Sustainable Thoughts and Ideas: Why do so many folks run down an alternative food system that can produce high quality food, profit, and benefits for local economies?

July 28, 2010 
Leave a Comment

By: Nathan Melson, MS Agricultural Sciences
Written for Living Natural First Magazine January 2010

Recently, I saw the documentary film “Food, Inc.” I had previously heard a lot about it from some of our customers, and I had seen the previews. Even though I had some preconceptions about what I was going to see, and being the food farmer/activist that I am I thought I was educated on most of what the movie covered. However, I have to say that it was still an education for me as I watched it. It had some things in it that educated me and surprised me! I walked out of the viewing with some friends in a local organization that I’m involved in, angry at what the industrial food system and agriculture in the U.S. has become. For those of you who don’t know, this film covers many of the problems we are facing in the U.S. with our highly over-industrialized food system. It also gives an all too small glimpse into a pastoral, locally based, natural-systems agriculture that can provide bountiful, nourishing food to a public-base that is growing the demand every year. Now, industrial mainstream agriculture will tell you that to have a bountiful food supply we have to have the petroleum based mega-farm industrial monoculture three-crop system of corn, soybeans, and meat. However, folks who run farms like ours, direct marketers, market gardeners, and foundations devoted to teaching and research like Rodale Institute are disproving that mantra everyday.

Ever since I was in high school, fifteen years ago, I’ve tried to figure out why lot’s of people run down small-farming agriculture, and why agriculture has to based on large, industrial sized farms for farmers to make a living. In high school I was basically told in a round-about way, that farming is for people with low intelligence, minimal education, and no aspirations. Sports then academics, almost in that order, were the only way to go and achieve. I’ve finally come to a decision that I believe is the truth. My truth is, the only reason industrial large agriculture is profitable (Minimally to most farmers.) is due to cheap petroleum, publicly subsidized farming, and corporate control of modern agriculture.

Notice that I said profitable, but minimally. Without subsidies, I believe conventional industrial agriculture in the U.S. would have “to go the way of the DoDo”, because conventional farmers could only loose money for so long, and then they would have to quit. This in not a situation I would wish on any farmer or anyone. I would prefer American farmers be profitable in all they do, and that there were many more of us on farms. Instead many have been blinded by lots of people, politics, agricultural science in certain peoples best interests, and strategically placed dollars. Why do folks in mainstream agricultural circles find it so necessary to bicker with fellow farmers who are moving to the alternative. They continue to try to argue about whether the alternative is practical, profitable, sustainable, and works while they already have regulations, fuel prices, capital costs, and corporations against their own system. Shouldn’t farmers be supporting farmers, and helping with profitable, eco-friendly techniques, and idea sharing. Many alternative system farmers are making much more profit per acre or animal while providing a service to the environment. It really “chaps my hide” to see how alternative farmers like myself are looked down upon, and sometimes virtually out of town for doing things differently than Farmer Joe next door. If we could just get some of these friends, neighbors, students, and educators outside the box for a while, they might be able to actually see all the benefits that an alternative agricultural system can provide.

People really need to just get outside the vacuum for a few days, so they can have their heads cleared and actually see what is going on out there. A perfect example is what my wife recently experienced this week in her senior year of college Animal Science Livestock Management class. I will attempt to explain. This class is supposed to teach students standard livestock management techniques in a hands-on environment. Many agricultural students in college these days need this kind of hands-on exposure because they don’t have agricultural backgrounds. However, it would be nice if more of them were exposed to some alternative agricultural thinking as well as conventional.

At the end of the semester of Livestock Management, students are allowed to form groups of three to four for an end-of-the-semester presentation. Some groups are assigned cattle scenarios, others hogs, and still others horses or sheep scenarios. They are given a set number of farm acreage, animals, and assets in a theoretical scenario, but are asked to come up with a farm management plan showing inputs, outputs, animal management, and profit or loss. My wife picked a group with two other fairly open-minded female students with minimal agricultural background. They were given in their scenario 350 acres fenced with needed equipment and 50 head of whatever kind of cattle they desired. They decided to develop their scenario based on a true-to-life scenario that some of our friends in the grass-fed stocker/feeder cattle business currently participate in. My wife’s scenario is a scaled down version. They would grow out 50 head of steers and/or heifers purchased from a natural grass-fed cow/calf operation on grasses, legumes, and hay and sell them into the Whole Foods grass-fed beef program set up by the Grass-fed Livestock Alliance, while baling non-certified organic hay for sale to other operations on their surplus grass. In our part of the country you can figure on a need of 3 to 4 acres per cow, so on their assumed 350 acres this group would have quite a bit of extra forage while being stocked with only 50 head of cattle.

