Family and Individually Operated Farms

Note: this essay was origionally published in Quaker Eco-Bulletin May-June 2003

Since World War II and the Eisenhower administration, the number of farms and farmland acreage has decreased drastically in the United States. Most of the farms that have been lost were relatively small, operated by families and individuals that had homesteads on the land they farmed. Farming to them was more than a business or a way to earn a living; it was a way of life that incorporated the values of a loving family, good neighborliness, independence, stewardship of the land, making the highest and best use of God’s Earth. Farming to them was caring for the soil, the water, and the animals. For many it was a spiritual journey.

In Michigan, my home state, we lost 70 percent of our farms between 1950 and 1992 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census of Agriculture). Most of them were lost between 1954 and 1974. Those losses are consistent with recommendations of the Committee for Economic Development (CED). The CED was organized after World War II and consisted of CEO’s of some of the nation’s wealthiest corporations, including banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies.

David Rockefeller was its first chair. Although the CED was not a government agency or organization, it had considerable influence on government and Wall Street. One recommendation in its 1953 report follows:

Our program would involve moving off the farm about two million of the present labor force, plus a number equal to a large part of the new entrants who would otherwise join the farm labor force in the next five years (Ritchie and Ristau, 1986).

The rationale for this recommendation was that industrialization would make agriculture more efficient and the urban labor force would be improved by moving farmers to the cities because farmers were reputed to be hard workers.

The Committee’s 1962 report boasted that its policy of moving millions of independent farmers off their farms and into the urban workforce was successful. Labor intensive small farms–we don’t know how a small farm was differentiated from a large farm–were being replaced by capital intensive, mechazed large farms. During the Eisenhower Administration, Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson told farmers to “Get big or get out.” That policy was implemented with a vengeance during the Reagan Administration when John Block was Secretary of Agriculture. Representatives of the Farmers Home Loan Association (FHLA) and the Land Bank went to farmer’s homes and persuaded many of them to take out loans to expand and modernize their operations.

Overproduction and Foreclosure

At the same time the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), under Secretaries Benson, Butz, and Block, was paying farmers to over-produce via subsidies, which increased supply to the middlemen and decreased demand and price at the farm gate. When farm gate prices and farm land values declined to a level that was less than the principal of the loan, the FHLA, the Land Bank, the Production Credit Association, and many private banks, rushed to foreclose. I knew farmers who had not defaulted on loans but were foreclosed on because the appraised value of their property had declined below the value of their loans.

The farm credit agencies often sell the land they have foreclosed on at less than full value. In some cases they received only 40 cents on the dollar. Often the purchaser is a corporation or a syndicate of urban business people who know and care nothing about land stewardship, farming, and rural life. They care nothing about where and how their food is produced and have no idea whether it is safe and healthful.

Wholesale and retail prices did not decline, however. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a federal corporation, granted loans to large capital intensive, corporate operators who used their crops as collateral. When the borrowers defaulted on the loans, the CCC took the crops that it held in storage and the loan was considered paid in full. Of course U.S. taxpayers paid for the storage of grains, butter, dried milk, peanuts, peanut butter, cheese, etc.

Price supports were enacted after World War II to guarantee farmers a decent price for their product and to keep them on the farm. There also were price caps established during the war to keep some farmers from overcharging for food commodities, such as meats and sugar that were in short supply. Price supports have continued and are in force today. If the price at which a farmer sells his or her crop is less than the support price, he or she can apply to the USDA for a loan deficiency payment, which is the difference between the market price and the support price.

Price Supports and Corporate Farms

For the large corporate farms, deficiency payments can amount to millions of dollars. To the smaller independent family or individual farmer the deficiency payment does not amount to much. Most of the farmer’s income including deficiency payments must be used to service debt. During the 1980s, interest on much of that debt was anywhere between 13 and 21 percent.

Many large corporate and factory farms are subsidiaries of holding corporations, such as TRW, Tenneco, Occidental Enterprises, Dean Foods, super market chains, and insurance companies. Companies such as Prudential, John Hancock, and Travelers have become farm owners via foreclosure. They hire managers and use the most environmentally unfriendly chemicals and mechanical methods. In essence, they mine the soil, and pollute ground and surface water. When the soil is no longer productive, they develop the land themselves or sell it to a developer at a much higher price than the value of agricultural land. They can write off farm operation losses on their federal tax returns, as well as collect millions in deficiency payments.

