A historical perspective helped motivate Carmen Fernholz to begin changing to an organic approach to farming in 1972. Fernholz stated, “I reasoned that if they were able to do it [farm without chemicals or major purchased inputs] prior to the 1960s, there was no reason we couldn’t do it [in the 1970s]. And so that was sort of a motivation that got me going and it has been a continuous motivation.” He also vividly recalled that his father had used him as a human “marker” in the field when he applied pesticides in order to keep track of where he had already applied chemi-cals. In hindsight, Fernholz realized that since he had made the shift to an organic crop production system relatively early in his farming career, he never really allowed the chemical-intensive agricultural model to shape his image of farming. Despite his
father’s adoption of chemical-based agriculture in the 1960s, he continued to sub-scribe to Organic Gardening and Farming, a magazine published by Rodale Press, which Fernholz described as an important “imprint” during his upbringing on the farm.
For some farmers, the motivation to change came from economics. As previously noted, Steve Smith initiated his organic crop production approach because of per-ceived economic advantages. Not willing or able to increase the size of their farm, and increasingly aware that “you can’t make a living on 300 conventional acres,”
Steve and Sally switched to organic production out of economic necessity. His and Sally’s social and ecological motivations grew in importance only after they made the change. Now they would say that they farm organically “for reasons we should be doing it—the right reasons—instead of just economics.” Similarly, Jaime DeRosier noted that, although he had other motivations for limiting chemical use on his farm, the strongest factor was economics. He said, “I try to use the ‘no-cost’ or the ‘low-cost’ solutions; the cost of chemical and synthetic inputs can be staggering!”
Association with and support of other farmers was also a powerful motivator for some. For example, Tony Thompson and his brother mutually committed to become
“the best farmers [they] could be” in 1990. This precipitated preparation of a vision-ary farm plan, which included unconventional practices such as the adoption of ridge tillage. Tony was motivated to adopt ridge tillage both to reduce tillage machinery and fossil fuel costs and to save time spent tilling his fields. As a prairie enthusiast, conservationist, and naturalist, Thompson also regarded moldboard plowing and other primary tillage operations as disruptive of natural ecosystems and detrimental to wildlife. Peer farmers were important for Thompson in his tillage transitions since some of his neighbor farmers had already adopted ridge-till planting and encouraged him to do likewise. He learned from these farmers that it was possible to make this change without sacrificing yields, which was an important consideration for him.
Lee and Noreen Thomas had attended an organic farmers’ conference in Wisconsin in 1999. Their first impressions of the other farmers who attended this conference were not positive, but as the conference progressed they found that they had an affinity for much of what those in attendance were saying. They listened, asked questions, and learned. As a consequence, they were motivated to change to an organic cropping system on 200 of the 1,200 acres on their farm.
Another motivation for the Thomases was their concern for the health of their children. They had noted that several children among their neighbors had been born with birth defects. When it was suggested to Lee that part of Noreen’s motivation for shifting to an organic system had involved health concerns, he replied, “Nope—all of it.” By his own admission, Noreen’s strong convictions about the necessity of approaching the management of their farm differently had been very important for him. He concluded that if it had not been for her insistence, he probably would never have made the transition to organic farming.
Finally, some farmers were motivated to change their approaches to farming because of their interest in creating more favorable opportunities for “the next gen-eration” of farmers. Mary Jo Forbord noted, “We don’t know how farming might look in our children’s lifetime, but we do know that the era of our farm succeeding by marketing into the commodity system is drawing to a close.”
4.4.4 Constraintsto Changeand sustainability
When the farmers we interviewed were asked to reflect on what they thought were the primary constraints or factors hindering their move toward sustainability on their farms, they responded with a wide array of considerations.
Workload and labor availability were common themes. For example, although reducing labor costs was a factor in the Minars’ decision to transition from a con-ventional to a grass-based, organic dairy, they now find it an ongoing challenge to find enough employees “who have the same values that we have.” They also have had difficulties acquiring adequate financial backing to support their transition. Since converting to an organic system, the Thomases have found that the workload can sometimes be overwhelming. They note that weather and their short growing season
“cause everything to happen at once,” especially with respect to timely weeding of their organic fields.
Chuck Knierim noted the difficulties posed by the limited knowledge of some of his customers and of consumers generally, who often don’t understand the con-cept of sustainability or the many problems posed by conventional production. He observed, “[By] selling direct to consumers, we continue to be amazed at the amount of false information given to consumers. We find ourselves doing a large amount of education.”
For Carmen Fernholz an ongoing problem is the decline of premiums in the organic market. He stated, “The margins are narrowing for organic producers just as for con-ventional ones…. I just can’t sit on this one. Organic [production] is not low input, its alternative input.” Carmen also noted that his weed species and pressures had shifted since converting to organic production, and this remains a continuing challenge.
The DeRosiers, who had sought to minimize chemical use as a means to find
“low-cost solutions,” still find that economic factors can be major constraints, and can be made worse by weather and other uncontrollable conditions that differ very much from one growing season to the next. “Those inconsistencies can be difficult,”
said Jaime, “one has to be able to ride the waves…. We [sustainable] farmers might not be storing up a lot of riches on earth, but we’ve got a little piece of heaven here, haven’t we?”
Several farmers have found that there are a variety of constraints to a complete conversion to organic production. When asked why their hog operation is run con-ventionally, Steve Smith responded, “The hog barns own us, we don’t own the hog barns. They have to be paid for. We cannot leave them sit idle, and they are a very good source of manure.” The Smiths had already committed to the hog operation and invested in the barns prior to 1998, when they began converting to organic.
Without the existing hog barns, they believe they most likely would be producing organic hogs at this time. They noted, however, that with organic hogs in the pasture, they would not have as many hogs and would not have the manure supply they now rely on. (Although others farm organically without manure, the Smiths use manure exclusively as their nutrient source.) Carmen Fernholz’s reason for maintaining a conventional hog operation was that the organic market for pork has not been con-sistent enough over the years to justify remodeling or building new facilities to meet organic standards. And the economics of feeding the high-valued organic grains do
not “pencil out” given the unreliable markets and the market value achievable for organic pork.