realized they didn't have locally produced pork for their meetings, so they created a farmer-to-consumer marketing system.
An urbanized attempt at bypassing the global market system is the Kansas City Food Circle, a grassroots networking effort started in 1994. The Food Circle brings together just about anyone who might be concerned about where food is coming from and where it's going: farmers, retailers, consumers, nutritionists, public advocacy groups and Extension personnel. It has set up a distribution center for locally produced food at food co-ops in Kansas City. In addition to a resource directory listing farmer's markets and CSA farms, the Circle has a telephone hotline to help consumers contact local sustainable farmers.
In some ways, the local foodshed concept is a recognition, or re-recognition, of a community's potential to feed and clothe its own residents. Researchers at Indiana's Ball State were surprised to discover the variety of crops that had once thrived in the east-central part of that state. Between 1860 and World War II, rye, popcorn, sorghum, potatoes, beeswax, grapes and flax were just some of the staples in the area. Now the area is a duo-culture of corn and soybeans.
The idea of local food systems is also based on the belief that the best way to feed the world and create true, long-term food security is to encourage local self-reliance as much as possible. These aren't efforts to make people eat and use only what can be produced in their region. Rather, being hooked into the global economy simply goes down on the list of a community's priorities. If Brazilian bananas are shipped to a Wisconsin town that in turn exports milk, fine. But why should a community in the Upper Midwest import tomatoes, bread and beef in the middle of the growing season?
"We see the emergence of a global system; it's inevitable," says Tom Lyson, a rural sociologist at Cornell University who is doing a 19-state study of local food systems. "As a result, we see local communities trying to buffer themselves from it."
SIDEBAR:Local food for local people
|
EDITOR'S NOTE: Fifteen years ago a young family farm activist named Ron Kroese teamed up with Victor Ray, a former National Farmers Union vice president, to create a new kind of environmental organization. They called it the "Land Stewardship Project," and envisioned it as a grassroots institution for promoting and supporting a good land ethic.
The creation of LSP came none too soon. The early 1980s were the depth of a farm financial crisis, and the National Agriculture Land Study had shown that the severe soil erosion problems of the 1930s were still plaguing many areas.
LSP started out with a $3,000 grant and a network of meetings in church basements that focused on soil stewardship. During the 11 years Kroese guided the organization, it developed a name for itself regionally and nationally, extending its work into such areas as on-farm research, state and national policy, urban sprawl and alternative marketing. In 1993, Kroese left as LSP's executive director to take a similar position with the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) in Butte, Mont. In September, Kroese relocated his NCAT office to Minnesota.
Kroese grew up in a northwest Iowa farm town and has long had an interest in how food is produced, even running his own natural foods store for a short time. He worked as a newspaper reporter and a press secretary in Washington, D.C., before joining the staff of the Minnesota Farmers Union in 1978.
Kroese recently talked to the Land Stewardship Letter about LSP's roots and the role of sustainable agriculture groups in bringing about positive change.
LSL: When you and Victor Ray started LSP, what niche did you see such an organization filling that wasn't being filled by other organizations or government agencies at the time?
Kroese: Our perception was that there needed to be an organization that focused on the practical, ethical considerations that landowners and farmers faced. And while there were certainly organizations and government agencies that were concerned about soil erosion and conservation, I didn't see very much of a focus on the ethical values that should under- gird the decisions people make on how they farm, on how they use the land. The emphasis was on economics, on the pragmatic, which is certainly understandable, but there also needed to be an emphasis on the ethical.
We didn't see the Land Stewardship Project as an alternative to other organizations or government agencies, but more as a group that supported them and provided a sort of an ethical foundation for what they were trying to do.
LSL: What did this new organization do after it was formed?
Kroese: The first project was to organize meetings in the high erosion counties in Minnesota. We first met with the conservation officials and pastors in the area, and from them we got the names of farmers who had demonstrated a commitment over the years to conservation. We then brought these farmers together to talk about this whole area of where stewardship could come in.
LSL: Those first set of meetings seemed to set the tone of LSP focusing on the "people" aspect of environmental issues.
Kroese: As we got into it more and more, the obvious link between family farmers and care of the land became increasingly clear. Early on I connected with Steve O'Neil and Steve taught me the importance, along with Victor, of organizing. That's the key to a successful grassroots organization. Before, I had a basic appreciation for it but I didn't understand it fundamentally until I got to know Steve. After that, the key people I hired all had organizing backgrounds and organizing in their blood, and that was sort of a number one thing.
Steve and the organizers really taught me that the people themselves possess the capacity to solve problems and the wisdom to solve them and what you really need to do is get people together, and then the decisions will be made. It's a fundamental belief in the power of democracy and people coming together to share information as opposed to the experts coming in from the outside to solve all the problems, because the wisdom lies with the people first. It's not that experts don't have a role, but as part of the people, not some special outside force.
LSL: Fifteen years later, are we still dealing with the same stewardship issues?
Kroese: I think so. What really drove it home to me was the shocking thing I saw in the AgriNews recently. It was a story where an Extension educator was advising people on what to do with the CRP [Conservation Reserve Program] lands coming out of the contracts. He was telling farmers to use Roundup herbicide to kill the weeds. Then he advised fall plowing so that the land is exposed to the Minnesota winter. So here we have a situation where the very reason those lands were put in the CRP is because of those practices and now farmers are getting advice from an expert on how to do precisely the wrong thing. He could have instead offered information on grazing, strip cropping or any of a number of other sustainable practices. I just couldn't believe it. So yes, I think we still have the same problems. I think though that things are worse in some ways than they were 15 years ago.
LSL: How so?
Kroese: Well, I think they're better in the fact that the concepts of sustainability are understood in a way now that was not understood as well back then. But in terms of the number of family farmers going under in the onslaught of industrial agriculture, we've lost ground in the last 15 years. I think industrial agriculture may well fall off the cliff someday, but I no longer think it's going to be as soon as I once did. I underestimated the capacity of the system to continue to externalize its costs, and the willingness of our country to go to war for oil to maintain cheap energy and secure our own selfish interests.