Agribusiness and Pollution

The very large corporate agribusiness operations that totally confine thousands of animals are environmental disasters waiting to happen. Manure management is an ecological problem. The amount of land on which such operations are built is not usually enough for spreading all the manure produced. The lagoons in which the manure is stored eventually leak and allow the manure to leach into nearby surface and ground waters polluting them with nitrogen, which stimulates vegetation growth in the streams, lakes, and rivers crowding out aquatic life. Fecal bacteria that leak from lagoons into rivers, lakes, and streams can be hazardous to the health of those who drink the water, eat the fish, or swim in the water.

Many family-sized farms have been convinced to use capital and chemical-intensive methods by our land grant college research and extension programs and the American Farm Bureau Federation. In many cases such methods do not fit the familysized operation. Most machinery, implements, and other farm technology manufactured in the U.S. today are designed for the huge factory farm.

Ecological, Labor-Intensive, Efficient Farming

In contrast, independent, relatively small family and individually operated farms try to maintain soil fertility and reduce chemical inputs–herbicides, insecticides, and synthetic fertilizers– to the least amount that makes their yields profitable. Many such farmers have moved to natural or organic farming where they use natural fertilizers, birds, and other insects to get rid of those that harm crops, and soil conditioning methods that suit the crops they raise. They also raise a diversity of crops and livestock that replace nutrients in the soil and maintain its fertility because they know that is what the Creator intended.

Not only are the independent family and individual farm operators who reside on the land they farm more likely to be better stewards of their land, they are also more efficient than the large factory farm. In a study comparing labor intensive Amish farms, conventional family-sized farms, and factory sized farms, the Amish were the most efficient when energy inputs and energy outputs were measured. (Johnson, et. al. 1977.)Johnson and his colleagues found that most very large factory farms had a net energy loss. If fossil fuel energy, irrigation, and grazing land were not subsidized and if large factory farm owners could not collect the bulk of USDA’s deficiency payments, most probably could not stay in business.

Some family and individually owned operations have become agribusinesses. The American Farm Bureau Federation, has preached “get big or get out,” to its members. The Agriculture Extension Service and the Farm lending institutions have hyped that line also. Some farmers have done that successfully, but most of those who have tried to expand to a size that competes with corporate-sized factory farms have defaulted on loans they could not service due to high interest rates and low prices.

Community Sustainability

Large agribusinesses, whether they be dairy, beef, or hog feeding factories, cash grain or fruit and vegetable producers, do not purchase their capital equipment, seed, feed, and fertilizer from local businesses. They buy fleets of tractors, combines, and other implements directly from the manufacturer. (Tenneco owns the Case-International tractor and farm implement corporation.) Seed, feed, and fertilizer is shipped in by the railway carload from the processor. Thus, local farm supply businesses close and people move away. Churches, schools, and other public services and institutions can no longer operate because the tax revenue is no longer adequate to support them. Such operations do not sustain communities—they suck the life out of them.

In 1944 Walter R. Goldschmidt studied two farm communities in the Central Valley of California. One was primarily a community of large, agribusiness farms—average size 497 acres—and the other was a community of small, family operated farm—average size 57 acres. They noted that the town the family farms surrounded and supported was a better place to live than the town in the agribusiness community.

The family farm community had more schools, three times more churches, more community social events, and active social and civic organizations. It had more parks and places for meeting and recreation. A higher proportion of the town residents and farmers participated in community decision-making because social distance between hired workers, farm owners, and town business owners was less in the family farm community than in the agribusiness community. Houses and public buildings of the small farm community’s town were built for permanence, and the major business and residential streets were paved. The small family farm community had a larger population than did the town in the agribusiness farm community because those farms supported more persons per acre than the large farms could.

