A Matter of Vision
The Future of American Agriculture
By Brian Snyder, Executive Director of Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA)

For at least four decades, since about the time when many of us as children began to idealize the processed foods originally prepared for astronauts, American farming sat on the brink of... something.

Whether that “something” amounts to greatness or disaster depends on the perspective of the observer. But few would argue that this 40 year period can be characterized as one of intermittent decline for the bulk of farmers and, more importantly, for the agrarian culture that was once the hallmark of our country.

Today, the decline continues, with some notable exceptions. At least two generalized approaches to farming, located mostly at opposite ends of the farm-size spectrum, seem to be flourishing. Traditional farms, now often referred to as “mid-sized farms,” are disappearing fast. It is only natural to inquire as to the drivers of this divergent trend, and whether any particular model holds the key to a brighter future.

In pursuit of answers, it can be very instructive to note how, when faced with the same set of facts, equally well educated and otherwise sophisticated people can sometimes reach very different conclusions. Take for instance the appearance of Mad Cow Disease in America’s beef industry, or the impending specter of deadly Avian Influenza.

Faced with these circumstances, advocates of so-called “modern” confinement and mega-feedlot production systems see a need for more uniformity and control, as well as larger production facilities in general. On the other hand, practitioners of alternative agricultural systems, usually implemented on smaller and more widely scattered farms, will talk about the urgent need for increased diversification and holistic approaches that look at the health of the entire system.

In order to understand and evaluate these contrasting attitudes, one must first comprehend the visions that generated them. In this case, a “vision” is being defined as a series of interconnected
principles that logically lead to a desired result. For example, consider the following diagram of one agricultural vision:

Vision A:
Isolation
Exploitation
Efficiency
Inexpensive Food

In this vision, representing the principles underlying what has come to be known as “conventional” agriculture, we see a progression of ideas ending in a desired result, i.e. an efficient production system that provides inexpensive food for the masses.

The term “isolation” is used here to depict the typical concept of an independent American farmer, operating in an intensely competitive market environment including not only neighboring farms and those across the country, but increasingly those in other countries as well. As the vision goes, such farms make the best use of, or “exploit” available resources in order to operate as efficiently as possible. The desired outcome is to produce the relatively inexpensive food supply that we often take for granted.

In contrast to this conventional thinking, an altogether different vision underpins the alternative farming methods relied upon by the “sustainable” farming community, diagrammed as follows:

Vision B:
Connection
Systemic Health
Quality
High-Value Food

This vision, while different in obvious ways, also represents a progression of ideas that brings about a desired outcome – food for our society that, while not necessarily inexpensive, is of very good quality for the money paid, i.e. high-value food. The emphasis on “quality” as opposed to “efficiency” is the key to understanding this particular vision, and a key to understanding the difference between conventional and sustainable systems.

The sustainable vision is founded on the concept of “connection,” which refers to both the farmer’s connection to the land and animals and the consumer’s connection with the farmer. This vision sees farmers collaborating with each other, as opposed to competing, to achieve common goals. And this collaboration holds whether talking about farmers next door, or those in different regions or countries within the national or global marketplace.

The major strength of this vision lies in its replacement of resource exploitation with an emphasis on “systemic health.” Sustainable farmers are concerned with the health of the entire food system, beginning with the soil, land and water and ending with the health of consumers. A breakdown in vitality anywhere in the production chain means the whole system must be reevaluated.

Volumes could be spent comparing and contrasting the two visions presented here. But even in this somewhat simplistic form, it should be clear how powerfully descriptive and consequential these two portrayals are in understanding the way decisions about national farm policy have been made in the past, and what is really at stake for future generations.

If you subscribe to Vision A, which depicts the status quo of agriculture for the last 40 or 50 years (but not so much before that), then you will necessarily reach certain conclusions that are by now familiar features of the rural American landscape, e.g. fewer farmers, more mechanization, ever-increasing farm size, ever-decreasing biodiversity. A careful study of current farm policy in the country, especially with regard to the federal Farm Bill, reveals a very complicated effort to prop up and patch together a system that long ago outgrew any ability to replenish its own resources.

Today, however, there are signs everywhere you turn that this prevailing vision is crumbling, and that we really are on the brink of an important, if not so graceful transition to a more enduring vision of what agriculture can and will be in the future.

Fortunately, the best farming practices for preserving the environmental and economic vibrancy of rural communities happen also to be the ones that will make our food system safer and more secure, with an improved quality of life for all its participants.

There is no real credence to support the often-repeated claim that “sustainable farmers could never feed the world.” On the contrary, given the current outlook for global energy resources, sustainable methods in farming and many other industries will likely be required to meet the future needs of a burgeoning world population.

Consumers can likewise perform this experiment: test the results of a life-changing decision to seek out the high-value end products of sustainable farm production. It is as simple as choosing between Vision A and Vision B. In some ways, we are indeed like astronauts, now re-entering the Earth’s environment to re-discover the power of the creation that has been beneath our feet all along.

Perhaps it will be as if we have spent these last forty years wandering in an agricultural wilderness, with only one – sustainable – way out.