LSL: During the past decade and a half, sustainable agriculture has evolved from being a fringe concept to something that's taken seriously by some agronomists and economists. Do you think there's been too much of an emphasis on trying to justify sustainable ag practices economically?
Kroese: I wouldn't say there's been too much, but I think it's real important to also reinforce the values that need to be there to maintain sustainable farming practices when the times get tough. I think a consideration of economics is necessary, but not sufficient. Just like you could say the same thing about ethics: They are necessary but not sufficient. The two have to work hand in hand, because if you just talk purely economics, what's going to happen when the conditions shift? Are you still going to want to maintain those practices?
Take the CRP, for example. It was in landowners' economic interest to put that land into conservation. Now that CRP contracts are expiring, what's going to be motivating people to do the right thing on that land? The economic forces continue to push people in directions even at odds with their own ethics. The tragedy of American agriculture to me is that many people are farming at odds with their own values.
LSL: It must have been difficult to leave an organization you were so instrumental in creating.
Kroese: I'd been with LSP for over 10 years and I started feeling like that was a long enough time to be linked with one organization at a managing level. I was just feeling it was probably better for the organization and for me personally to get some new challenges.
If someone was going to tell me this thing was just going to go to hell in a hand basket then I wouldn't have left. But I had every confidence that it was going to keep going, that new people would emerge in stronger ways and that it was set up organization-wise in such a way that it would be able to evolve as necessary. I was also excited about taking on some new challenges with an organization like NCAT.
LSL: What's the basis behind NCAT?
Kroese: NCAT was started during the energy crisis by a group of community activists who had a plan to create a place that would focus on promoting energy conservation technologies for low income people. And then over the years it evolved into areas like affordable housing and sustainable agriculture.
LSL: This is the 10th anniversary of one of NCAT's most successful programs, Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA). It provides free, in-depth information packets on a wide range of sustainable farming practices. Are you getting a feeling for who is using this service now?
Kroese: It seems to be smaller producers from across the country but increasingly every year we're getting calls from extension and government personnel who are using the service as a source of information. That's been a positive trend. I think we've gone from being seen as a competitor with extension to being seen as a complementary organization with a specialty in sustainable agriculture.
LSL: What's the next step for groups like LSP and NCAT? Kroese: We must work on continuing to support farmers who are already practicing good stewardship. LSP does that through its field days and meetings. NCAT is helping conservation-minded farmers remain viable by showing them how to cut energy and other costs.
But we also need to reach out to farmers who are in the conventional mode of operation and figure out what we can do to encourage them to adopt sustainable practices. One thing that NCAT is doing is creating a traveling sustainable ag display that we will take to big farm shows beginning later this winter. We need to get the message out to new people all the time.
Dear Editor:
I read with interest your article "Making Agriculture a Permanent Resident" (Dec. LSL). Here at the Minnesota Land Trust, we share the Land Stewardship Project's enthusiasm for the prospect of adding purchase of development rights (PDR) and transfer of development rights (TDR) to Minnesota's conservation toolbox. However, we must take issue with the article's statement, "In the past, land has been protected via voluntary conservation easements, where landowners essentially donate their right to develop."
There is nothing past tense about conservation easements. To date, our organization has preserved nearly 4,000 acres of open space through the use of primarily donated conservation easements. Much of that land includes farmland ÷ farmland that, in most cases, continues to be owned and operated by the same farmers who chose to permanently protect their lands' natural, scenic and agricultural values. Although donated conservation easements may not have the allure of purchased development rights, they bring other benefits: 1) the potential for reduced income, property and estate taxes; and, 2) the ability to act within the landowner's timetable (rather than when and if funding is available).
We urge landowners who are concerned about the future of their land to include conservation easements within their range of land protection options. For more information, give us a call at (612) 522-3743, or write: Minnesota Land Trust, 70 N. 22nd Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55411.
÷ Renay W. Leone
Executive Director
Minnesota Land Trust
Minneapolis, Minn.
Dear Editor:
This came to mind in light of your recent article on purchase of development rights (Dec. LSL): Perhaps you should revisit the issue of forfeiting development rights through volunteer conservation easements to protect land. From your description of the time that may be involved [with selling development rights], it would seem that the easement process may be faster than a PDR.
÷ Henry S. Crosby Jr.
Jordan, Minn.
(Crosby holds a conservation easement through the Minnesota Land Trust)
Dear Editor:
It is troubling how the Land Stewardship Project is misrepresenting the support for a statewide land use framework (Dec. LSL). I participated in the Rochester [Minn.] LSP forum last fall, and know others who were at other LSP meetings: There was no consensus among those who attended and there was a division on passing a state statute for local planning.
I am troubled that the Land Stewardship Project is using my participation in their meeting as having anything to do with their state planning agenda ÷ I won't make that mistake again and I am withdrawing any support for any such organization. I went to the Rochester LSP meeting because of the interesting agenda, to learn how communities can be more effective in planning, and to create networks with others in our region; not to endorse the LSP agenda that a state mandated planning process could tell every county administration how to think, nor to propose the imposition of penalties, nor to suggest support for citizen lawsuits against the counties that just won't think right.
In my experience with local planning, one of the most common deterrents to getting citizen participation is the perception that participation won't make a difference because the rules will change or some other program will render the effort useless.
÷ Jeff Broberg
Rochester, Minn.
The Land Stewardship Project has never advocated that the state of Minnesota take over local planning, as Mr. Broberg implies. Rather, LSP maintains that the state should provide common, consistent goals and funding for local planning that protect the values in which the people of the state have an interest.
Participants in our meetings in Rochester and across the state did not come to any consensus on land-use policy. But for the first time, a clear majority of participants in all regions of the state cited the lack of direction from the state as one of the major obstacles to good land-use decisions in Minnesota.
No one advocated one state plan, but rather that the state provide a common framework and the resources for local governments to do good, coordinated planning. In this light, LSP does support a state-funded mandate for local residents to do their own planning that is consistent with the statewide goals
It doesn't make sense to merely react to growth and watch as Minnesota destroys the very things that make it such a special place to live.