Current Agricultural Legislation

The Bush Administration’s 2004 budget proposal has recommended reducing two programs that are important for family farmers and for the environment. The Conservation Security Program (CSP) gives grants to farmers who take land out of cultivation for row crops and put it into hay or pasture that will improve or maintain its quality. Wetlands preservation is included in CSP. The Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) allocates funds to enable farmers to bring their excretia management operations (manure/urine lagoons) up to EPA standards with regard to effluent discharge and air quality. The Administration budget proposal reduces appropriations for both CSP and EQIP to almost nothing, diverting those funds to other agricorporation uses.

Country of Origin Labeling is proposed legislation that most independent farmers believe is extremely important. It allows consumers to make informed choices in regard to the source of the food they buy. Under this legislation, some foods must also include ingredients if they are combined. Corporate food processors are fighting this labeling requirement because they have investments in foreign factory farms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, from the environmental, economical, political, and socio-cultural perspectives the smaller, family-sized farm is better for the local community than the very large, agribusiness farm. If it is better in all localities from all those perspectives, then it is logical to assume that it is better globally from a spiritual perspective.

What Friends can Do

To help preserve independent family and individual farm operations and rural communities in our home and nearby rural counties, Friends can:

1) Buy as much food as possible from local independent producers.

2) Encourage the establishment of a farmers market in your town or city so that local producers can sell fresh, healthy food to local consumers at prices profitable to the producer and reasonable to the consumer.

3) Encourage local grocery stores to buy and sell locally produced products. (Here in Michigan some of us are boycotting Washington apples. Michigan apples are just as good and fresher when sold here. We are also boycotting Old Orchard fruit juices. Old Orchard is a Michigan corporation that imports concentrated apple juice from China’s agribusiness corporations rather than using Michigan apples for juice. Chinese farm labor is underpaid and overworked.)

4) Call and write federal legislators to urge them to maintain the allocations recommended in the 2002 farm bill for such items as the Conservation Security Program and the Environmental Quality Improvement Program.

5) Urge your legislators to support Country of Origin Labeling of meats, dairy products, fresh fruits and vegetables.

For Further Information

Alternative Farm Systems Information Center: Sustainable Agriculture

Barnes, Donna A. Farmers in Rebellion: The Rise and Fall of the Southern Farmers Alliance and the People’s Party in Texas. Austin, TX, University of Texas Press. 1984.

Berger, Samuel R. Dollar Harvest: An Expose’ of the Farm Bureau. 2nd edition. Plains VA, AAM Publications, 1986. DeLind, Laura B. “The State, Hog Hotels and the Right to Farm: A Curious Relationship.” (Unpublished paper) Dept. of Anthropology, Michigan State University, 1991.

DeLind, Laura B. and Joseph Spielberg. “The Reindustrialization of Michigan Agriculture: An Examination of State Agriculture Policies. The Rural Sociologist, Summer 1990.

Fenton, Thomas P. & Mary J. Heffron, eds. Food, Hunger, Agribusiness: A Directory of Resources. Maryknoll, NY. Orbis Books, 1987. Goldschmidt, Walter R., As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness. Montclair, NJ. Allanheld, Osmun & Co. 2nd edition, 1978.

Johnson, Warren et. al. “Energy Conservation in Amish Agriculture.” Science, Vol. 198, Oct. 1977, pp. 373-378.

Kneen, Brewster. From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System. Toronto, New Canada Publications. 1993. Kneen, Brewster. The Invisible Giant: Cargill and its Transnational Strategies. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Fernwood Publishing. 1995.

National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Ritchie, Mark & Kevin Ristau. Political History of U. S. Farm Policy. St. Paul, MN, Minnesota Agriculture Commission, 1986.

Thompson, Frank, and 501 Farmers and Friends. The American Farmer Book. Roseville, IL. Winget Printing Co. 1986.

Alan Connor is a retired small organic farmer, practitioner and professor of community organization, planning and development at the University of Michigan and Siena Heights College. Alan has been involved with independent farmers and farmland preservation in Michigan and Minnesota since the 1970s. He and his wife Polly are members of Ann Arbor Friends Meeting.