After spending a week doing research on this market, and putting a presentation together they gave their presentation on their scenario. My wife tells me it was one of the only presentations that showed all costs in a real world amount. They also explained their total gross and net incomes for a projected year in this business. They were able to show a $14,000 annual net income while other groups with a conventional cattle operation with all the chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and conventional sale-barn marketing figured in were able to show a maximum annual income of $6,000. My wife’s group was lambasted with questions from the instructor and other class members about their operation. The other groups in the class who didn’t think outside the box received minimal questions. My wife and her group were able to answer these questions intelligently with facts and figures within their presentation. However, the only thing that really bugged my wife about all of this, was when after the last cattle presentation, the $6,000 profit one, the instructor made a comment something like and I’m paraphrasing, “Very Good. Finally a cattle operation that is practical!” This infuriated my wife so much that she called me right after class to tell me of the events. This is about the most irritated that I’ve seen her after a college class. She told me that she almost stood up in the middle of class to ask how many students actually wanted to make a living or do make a living from their future or current agricultural situation without having to work off the farm. Of course many of those students will never really be directly involved in agriculture anyway, but you see her point. Why do agricultural academia, folks, and farmers working in conventional agriculture continue to deny the benefits of what thousands of natural/alternative farmers and research like the Rodale Institute is turning out? I just can’t figure this out.

For all those doubters that say organic/natural/sustainable agricultural systems can’t produce the quantity of food that a conventional chemical-intensive agriculture does, the Rodale Institute is showing in their system it virtually can. Their Farming Systems Trial (FST) has been in place for over 29 years comparing a conventional cropping system versus an organic cropping system. The FST is comparing three systems for grain production. One is a conventional 5-year rotation system typical of many farms across the Midwest, which is corn, soybeans, corn, corn, soybeans. It receives fertilizer and pesticide applications according to the recommendations provided by Pennsylvania State University. One is a livestock-based organic 5-year rotation system of corn, soybeans, corn silage, wheat, red clover and alfalfa hay, with aged cattle manure applied in the two corn years. The final system is a legume-based green-manure organic system designed around a 3-year rotation of hairy vetch/corn, rye/soybeans, and wheat. The two organic systems don’t receive chemical inputs for fertility, weed or pest control. The following quote was taken from a 2008 paper about Rodale’s FST results to date. “Now in its 28th year, the FST has compared conventional farming using Penn State Agronomy Guide input recommendations to both legume- and manure-based organic systems. Results have shown organic yields to be within 5 percent of conventional yields in most years and the organic systems outperforming the conventional system in years of extreme weather patterns such as drought.” (See http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/depts/NFfield_trials/0903/FST.shtmland http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/20080529/gw1) Just getting folks into an alternative environment where they can think outside the box and take a chance on experimentation outside the standard agricultural science can have a huge impact as Rodale is proving.

Can an alternative environment really make that much difference in thinking? Well, I have a perfect example. On our farm we raise hair sheep for meat production. We started with a flock of twelve St. Croix Hair Sheep in 2002, and have raised our own females ever since, only introducing new ram lines. I have become very fond of our sheep flock over the years because of the weed control and fertilizer service they provide for our pastures as well as their parasite resistance and high quality, flavorful lamb that they produce for our customers. I mention this to tell you about our bottle lamb turned grown pet sheep named Sue. Sue is a perfect example of what getting outside the old box, and thinking in an alternative environment can do for you. It can open up a door to an entirely different world! Supposedly, you can run a whole flock of sheep, with a large amount of flocking instinct, off a cliff. However, Sue proves that environment can have a major impact on the way an individual thinks. Sue will turn a year old in March, and she sleeps on our porches every night. This ewe thinks she is a dog, literally. Being separated from the sheep flock mentality, has taught her to think in a completely different way, and she is quite successful at it. She follows us and our dogs around like we are her flock, running, jumping, pawing, and even attempting to vocalize, sometimes, like one of our pet dogs. We tried when she was younger to leave her with the sheep flock, and she decided she wanted to be a yard dog-sheep. We couldn’t bring ourselves to force her to stay with the flock since she obviously loved growing up in the yard here at the house, and her personality begged for us to try an experiment. Now, we have a 110 pound, still growing, ewe that thinks she is a dog living in our yard, and on the back porch. Sue follows us around the pastures with the other dogs, comes when we call her by name, loves to be scratched on the belly particularly, and processes her thoughts differently than a lot of other sheep. You can just tell by how she acts and by looking at her face.

I mention all of this about Sue our yard dog-sheep, to illustrate a picture of how ways of thinking in agriculture could be changed if we just put ourselves outside of the flock ( or outside what everyone else thinks.) We’ve got to be creative as farmers and/or consumers if we are going to come up with a viable agriculture/food system alternative that can eventually overcome the negativity that comes from the conventional industrial system. We have to open all the “nay sayers” eyes to the benefits to creation, society, and the farmers pocketbook. If you haven’t started thinking differently lately whether it be because of money issues, health, environment, books, news, or a movie like “Food, Inc.”, now is a good time to start. FARM ON!