Dear Editor:
A part of sustainable farming that comes as a mixed blessing is the attachment we farmers are apt to develop toward the animals in our stewardship. The interaction that is a hallmark of sustainability results in a more interesting and connected life for both the farmer and the animal, and a humanely grown, healthy product for the consumer. When this happens, chickens become more than frameworks on which meat develops and eggs are produced from. They become what they are. They experience their "chicken-ness" free of beak-to-beak growing floors, stacks of confining wire cages, growth hormones and massive drug doses. What they experience instead is room to roam, stretch their wings in the sun and search for tasty morsels in the grass. They also experience a caretaker who knows the value of such an incentive plan.
Here in southeastern Minnesota a collaborative of local farmers is producing sustainably raised chicken for sale directly to consumers and, potentially, once a local U.S. Department of Agriculture plant goes on-line, to larger retailers. The collaborative, called Home on the Range, is responding to growing consumer interest in how the meat they eat is raised. While the concentration is on chicken, many of the producers raise other meat animals as well as vegetables for direct marketing.
For more information about Home on the Range, contact the LSP office in Lewiston at (507) 523-3366.
÷ Lynne Farmer
Home on the Range
Rushford, Minn.
Sister Mary Tacheny has joined the Land Stewardship Project's Board of Directors. She replaces Jennifer Rupprecht, a Lewiston, Minn., farmer whose four-year term expired at the end of 1996.
Sister Tacheny is co-director of the Center for Earth Spirituality and Rural Ministry, located at Good Counsel Hill in Mankato, Minn.
Sister Tacheny, who was born on a St. Clair, Minn., dairy farm, has a long history of fighting the industrial model of agriculture and promoting a more sustainable system of farming. In the late 1970s, she was integral in the development of Strangers and Guests: A Regional Catholic Bishops' Statement on Land Issues. Strangers and Guests served as the inspiration for the start-up of many grassroots organizations, including LSP.
Erik Sessions has joined LSP as an intern with the Policy Program. Sessions has a degree in International Studies and Spanish from Macalester College. He has served as a site guide and interpreter at the Minnesota Historical Society's Oliver Kelley Farm in Elk River, Minn.
Sessions has also worked at the Mississippi Market Food Cooperative in St. Paul, Minn. Most recently he was an apprentice at Spring Hill, a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm in Prairie Farm, Wis.
Sessions, who lives in St. Paul, will be working to coordinate marketing channels between sustainable farmers and local grocers.
Mary Schulte has left LSP to devote full time to her therapeutic massage business. Schulte, a resident of Stillwater, Minn., joined LSP in 1992, and was a community organizer with the 1000 Friends of Minnesota program. In addition, she coordinated educational efforts related to Community Supported Agriculture. Schulte developed the Land Stewardship Congregational Tool Kit to guide discussion of ways to connect consumers with farmers. The kit has been used in dozens of classroom and small group settings during the past two years.
By Dana Jackson
When the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA) was created by the University of Minnesota College of Agriculture and the Sustainer's Coalition (LSP is a member of the Coalition), its bylaws called for a formal review after five years. A vote of affirmation from the MISA Board of Directors and the Joint Seminar was required to prevent sun-setting of the Institute.
On December 10, the Joint Seminar voted unanimously to continue MISA. On January 15, 1997, the MISA board of directors unanimously concurred with the Joint Seminar and sent a recommendation to the Dean of the College of Agriculture that MISA be extended for another five years.
The formal review consisted of surveys and interviews done by an independent consultant and an evaluation by an independent panel who visited the campus on November 14 and 15. Jerry DeWitt, professor of entomology at Iowa State University and chair of the panel, said in his letter accompanying the written report, "We find that MISA is truly a unique entity of committed partners bringing about change in Minnesota agriculture."
The review reflected upon what MISA has accomplished, how well it's functioning and where it might head in the future. The review panel's report stated: "MISA is an evolving and dynamic entity. MISA Board members, supporters and staff have demonstrated the ability to successfully work in this environment, adapting to changing needs and challenges. MISA has adopted an encompassing holistic view and definition of a sustainable agriculture embracing production, environment and community."
Eighteen recommendations were presented to MISA by the review panel, including: an effort should be made to involve other constituencies in MISA, MISA should continue investing resources in the development of research teams, a better balance should be struck between process and outcomes, there should be increased connections between the team research findings/outcomes with Extension and outreach activities, and research related to work with rural communities and sustainability should be expanded.
The MISA board will work with the staff ÷ executive director Don Wyse, coordinator Helene Murray, associate program director Debra Elias and senior secretary Charlotte Conn ÷ to implement many of the recommendations.
The complete MISA review is available by contacting: MISA, 411 Borlaug Hall, St. Paul, MN 55108; tele. ÷ (612) 625-8217. The report is also available under "Highlights" on the MISA World Wide Web home page.
Land Stewardship Project member Jim Van Der Pol is taking his message about sustainable farming and good land stewardship on the road. The Kerkhoven, Minn., farmer is looking for newspapers throughout the Midwest that may be interested in publishing his popular "Conversations with the Land" column.
This column, which currently runs in the Kerkhoven Banner and the Clara City Herald, provides readers with regular insights into the trials and tribulations of operating a diversified, sustainable farm in western Minnesota. Van Der Pol and his wife, LeeAnn, farm 320 acres in Chippewa County. They use well-planned crop rotations and conservation tillage to build their soil. The Van Der Pols also raise hogs using an innovative and inexpensive "hoop building" structure.
The Van Der Pols have been farming for 20 years, and Jim has been writing about his family's farm for roughly a decade. His essays, which have been featured in the Land Stewardship Letter, often combine his common-sense observations of everyday farm life with a philosophical angle steeped in a strong stewardship ethic.
"Above all, we need to believe in ourselves and in things that are not huge and unchangeable and over mechanized. We need to believe in people," Van Der Pol wrote in a recent column.