A Sustainable Capital Economy

The corporate capitalist, global economy of the developed World is seriously flawed. It is structured such that wealthy mega corporations and their major stockholders–banks, brokerage houses, insurance companies, wealthy families–accumulate most of the Worlds assets and resource control. They use their wealth to gain control over publicly owned resources and to amass even more wealth; much more than they need. They do not put much of their excess wealth to use for public good. They let a little of it trickle down, like crumbs from a gourmand’s table, to those who work to further increase the gourmand’s already excessive wealth. The further down the work status ladder one’s job is, the fewer crumbs one is allocated.

Work status is determined by the supply of labor available for a particular position/occupation and the skill that occupation requires. The number of persons admitted to high skilled jobs that are allocated an adequate or more than adequate supply of crumbs–i.e. wages--is limited by admissions to education and training programs for those positions.

Western economy is presently structured such that a certain amount of poverty is necessary. In order for the corporations that control capital, natural and human resources to maximize–not optimize–profits they make sure that goods and services available to the universe of consumers is less than the need for those goods and services. A supply shortage keeps effective demand and prices high. In the United States usually about 15-16 percent of the population cannot afford the basic necessities and a decent quality of life. For the total population of the Earth, more like 35-40 percent cannot afford decent shelter, protective clothing, an adequate food supply, adequate transportation, access to health care and adequate education or training. They may afford some or most of the basic needs, but not all.

Gigantic transnational manufacturing, power generating, petroleum exploration, refining and distribution, food processing and distributing, holding and lending and credit granting corporations, as a class, demonstrate no sincere concern for the working people who produce their profits and the wealth of their upper level executives and major stock-holders. Most also demonstrate no concern for water, air and soil pollution or for the medical, environmental and economic health of the communities in which their plants and businesses are located and where many of their lower status production workers, clerks and laborers reside.

The economy of the developed or Western World is based on the following premises.
It must continually expand into perpetuity or stagnate and degenerate.
The World’s population must continue to increase to create new consumers and new markets as old markets become saturated.
"Competition is good," although in practice corporations seek to eliminate or at least reduce competition via hostile takeovers, mergers and buyouts of competitors.
Technology that reduces human error and labor costs is good. (Now days new state of the art technology tends to be more expensive than labor if not subsidized directly and indirectly)
Bigger is better because it permits economies of scale.
Big business development should have higher priority than community social, cultural and political development .
An economy so structured, based on the above premises cannot continue to sustain communities, vital resources and life on Earth as it has been sustained for thousands, perhaps millions, of years. The devastated core residential areas of the World’s cities and the many defunct small towns and villages are testaments to that.

Premises for the New Capital Economy

The first premise on which the new economy would be based is: the production of goods is primarily for the sustenance of, and a decent quality of life for, the community in which its elements –i.e. factories, stores, power plants, mines, farms, etc.–are sited. Secondarily the economy would produce goods to sustain communities in the adjacent region and thirdly for the rest of the nation and the World.

The second premise is that natural resources found in and nearby the settlement will be used parsimoniously. Our most precious resources are soil, water and air. They sustain all life on Earth and should be carefully husbanded. All agricultural activities use water. Some use more some less depending on the type of soil and climate where they are located and the particular needs of the crop. Many modern, capital and chemical intensive agricultural practices pollute and divert water, making it non-recyclable. Industrial activities also use water. By nature industry pollutes water, air, soil and otherwise abuses the environment. Therefore, we need to keep industrial activity to a minimum; just enough to ensure community sustenance. And we need to develop means to minimize the damage it does to its environs.

A third premise is that land will be used for what it is naturally best suited. Prime, fertile farm land would be used to grow and produce food and fiber. Wetlands would be left to filter and purify water that has been adulterated by human use. Land adjacent to wetlands and surface water would be preserved for forests and wildlife habitat. Steeply sloping land, foothills and dry, semi-arid land where top soil is light and shallow is best used for pasture and grazing. It should not be plowed because the loosened top soil is likely to be blown away. And to satisfy affluent humans demand for more meat, beef herds should not be increased so that pasture becomes over grazed. Mountainous land is best suited for forestation, wildlife habitat and clean water headlands. Land that has a heavy clay and/or gravel base is best suited for construction of homes, heavy and light industry, commerce and infrastructure. It is on such land that cities, towns, highways, subdivisions and shopping area should be located. Small portions of farm and forest lands can be designated for human habitation such as farm homesteads, foresters and loggers abodes and for small industry that converts natural resources such as trees, grains, other food stuffs and fiber to utile goods. If land were so used "urban sprawl" would cease. Local transportation would be reduced, helping to keep ambient air clean, minimizing emissions of climate changing greenhouse gasses. Neighborhoods and small towns could be rebuilt on a mixed use, walking scale.

