TableofContents

TitlePageIntroductionPARTI-FARMING

NatureasMeasureStupidityinConcentration

I.CONFINEMENT,CONCENTRATION,SEPARATIONII.FACTORYFARMSVERSUSFARMSIII.SUSTAINABILITY

AgriculturalSolutionsforAgriculturalProblemsADefenseoftheFamilyFarmLettheFarmJudgeEnergyinAgricultureConservationistandAgrarianSanitationandtheSmallFarm-(1971)RenewingHusbandryPARTII-FARMERS

SevenAmishFarmsAGoodFarmeroftheOldSchoolCharlieFisherATalentforNecessityElmerLapp’sPlace

THECOMMERCIALPATTERNTHEPATTERNOFSUBSISTENCETHEPATTERNSOFSOILHUSBANDRYTWOKINDSOFHORSEPOWERAWELL-PLANNEDBARNTHEECOLOGICALPATTERN

ONTheSoilandHealthAgriculturefromtheRootsUp

PARTIII-FOOD

AUTHOR’SNOTEFROMThatDistantLandFROMHannahCoulterFROMAndyCatlettFROM“Misery”FROMTheMemoryofOldJackFROMJayberCrowFROMHannahCoulterThePleasuresofEatingABOUTTHEAUTHORCopyrightPage

OTHERBOOKSOFESSAYSBYWENDELLBERRY

AnotherTurnoftheCrankTheArtoftheCommonplace

CitizenshipPapersAContinuousHarmonyTheGiftofGoodLand

HarlanHubbard:LifeandWorkTheHiddenWoundHomeEconomicsLifeIsaMiracleLong-LeggedHouse

RecollectedEssays:1965-1980Sex,Economy,FreedomandCommunity

StandingbyWordsTheUnforeseenWildernessTheUnsettlingofAmericaTheWayofIgnoranceWhatArePeopleFor?

INTRODUCTION

byMichaelPollanAFEWWEEKSAFTERMichelleObamaplantedanorganicvegetablegardenontheSouthLawnoftheWhiteHouseinMarch2009,thebusinesssectionoftheSundayNewYorkTimespublishedacoverstorybearing the headline “Is a Food Revolution Now in Season?” The article, written by the paper’sagriculturereporter,saidthat“afterbeinglargelyignoredforyearsbyWashington,advocatesoforganicandlocallygrownfoodhavefoundareceptiveearintheWhiteHouse.”

CertainlytheseareheadydaysforpeoplewhohavebeenworkingtoreformthewayAmericansgrowfoodandfeedthemselves—the“foodmovement”asitisnowoftencalled.Marketsforalternativekindsoffood—localandorganicandpastured—arethriving,farmers’marketsarepoppinguplikemushrooms,and for the first time in more than a century the number of farmers tallied in the Department ofAgriculture’scensushasgoneup rather thandown.Thenewsecretaryofagriculturehasdedicatedhisdepartment to“sustainability”andholdsmeetingswith thesortsof farmersandactivistswhonotmanyyearsagostoodoutsidethemarblewallsoftheUSDAholdingsignsofprotestandsnarlingtrafficwiththeirtractors.Cheapwords,youmightsay,anditistruethat,sofaratleast,therehavebeenmorewordsthan deeds, but some of those words are astonishing. Like these: Shortly before his election, BarackObamatoldareporterforTimethat“ourentireagriculturalsystemisbuiltoncheapoil”andwentontoconnect thedotsbetween thesprawlingmonoculturesof industrialagricultureand,on theoneside, theenergycrisisand,ontheother,thehealthcarecrisis.

IhavenoideaifBarackObamahaseverreadWendellBerry,butBerry’sthinkinghadfounditswaytohislips.

Americanstodayarehavinganationalconversationaboutfoodandagriculturethatitwouldhavebeenimpossible to imagineevenafewshortyearsago.TomanyAmericans itmustsoundlikeabrand-newconversation,withitsbracingtalkaboutthehighpriceofcheapfood,orthelinksbetweensoilandhealth,ortheimpossibilityofasocietyeatingwellandbeingingoodhealthunlessitalsofarmswell.Buttoreadtheessaysinthissparklinganthology,manyofthemdatingbacktothe1970sand1980s,istorealizejusthowlittleofwhatwearesayingandhearingtodayWendellBerryhasn’talreadysaid,bracingly,before.

Andinthat“we”Imostdefinitely,andsomewhatabashedly,includemyself.Ichallengeyoutofindanideaorinsightinmyownrecentwritingsonfoodandfarmingthatisn’tprefigured(toputitcharitably)in

Berry’sessaysonagriculture.Theremightbeoneortwointheresomewhere,butImustsaythatreadingandrereadingtheseessayshasbeenadeeplyhumblingexperience.

Ithasalsobeenapowerfulreminderthatthenationalconversationnowunfoldingaroundthesubjectoffood and farming really began back in the 1970s, with thework of Berry and a small handful of hiscontemporaries, includingFrancisMooreLappé,BarryCommoner,andJoanGussow.Allfourof thesewritersaresupremedotconnectors,deeplyskepticalofreductivescience,andfaraheadnotonlyintheirgrasp of the science of ecology but in their ability to actually think ecologically: to draw lines ofconnectionbetweenahamburgerandthepriceofoil,orbetweenthevibrancyoflifeinthesoilandthehealthoftheplantsandanimalsandpeopleeatingfromthatsoil.