If you think your local newspaper would be a good candidate for running "Conversations," contact Van Der Pol at: Rt. 1, Box 145, Kerkhoven, MN 56252; tele. ÷ (320) 847-3432. He will send samples of his column to interested publications. p
Glen Borgerding has been elected the new chair of the Sustainable Farming Association (SFA) of Minnesota board of directors. Borgerding, a crop consultant from Freeport, succeeds Lake City farmer Randy Meyer, who stepped down after serving a two-year term.
The SFA, which was started in 1988 with the help of the Land Stewardship Project, currently has some 1,000 members and 12 chapters. p
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms offer consumers a unique opportunity to become members of a working farm, in return receiving a weekly shipment of fresh produce during the growing season. Subscription lists for these operations usually fill up by late spring, so it's important to join early.
For a listing of CSA farms in the Twin Cities area, call the Land Stewardship Project at (612) 653-0618, or the Minnesota Food Association at (612) 872-3297. For operations in the north-central region of the United States, call the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute at (414) 642-3303. The Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association (1-800-516-7797) has a national listing of CSA farms.
The December issue of the Land Stewardship Letter reported on the use of purchase of development rights (PDR) and transfer of development rights (TDR) in farmland protection efforts. The Land Stewardship Project will be sponsoring a public meeting April 12 in Forest Lake, Minn., in an attempt to expand on that discussion. See the Stewardship Calendar on page 16 for details. p
At least one Land Stewardship Project priority ÷ creation of a statewide land use framework ÷ is receiving serious consideration during the 1997 session of the Minnesota Legislature.
Two statewide framework bills were introduced in February and at press time, the proposals had bipartisan, urban-rural support, giving both good potential for passage. The Senate version of the bill is being sponsored by Sen. Steve Morse, DFL-Dakota. The House legislation was drafted by Rep. Joe Opatz, DFL-St. Cloud.
The bills differ in the details, but share a common goal: The development of an overall framework that would serve as a guide for townships, municipalities and counties wrestling with how to balance growth with conservation. Statewide land use frameworks have proven effective at controlling sprawl in states like Oregon.
Sprawling, land-wasting development has thrived in Minnesota partly because varying zoning ordinances work at cross-purposes to each other, says Lee Ronning, director of LSP 1000 Friends of Minnesota program.
"All the zoning and planning in the world does a city no good if its neighbor's laws encourage development to leapfrog further out," she says.
The House version mandates that cities and counties prepare land use plans, while the Senate proposal would "encourage" such planning. Ronning says LSP would prefer to see mandated planning, but the passage of any kind of land use framework legislation would be a major victory in the battle to control sprawl.
"This would be a major step in the direction of making sure unchecked sprawl doesn't destroy Minnesota's high quality of life."
For information on the status of the Opatz and Morse proposals, call Lee Ronning or Scott Elkins at LSP's Twin Cities office, (612) 653-0618.
In recognition of our 15th year, a special $15 LSP membership rate will be offered between April 1 and Sept. 13. This is for new members and gift memberships only. This special offer is made possible by a generous gift of two LSP members. Look for the membership coupon on page 15.
The Land Stewardship Project will be celebrating its 15th anniversary at a special membership gathering Sept. 13. Call LSP at (612) 653-0618 if you'd like to volunteer to help with the event. Watch future issues of the Land Stewardship Letter for more information.
By Amy Bacigalupo
Western Minnesota is on the fringe, where prairie meets forest and where immobilizing blizzards settle in for the winter. In scientific terms such an area is considered an "ecotone" ÷ a transition zone between different biological communities. Ecotones promote adaptation and allow for greater diversity.
In societal terms, fringe is used to describe people or ideas outside the mainstream. The work the Land Stewardship Project does is along that outer edge. To some, the fringe has a negative connotation since it is not a part of the mainstream. To others, such as futurist Joel Barker, the fringe is the birthplace of innovation. Barker believes that new ideas that will guide the future come from the fringe. Out here, the home of CURE, CRSP and Holistic Management training in Minnesota, we value being on the edge. It offers us the opportunity to embrace diverse ideas and promote change.
CURE (Clean Up our River Environment) is seeking an alternative approach to environmental issues. Through incorporating differing opinions, CURE strives to build understanding and cooperation among those who normally oppose each other. CURE has found including more diverse perspectives generates new, creative solutions.
While CURE seeks to set itself apart from the mainstream environmental movement, CRSP (Chippewa River Stewardship Partnership) is working to have its ideas take hold with local county commissioners, as well as state and federal agencies. CRSP has offered tailor-made easements to landowners involved with the partnership. This is a much needed alternative to more inflexible easements. Additionally, CRSP is working to become a watershed-based decision making entity that successfully involves local landowners and government in the decision-making process.
Participation of 13 different agencies and nonprofit organizations demonstrates that CRSP is moving toward acceptance in the mainstream.
And imagine an agency like the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) using Holistic Management. Ten years ago this would have seemed very far-fetched. Today, it's not so unlikely. During a three-day workshop in February, 15 NRCS employees took part in a Holistic Management training.
These examples illustrate the necessity of living and working on the fringe. Society relies on a diversity of ideas and opinions as much as biological diversity to create strong healthy communities. The future comes from the fringe. As revisionist author Daniel Quinn writes: "Vision is a river, and we who have been changed are the flood." Out here, it is clear, the flood is coming. p
Amy Bacigalupo is an intern in LSP's western Minnesota office.
By Brad DeVries
Erosion isn't just a threat to productive farmland. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's recent announcement that it would consider the entire "prairie pothole" region as eligible for inclusion in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) shows that good, solid policy choices can also wash away, bit by bit.
Last September, USDA secretary Dan Glickman described a clear vision for the future of the CRP: "Today I am proposing a new and improved Conservation Reserve Program that targets our most environmentally sensitive land. . . . Gone are the days of retiring productive farmland."
This statement was based on the solid idea that good farmland that can be farmed with good stewardship should be put into production, and land retirement options should be reserved for those acres that really need retiring.