Economic stability is the fourth premise on which the new capital economy would be based. Stability does not preclude population and market growth, but the economy envisioned here does not depend on it as today’s economy does. By producing to meet need instead of effective demand, every human being will have the necessities of life. Most also will have a few comforts and a few will have luxuries. In order to keep environmentally degrading and damaging industries to a minimum the manufacture of luxuries will be reduced significantly..

The fifth premise is that the economy will be driven by production rather than consumption. The settlement will sanction, positively, the production of just enough goods and services to meet needs, provide some comforts for its residents and an optimal excess to exchange for needed imports and emergencies rather than satisfy conspicuous consumption.

Opportunity for every resident of the community to adopt and perform a role that contributes to the general welfare of the community is a sixth premise on which a sustainable economy and sustainable communities would be established. Such a role would be socially, economically and spiritually rewarding. In such communities there would be no unemployment, no homelessness and no starvation. All would have access to what ever health care they needed and all would have access to the education and/or training they are capable of.

Foreseeable Consequences of Such an Economy

Since conspicuous consumption would be minimized, socio-economic class distinctions would be minimized also. There would be no utter impoverishment because every resident’s basic needs would be met. There also would be less concentration of wealth among a few families, individuals and companies because assets would be distributed more equitably than at present. Political power, defined as the capacity to acquire and control resources, (Parsons and Smelser) would be more broadly spread among households and cultural institutions of the settlement rather than concentrated in a few very wealthy persons or families.

Less damage would be done to the environment since use of natural resources including extraction of minerals and fossil fuels, and cutting down trees would be minimized. Use of fossil fuels, would be reduced. Alternative, renewable fuels could be substituted for fossil fuels economically if subsidies such as depletion allowances and immediate, 100 percent depreciation of oil and gas drilling equipment were eliminated.

Since land would be put to the use for which nature designed it, its highest and best use, fertile soil would not be contaminated with synthetic chemicals, nor would aquifers and nearby surface water.

Manufacturing would be primarily to supply the local and regional communities, plants would be smaller than now days and consume less land. They would be distributed more broadly which would tend to reduce the quantity of contaminated effluent in any specific locality. Local ecological systems would be better able to neutralize the reduced amount of toxic effluent.

With regard to agriculture, the agricultural colleges at The University of Nebraska and Iowa State University have experimented with organic and natural methods of growing grain using no or very few synthetic fertilizers. They have found that when doing so yields are not as high in ideal weather conditions as when synthetic fertilizers are used. In poor weather conditions, organic and natural methods produce higher yields than fields that use the synthetic fertilizers. Over a period of years, fields where natural and organic methods were used, varied less year to year than those subjected to high quantities of chemicals and income per acre was equal to or higher than those fields because input costs were much less even when mechanical methods requiring fossil fuel use were more frequent.

Reductions in crimes such as theft, armed robbery, breaking and entering, and check kiting can be expected. Since all community residents will have at least the basic necessities for survival and most will have some additional comforts, motive for such crimes will be minimized. Mental illness and crimes against persons probably would be reduced also because all residents will occupy a social role valued by the settlement, and social-emotional stress would be minimized.

A greater proportion of public decisions and policy would be made at the local and regional levels and less at the national level. With production of goods primarily for local and secondarily for regional consumption, there would be less need for international trade agreements, interstate commerce regulations, tariffs and excise taxes. They would not be eliminated altogether because some excess production would be exported out of the community and its region in exchange for needed goods the community and region cannot produce. To respond to international emergencies, national government would have to be involved. Some foreign trade would exist, but since all communities would be producing at primarily to meet their residents’ needs and comfort, external trade would be minimized.