Enter the prairie pothole region. Of course, no reasonable person would deny the tremendous value of this unique wetland ecosystem ÷ it covers much of south-central Minnesota, the Dakotas and northern Montana ÷ as crucial habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wildlife, and an irreplaceable reservoir of natural diversity. Neither can anyone ignore the role production agriculture has played in diminishing this habitat.
But the new rule grants CRP eligibility to any high quality, productive farmland in the area, without regard to the environmental effects of retiring that land. Early USDA analysis indicates that this and other proposals to expand the CRP "target" could make two-thirds of all farmland in the U.S. eligible.
This creates the prospect that good land that ends up in 10-year retirement will soak up sparse federal funds that should go to protecting environmentally sensitive land. When whole farms are retired in CRP, and the farmer along with them, that land is not as available to people who want to make a start in farming. In many cases, the land, farmer and taxpayer might all benefit from other programs that help address environmental challenges on the farm while keeping it in production.
A fundamental value of the Land Stewardship Project is that it is possible to make a living on the land in a way that enhances it and works in cooperation with natural cycles. The USDA's broad-brush approach to the CRP makes the opposite assumption.
That's why it's so important that LSP and similar organizations continue to be active at the national, state and county levels. Otherwise, this policy gully will continue to grow. p
Brad DeVries is a LSP staff member based in Washington, D.C., where he works as the public information coordinator for the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. He also works with the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
It can be an intimidating experience to get started in farming these days. But a new beginning farmer program based out of southeast Minnesota is attempting to provide would-be farmers with an important tool in getting established on the land: hands-on experience.
Farm Beginnings is an ag apprenticeship project that will team established farmers with potential beginning producers in a mentor-apprentice type relationship, says Richard Ness, a staff member in the Land Stewardship Project's (LSP) southeast Minnesota office. A joint effort of LSP and the Minnesota Extension Service, Farm Beginnings is not a traditional beginning farmer-retiring farmer "matchmaker" program.
"Instead of attempting to create a financial-legal partnership between a beginning farmer and an established farmer, the relationship is purely educational," he says. "We see this as a first step toward getting established as a farmer."
Ness says the mechanics of the program are relatively flexible. However, it is suggested a beginning farmer be apprenticed with two different established farmers, each for a four-month period. Apprentices will be expected to spend 15 to 20 hours a week working on the farm, and will be assessed a tuition fee of $200 for each four-month experience. The mentoring farmers will be paid $200 per month for their efforts.
To participate in the Farm Beginnings program, mentoring farmers do not have to be near retirement age, and apprenticeship farmers do not have to be young, says Ness
"Age is not a factor."
Farm Beginnings is loosely based on a successful mentoring program offered to Wisconsin farmers interested in grass-based dairying. Farm mentoring programs have a long history in New Zealand. Ness said Farm Beginnings will focus on southeast Minnesota at first, and will work with all types of farming operations. However, grass-based dairy farming will be a major focus because it offers a low-cost, profitable option for getting started in farming, he says.
"Grass-based farming can be a good way to make a living, but it takes excellent management skills. That's why it's so important that would-be graziers get some firsthand experience."
Farm Beginnings was created by a committee consisting of farmers, LSP staff, Extension personnel, church leaders, local government officials and an adult farm management instructor. Members of organizations such as the Minnesota Farm Bureau, National Farmers Organization, Minnesota Farmers Union, Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture belong to the committee. For the past few years, the committee has been researching ways of getting new farmers established in southeast Minnesota. p
For information on the Farm Beginnings mentoring program, contact: Richard Ness, Land Stewardship Project, 180 E. Main St., PO Box 130, Lewiston, MN 55952; tele. ÷ (507) 523-3366.
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) has paid $50,000 to investigate the activities of the Land Stewardship Project and five other family farm and sustainable agriculture groups.
Part of that money, which was paid to a Washington, D.C., public relations firm, came from the federal pork checkoff, according to Alan Guebert, an Illinois-based journalist who wrote about the NPPC's surveillance work in his syndicated column in February. The public relations firm, Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin, Inc., was hired by the NPPC in 1996, and its investigation of grassroots groups continues as part of a $100,000, checkoff-sponsored program called "Strategic Communication Initiatives," according to NPPC officials.
The checkoff is a mandatory system for collecting money from every hog farmer in the country. In 1996, the NPPC received approximately $55 million in pork checkoff funds from tens of thousands of producers. The checkoff levies 4.5 cents for each $10 worth of hogs sold. The money is collected by the NPPC, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture providing oversight. By law, checkoff funds are to be used only for promotion, research and education purposes, and not for political reasons.
Three of the groups being watched by the firm without their knowledge ÷ LSP, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and the Missouri Rural Crisis Center ÷ are members of the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment (CFFE). The Campaign has confronted NPPC officials on several occasions for promoting industrialized hog factories at the expense of independent family farmers. The other groups being monitored are the National Farmers Union, the Corporate Agribusiness Research Project and the Center for Rural Affairs.
In response to the news of NPPC using producers' money for surveillance, the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment has called for a congressional investigation into the use of NPPC checkoff funds and an end to the mandatory checkoff.
Many hog farmers reacted angrily to the news of the surveillance program.
"This sneaking around and checking on family farmer groups just because they oppose policies that favor factory livestock is another sign the checkoff is being used to benefit a select few," says Olivia, Minn., farmer and LSP member Monica Kahout, who, along with her husband Gary, markets about 1,000 pigs annually. "This money comes out of our pockets, and yet it seems like it's being used to promote factory farms."
Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin specializes in collecting "intelligence" on grassroots organizations, according to PR Watch, a publication that covers the public relations industry. Two of the firm's top executives, John Mongoven and Ronald Duchin, played major roles in attempting to sanitize the image of Nestle Foods during the 1980s. At that time, the food giant was the focus of negative publicity because of a grassroots campaign that protested Nestle's deadly practice of selling infant formula in third world countries. During the debate over genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, agri-chemical giant Monsanto and food conglomerate Philip Morris/Kraft/General Foods hired the public relations firm to monitor farm groups.
When the news of the surveillance program broke, NPPC president Bob Ruggles defended it by claiming that radical animal rights groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), had "infiltrated" grassroots farm groups. However, when pressed by reporters to name specific examples of such infiltration, he declined.
The supposed "infiltration of animal rightists" into grassroots organizations is held up by an increasingly paranoid National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) as justification for surveillance of groups like the Land Stewardship Project. In reality, LSP's policy of supporting sustainable family farms puts it in direct opposition to the NPPC's promotion of corporate-controlled hog production, says LSP policy director Mark Schultz.
Through its work with the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, LSP has fought to eliminate the awarding of tax money to large livestock factories for the construction of manure storage facilities. The NPPC wants no limits on the size of operation that can receive these cost share funds. The Campaign and LSP have also opposed the construction of a federal factory farm research facility in Iowa, a pet project of the NPPC. .
In addition, LSP members and staff have met with U.S. Department of Agriculture officials, including USDA head Dan Glickman, to discuss the problem of smaller farmers being pushed out of the mainstream meat marketing system by large, corporate produces.
In Minnesota, LSP has repeatedly stymied efforts to weaken the state's Corporate Farming Law and gut local government powers (see story, p. 9). It has become an annual winter tradition: Promoters of factory livestock farming such as the Minnesota Pork Producers Association turn to lawmakers to help mask the inherent inefficiencies and unsustainability of this type of food production. Such efforts make headway until farmers and other rural residents rise up and voice strong opposition.
But staying on the defensive is not enough, says Schultz. That's why this year LSP, the Minnesota Farmers Union, Minnesota Catholic Conference, Minnesota COACT and Farmers Legal Action Group began discussions on pro-active legislation for protecting rural Minnesota's economic, social and natural environment. The four organizations have developed four proposals for possible legislative action: 1) a grants program for encouraging on-farm marketing and processing ventures; 2) a strengthening of the 24-year-old Corporate Farm Law; 3) a law to give farmers more access to information about their cooperatives; and 4) adoption of an "overall legislative vision" for Minnesota that promotes small and medium-sized family farms, a clean environment and thriving communities.
The proposed legislative priorities received a positive response at LSP-sponsored meetings held in the Minnesota communities of Sauk Centre, Granite Falls and Kasson this winter.
Said Minnesota Farmers Union President and former state legislator Dave Frederickson at the Granite Falls meeting: "I tell legislators to get creative and stop responding to that narrow band of agriculture that wants to chip away at family farming."
Local democracy is offering a way for rural citizens to keep industrial ag from taking up residence
Supporters of industrial agriculture are no fans of local government these days. It's no wonder, considering the fact that in townships and counties across rural America, local officials are forcing giant livestock factories to be accountable for their actions. The strength of local government is that the local town board member must live, work, worship and socialize daily with the same people who are his or her political constituents. These local officials don't even get a chance to escape to a lobbyist-infested state capital for a few months each year.
The role local government plays in protecting residents and the environment from the onslaught of factory livestock became painfully clear in 1995, when Lincoln Township, Mo., was slapped with a $7.9 million lawsuit by Premium Standard Farms, the fifth largest hog producer in the country. Premium Standard, one of the largest polluters in that state, raises 100,000 hogs in the township. The corporation was given the green light to enter the area after its lobbyists talked Missouri legislators into exempting three counties from that state's corporate farm law.
The lawsuit alleges that by enforcing zoning ordinances that restrict the placement of confinement facilities near residential buildings, the township is "taking" Premium Standard's right to make money off its property. Under pressure from the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, the monetary portion of the lawsuit was dropped. Lincoln Township has since counter-sued.
In Minnesota, which is a hotbed of township government (there are 1,856 of these six-mile-square entities in the state), local residents have been particularly effective at regulating the placement of factory livestock facilities.
These local control efforts have been so effective, in fact, that they've attracted some unwanted attention from policy makers. Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson, along with his commissioner of agriculture, Gene Hugoson, have called for an elimination of a township's ability to regulate feedlots. In fact, they support the creation of "Agriculture Enterprise Zones" similar to those in Iowa. Such zones have proven quite effective at protecting industrial operations, excluding even county government from zoning and otherwise regulating large livestock facilities as they hide under the label "farming enterprise."
Backers of industrial agriculture argue that local regulation of giant livestock facilities will create a confusing "patchwork quilt" of regulation, making it difficult for livestock factory owners to know when they are violating the law. But supporters of local control point out that restrictions vary with geographical and political terrain all the time ÷ speed limits being just one example.
"If our only goal is simplicity, then we should avoid local control," says Lynn Hayes, an attorney for the Farmers Legal Action Group. "But our goal shouldn't be simplicity. Our goal should be that people in communities have the most say in how their communities develop and grow."
Nancy Barsness, who serves as a consultant to townships developing ordinances for regulating, among other things, large livestock confinement facilities, says too many times local officials buy into the argument that they have no business imposing regulations.
"I think the first thing a township must understand is they have the authority to set up their own ordinance, no matter what the commissioner of agriculture says."
Barsness, the clerk and zoning administrator for New Prairie Township in west-central Minnesota, also disagrees with the argument that since township board members are part-timers used to dealing with more mundane matters like brush clearing and snow removal, regulation of livestock factories is beyond their abilities. Her township of 180 residents has had a comprehensive planning and zoning ordinance in place since the late 1970s. In fact, at least half the townships in her county are zoned, mostly as a result of a controversial power line project that was proposed for the region some 20 years ago.
Barsness says a comprehensive planning and zoning ordinance can be drafted for less than $2,500, and it costs $100 to $150 annually to administer such a plan.
Barsness is currently working with 10 townships that are developing planning and zoning ordinances. She says a few dos and don'ts are critical to keep in mind when considering such regulation, especially on the township level where people are used to a more "informal" way of doing things. The first step a township should take is to put in an interim ordinance restricting development. This ordinance usually stays in effect for one year, giving residents time to determine the future direction of their community.
"Then they have some breathing room to sit down and draw up a rational plan that won't be thrown together in the heat of the moment," she says.