Most political and coordinating functions would be localized and regionalized, government would

be decentralized. Thus national and state governments could down size and the expense of supporting them would decrease. National and state governments would continue to be necessary to provide for: national defense, foreign relations, immigration, management of national parks and other national lands and property, and provide support for, regulate and maybe even provide interstate and nationwide public transit. A new more equitable taxation system would be developed. Individual incomes would not be taxed to support national and state or provincial governments. Settlements would share some of the taxes they collect from local people, profit making businesses and institutions with regional and state government which in turn would share their revenue with the national government. Local and regional people would participate in determining state and national revenue shares.

Summary

In the first section of this essay serious flaws in the structure of the capital economy of today’s developed World were discussed. The major flaw is corporate control of the World’s resources–i.e. capital–and amassing of wealth which results in (1) the inequitable distribution of resources, (2) contrived shortages of goods and services to keep effective demand high and maximize–not optimize–profit, (3) market control and manipulation that makes a certain amount of poverty inevitable, (4) lack of concern for sustaining the environment and its natural resources.

Six premises–there may be more–on which today’s unsustainable economy is based were listed.

The second section describes in minimal detail a vision of a capital economy which is designed to increase the probability that communities, vital natural resources and life on Earth, as we know it now, can be sustained. It discusses six premises on which such an economy would be based.

In the third section foreseeable positive consequences–there may be negative ones--were discussed: socio-economic class distinctions and utter impoverishment would likely be minimized; damage to the environment would be reduced as the use of renewable fuel resources would replace fossil fuels; more land would be used for what nature designed it; both agriculture and industry would be less abusive to soil, water and ambient air; reductions in crime and social emotional stress can be expected; political power would be more broadly distributed and most public policy would be determined at the community and regional levels; most government functions would be decentralized and taxation could be more equitable.

References

Ames, Joseph (Bill), et. al. Washtenaw County Agriculture Lands and Open Space Preservation Plan: Final Report. Ann Arbor, MI. A Committee of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners staffed by the County Metropolitan Planning Commission. December 1997.

Barnes, Peter, "Land Reform in America," Radical Agriculture. Richard Merrill ed. New York, Harper & Row, 1976.

Pp. 26-40.

Berry, Wendell, The Unsettling of America. 3^rd edition. San Francisco, Sierra Club Books, 1997.

_____, "Where Cities and Farms Come Together," Op. Cit., Pp 14-25.

Brown, Lester, Building a Sustainable Society. New York, Norton, 1981. for the Worldwatch Institute.

Christiansen, D. S.J. and W. Granger eds., "And God Saw that it was Good." Catholic Theology and the Environment. U.S. Catholic Conference, 1996.
Dominican Episcopal Conference, The. Pastoral Letter on the Relationships of Human Beings to Nature. The Dominican Republican, 1987.
Finkler, Earl, et. al. Urban Nongrowth: City Planning for People. New York, Praeger. 1976
Goldschmidt, Walter R., As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness. 2^nd edition Montclair, NJ. Allenheld, Osmun & Co. 1978.
Flora, Jan I., et. al. Rural Communities: Legacy & Change. Boulder, CO. Westview Press. 1992.

Johnson, Warren, et. al. "Energy Conservation in Amish Agriculture." Science. Vol. 198. Oct. 28, 1977.

Pp. 33-378.

Kneen, Brewster. From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System. 2^nd edition, Toronto, NC Press Ltd. 1993.

______, The Invisible Giant: Cargill and its Transnational Strategies. East Haven, CT. Pluto Press. 1995.

Michael, Donald N. On Learning to Plan–and Planning to Learn. San Francisco. Jossey–Bass. 1973.

National Conference of Cathlic Bishops, Report to the Ad hoc Task Force on Food, Agriculture and Rural Concerns. U. S. Catholic Conference. Publishing 1988.

Parsons, Talcott and Neil Smelser, Economy and Society. New York, Free Press. 1956.

Schumacher, E.F., Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. New York, Harper & Row. 1773.

Skaerlund, David. Policy Recommendations and Opinions for the Growth of Michigan Agriculture. Lansing, MI.

Michigan Farmland and Agriculture Development Task Force. December 1994.