Barsness says it's crucial to use the moratorium time wisely, and a township should consult a lawyer and a planning expert (lawyers will often not have the scholarly material needed to justify certain restrictions in an ordinance). In cases where the courts have ruled against local township regulation of livestock factories, it's often been based on the argument that the ordinance did not have scientific grounding for its restrictions, and was unfairly targeting one particular livestock facility owner.
"The biggest mistake a township can make is to take another township's ordinance and copy it and say, 'Now, we have an ordinance,' " she says. "You need to have a rational basis for why you have a minimum setback requirement, etc."
When a Factory Farm Comes to Town: Protecting Your Township From Unwanted Development is a new Land Stewardship Project publication developed specifically for local government officials and rural residents. This 35-page booklet provides guidance in using the Minnesota Interim Ordinance and other tools in the state's Municipal Planning law. It also contains an extensive list of resources.
To order a copy, send $6 (that covers shipping; LSP members receive a 10 percent discount; Minnesota residents add 6.5 percent for sales tax) to: LSP, 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110. For more information, call (612) 653-0618.
Return to Pleasant Valley
Louis Bromfield's Best from Malabar Farm & His Other Country Classics
Edited by George DeVault
Published by American Botanist
Chillicothe, Ill.
1996
318 pages
$19.45
Reviewed by Brian DeVore
Was the late Louis Bromfield the Stephen King of agriculture? Not exactly. For one thing, I don't recall any Bromfield book or essay ever describing a werewolf ripping the vital organs out of a hapless teenager without the benefit of anesthesia. But fright can take on many forms. Consider the recent reaction of one highly sustainable farmer from southeast Minnesota after reading Malabar Farm, a Bromfield classic published in 1948: "It scared me to death. He knew everything I know today."
As Return to Pleasant Valley: Louis Bromfield's Best from Malabar Farm & His Other Country Classics proves, Bromfield was ÷ half a century ago ÷using and promoting many of the same sustainable agriculture practices that are still considered radical today. We've all heard stories of innovative farmers who were well ahead of the curve in creating sustainable production systems. But they were usually ignored or scoffed at, destined to plug away on their own piece of property in obscurity, their farsighted ideas buried with them. But Bromfield was respected here and abroad, and he wasn't shy about telling people what was taking place on his 1,000 acres of Ohio paradise. He wrote. He testified before Congress. He went on the lecture circuit and had a weekly national radio program. In short, there was a time in the middle of this century when Bromfield's sustainable agriculture experiment was the most well-known farm in the country.
When one considers that some five decades later we are still making the same mistakes Bromfield quite publicly identified and worked to correct, it does send a chill down even the most well-insulated spine.
While an expatriate writer in France, Bromfield was haunted by the fact that the hilltop farms of his native north-central Ohio were being farmed down to the nub by families desperate to stay solvent. So when the rumblings of the Second World War forced he and his family back to Ohio, the Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist plowed his book profits into three broken down farms in Pleasant Valley, the place where he had grown up.
During the next decade and a half, the farm became a model for "New Agriculture," and proved that profitable food and fiber production did not require a reliance on massive inputs of chemicals, fuel and technology. At its peak, the farm was attracting 20,000 visitors a year from throughout the world. At one carnival-like field day in the early 1950s, some 8,000 farmers came to see how Bromfield was able to increase yields on worn out soil using low-cost methods.
Bromfield wrote 31 books in all, and seven of those dealt mostly with his farm ÷ dubbed "Malabar Farm" ÷ and his views on New Agriculture. Pleasant Valley and Malabar Farm, Bromfield's two most famous agricultural books, gained wide acclaim and fired the imaginations of farmers, would-be farmers and urbanites.
His writings reflected the man's immense powers of observation. Bromfield believed, like his old neighbor Walter Oakes, that Sunday afternoons should be "spent walking over the place," digging in the soil, watching for pest-eating birds, and in general looking for indicators of what impact crop and livestock production was having on the land. "[My wife] always said a farm could teach you more than you could teach it, if you just kept your eyes open," Oakes told Bromfield during one outing along a fencerow thriving with life.
Bromfield was influenced by the type of farming he had witnessed in parts of Europe, where limited land had forced people to use their acres more efficiently, wasting as little as possible. He used compost and livestock to complete the nutrient cycle on Malabar and saw the planting of row crops such as corn in this hilly part of Ohio as a waste of soil, time and energy. Instead, he focused on growing soil-building legumes.
Bromfield's strong belief in making a farm able to cycle its own nutrients back into the land was born out of a larger dream that never came to fruition. While living the life of an American writer abroad, he fantasized about running a farm more along the lines of the kind landed gentry had once owned: a self-sufficient fortress of farming solitude fit for the likes of Thomas Jefferson.
Max Drake, Bromfield's first farm manager, scoffed at such ideas; Drake also cringed whenever Bromfield got a little overzealous in his farm talks and exaggerated the yields they were getting with their methods.
Bromfield hung onto his dream for much of his life. But a year before his death in 1956 he made it clear that Drake's arguments, and the reality of the modern world, had worn down his resolve to be king of a farming fiefdom: "When I look back now, the vague and visionary idea I had in returning home seems ludicrous and a little pathetic · I wanted a place which, again vaguely, would be like the medieval fortress-manor of France where a whole community once found security and self-sufficiency. ·Today, fifteen years later, we at Malabar have not achieved these romantic dreams nor have I won the escape into boyhood past which brought about the decision to return. In the end I did not find at all what I was seeking · I found something much better · ."
Perhaps Return to Pleasant Valley will introduce a new generation of land lovers to the "something much better" Bromfield found. And maybe this time it will instill the kind of constructive fear which results in sustainable change. p
Brian DeVore is the editor of the Land Stewardship Letter.
Knee Deep in Grass has 36-pages of insights on grass-based livestock production in Minnesota. This publication, produced by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and the Minnesota Extension Service, is based on a survey of 29 grazing operations from throughout the state. It includes information on business management practices, Holistic Management, weed control, forage testing, pasture layout and management. It also covers the pros and cons of management intensive grazing.
For a copy, send $5 (plus $2 shipping charge; Minn. residents add 7 percent sales tax) to: MES Distribution Center, University of Minn., 1420 Eckles Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108-6069; call 1-800-876-8636 for credit card orders or information on bulk orders.
Want to know how much herbicide was sprayed on corn acres last year, or the number of hogs being raised on the average farm? Almost every imaginable agricultural statistic is available through a U.S. Department of Agriculture/National Agriculture Statistics Service home page.
The Farmer's & Gardener's Resource Catalog lists some 60 hard-to-find publications on production and marketing. For a free copy, send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to: New World Publishing, 3085 Sheridan St., Placerville, CA 95667.
The Land Stewardship Project's 1000 Friends of Minnesota program has news, notices and calendar items related to land use issues available via electronic mail. You can sign up by sending the following message to majordomo@igc.org:
subscribe 1000fom-news.
Cultivating Farm, Neighbor, and Community Relations is a guide for maintaining good relationships between farmers and their non-farm neighbors in urbanizing areas areas where conflicts over land use issues often arise.
For a copy, send a $4 check payable to Cornell University (that covers shipping) to: Cornell Instruction Materials Service, Department of Education, 420 Kennedy Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; tel. (607) 255-9252.
The Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA) offers a toll-free help line for farmers and others who want to learn more about various aspects of sustainable agriculture. Call: 1-800-909-MISA.
Insect Management Guide for the Midwest covers key pest cycles, biology and timing of insect pests in relation to crop timing, information on beneficial insects, trapping techniques and monitoring methods. It also includes color photographs of insect pests.
For a copy, send a $46 check payable to the University of Minnesota (that covers shipping) to: Bill Hutchinson, Dept. of Entomology, U of M, 219 Hodson Hall, St. Paul, MN 55108.
Successful Whole Farm Planning: Essential Elements Recommended by the Great Lakes Basin Farm Planning Network summarizes the work of a group of farmers, nonprofit organizations, researchers and government agency staff.
Copies of the report are available by sending a check for $6 (that covers shipping) to: The Minnesota Project, 1885 University Ave. W., Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55104; tele. ÷ (612) 645-6159.
The Conservation Fund has a revolving loan fund available for the purchase of wetlands and blufflands in the Upper Mississippi River corridor and its tributaries. The Fund can provide loans to land trusts, nonprofit groups and government resource agencies.
For more information, contact: Peg Kohring, The Conservation Fund, 70 N. 22nd Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55411-2237; tele. ÷ (612) 545-4503; fax ÷ (612) 521-2376; Email: PKohring@aol.com
Estimating Fiscal Impacts of Residential Developments in Smaller Communities offers a way for community leaders to pencil out the cost of growth through a step-by-step process.
The workbook can be used for initial analysis of an individual development proposal or as a planning tool for thinking about growth issues in the municipality. It is organized around the major revenue and expenditure categories of municipal budgets, and provides average cost estimates for various public services. An 11-step sequence is used to arrive at the estimates of development's fiscal impacts.
For a copy, contact Tom Wegner, Minnesota Extension Service, 1525 Glenwood Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55405-1264; tel. (612) 374-8400.
APRIL 11-12 ÷ LSP meeting on rural organizing, featuring Maureen O'Connell and Connie White of "Save Our Cumberland Mountains," Lewiston, Minn.; Contact: (507) 523-3366
APRIL 12 ÷ Public forum on purchase of development rights (PDR), transfer of development rights (TDR) and creating greenbelts, featuring Tom Daniels of the Lancaster County (Penn.) Agricultural Preserve Board, Jim Sayer of San Francisco Bay Area Greenbelt Alliance and Jean Coleman of Biko Associates, Faith Lutheran Church, 866 N. Shore Dr., Forest Lake, Minn.; Contact: Scott Elkins, LSP (612) 653-0618.
Informal discussion of sustainable agriculture, 7 p.m., Jim & LeeAnn Van Der Pol farm, Kerkhoven, Minn.; Contact: (320) 847-3432
APRIL 17 ÷ Meeting to discuss the formation of an urban chapter of the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota (Twin Cities location); Contact: Henry Hubbin (612) 728-0853; or Tim King (320) 732-6203
APRIL 18 ÷ Social gathering for Twin Cities-area LSP members, 7 p.m.-9:30 p.m., Wilder Forest, Marine on St. Croix, Minn.; Contact: (612) 653-0618
APRIL 22 ÷ Earth Day
MAY 10-17 ÷ National River Cleanup Week; Contact: American Rivers (202) 547-6900
MAY 17 ÷ Clean Up our River Environment (CURE) canoe trip and canoe sweepstakes drawing, Minnesota River; Contact: Patrick Moore, LSP (320) 269-2105
MAY 17-19 ÷ 8th annual Minnesota Environmental Education Conference; Duluth, Minn.; Contact: Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, 1-800-657-3843
MAY 24 ÷ Annual Princeton-area Sustainable Farming Association homesteading workshop & family fun day, Doug Marshall farm, Princeton, Minn.; Contact: Sharla Foltz (612) 389-4920
JUNE 12 ÷ Field day featuring free stall and walk-through milking parlor with humane stalls, Brit Schriever farm, Harmony, Minn.; Contact: Bev Sandlin (507) 689-2988
JUNE 28 ÷ Field day featuring CSA and poultry, Koenig-Wartheson farm, Elgin, Minn.; Contact: (507) 689-2988
JULY 21-24 ÷ Western Organization of Resource Councils' "Principles of Community Organizing" training sessions, Montana State University, Billings, Mont.; Contact: Patrick Sweeney, 2401 Montana Ave., No. 301, Billings, MT 59101; tel. (406) 252-9672; Email: WORCBIL@AOL.COM.
JULY 30-31 ÷ Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture's 10th Anniversary Conference, Ames, Iowa; Contact: Rich Pirog, (515) 294-3711
SEPT. 13 ÷ Land Stewardship Project 15th Anniversary Celebration, New Prague, Minn.; watch future issues of the LSL for more details; Contact: (612) 653-0618
Check the Calendar for the latest on upcoming LSP events.
Back to top