Iwouldarguethattheconversationgotunderwayinearnestin1971,whenBerrypublishedanarticleinTheLastWholeEarthCatalogueintroducingAmericanstotheworkofSirAlbertHoward,theBritishagronomistwhosethinkinghaddeeplyinfluencedBerry’sownsincehefirstcameuponitin1964.Indeed,muchofBerry’s thinkingaboutagriculturecanbe readasanextendedelaborationofHoward’smasterideathatfarmingshouldmodelitselfonnaturalsystemssuchasforestsandprairies,andthatscientists,farmers,andmedicalresearchersneedtoreconceive“thewholeproblemofhealthinsoil,plant,animalandmanasonegreatsubject.”NosinglequotationappearsmoreofteninBerry’swritingthanthatone,andwithgoodreason:Itismanifestlytrue(aseventhemostreductivescientistsarecomingtorecognize)and,asaguidetothinkingthroughsomanyofourproblems,itisinexhaustible.

Thatsameyear,1971,LappépublishedDietforaSmallPlanet,whichlinkedmodernmeatproduction(and inparticular the feedingofgrain to cattle) to theproblemsofworldhunger and the environment.Laterinthedecade,Commonerimplicatedindustrialagricultureintheenergycrisis,showingusjusthowmuch oil we were eating when we ate from the industrial food chain; and Gussow explained to hernutritionistcolleaguesthattheproblemofdietaryhealthcouldnotbeunderstoodwithoutreferencetotheproblem of agriculture. Looking back on this remarkably fertile body of work, which told us all weneededtoknowaboutthetruecostofcheapfoodandthevalueofgoodfarming,istoregistertwopangsofregret,onepersonal, theothermorepolitical:first, thatasayoungwritercomingtothesesubjectsacoupleofdecades later, Iwas rather lessoriginal than Ihad thought; andsecond, thatasa societywefailedtoheedawarningthatmighthaveavertedoratleastmitigatedtheterriblepredicamentinwhichwenowfindourselves.

For what would we give today to have back the “environmental crisis” that Berry wrote about soprophetically in the1970s,a timestill innocentof theproblemofclimatechange?Or tohaveback thecomparatively manageable public health problems of that period, before obesity and type 2 diabetesbecame“epidemic”?(Mostexpertsdatetheobesityepidemictotheearly1980s.)

Buthistorywillshowthatwefailedtotakeuptheinvitationtobeginthinkingecologically.Assoonasoil prices subsided and Jimmy Carter was rusticated to Plains, Georgia (along with his cardigan,thermostat, and solar panels), we went back to business—and agribusiness—as usual, carelesslydroppingthethreadoftheconversationthatBerryhadhelpedtostart.Inthemid-1980s,RonaldReaganremovedCarter’ssolarpanelsfromtheroofoftheWhiteHouse,andtheissuesthatBerryandtheotherswere raising were pushed to the margins of national politics and culture. I worked as an editor atHarper’sMagazineduring the1980s,andoccasionallypublishedBerry’sspeechesandessays.DuringtheReaganyearsBerrywasoften regarded,at least in theManhattanmediaprecincts I inhabited,asa“Luddite” and a “crank” andgenerally as somethingof a literary andphilosophical antique.At a timewheneveryoneelsewastradingintheirtypewritersforpersonalcomputers,Ipublishedhisshortessay

abouthisrefusaltouseatypewriterthatelicitedhowlsofderisionfromreaders.Inthosedayseventheword“agriculture”felthopelesslyout-of-date,somethingthatacultureconsumedwiththeideaofpost-modernismhadexactlynousefor.

InfactwhenIbeganwritingaboutagriculture in the late’80sand’90s, Iquicklyfiguredout thatnoeditorinManhattanthoughtthesubjecttimelyorworthyofhisorherattention,andthatIwouldbebetteroffavoidingthewordentirelyandtalkinginsteadaboutfood,somethingpeoplethenstillhadsomeuseforandcaredabout,yetoddlyneverthoughttoconnecttothesoilortheworkoffarmers.

ItwasduringthisperiodthatIbeganreadingBerry’sworkclosely—avidly,infact,becauseIfoundinitpracticalanswerstoquestionsIwasstrugglingwithinmygarden.Ihadbegungrowingalittleofmyownfood,notonafarmbutinthebackyardofasecondhomeintheexurbsofNewYork,andhadfoundmyselfcompletelyill-prepared,especiallywhenitcametochallengesposedbycrittersandweeds.Anobedient child of Thoreau and Emerson (both of whom mistakenly regarded weeds as emblems ofwildness and gardens as declensions from nature), I honored the wild and kept from fencing off myvegetables from the encroaching forest. I don’t have to tell youhowwell that turnedout.ThoreaudidplantabeanfieldatWalden,buthecouldn’tsquarehisloveofnaturewiththeneedtodefendhiscropfromweedsandbirds,andeventuallyhegaveuponagriculture.Thoreauwenton todeclare that“if itwere proposed to me to dwell in the neighborhood of the most beautiful garden that ever human artcontrived, or else of a dismal swamp, I should certainly decide for the swamp.” With that slightlyobnoxiousdeclarationAmericanwritingaboutnatureallbutturneditsbackonthedomesticlandscape.It’snotatallsurprisingthatwegotbetteratconservingwildernessthanatfarmingandgardening.

ItwasWendellBerrywhohelpedmesolvemyThoreauproblem,providingasturdybridgeoverthedeepAmericandividebetweennatureandculture.Usingthefarmratherthanthewildernessashistext,Berry taught me I had a legitimate quarrel with nature—a lover’s quarrel—and showed me how toconduct itwithout reaching for the heavy artillery.He relocatedwildness from thewoods “out there”(beyondthefence)toahandfulofgardensoilortheshootofagerminatingpea,anecessaryqualitythatcouldbenotjustconservedbutcultivated.Hemarkedoutapaththatledusbackintonature,nolongerasspectatorsbut as full-fledgedparticipants. I battenedoneverywordofhis I could find, and tomehiswordsfeltanythingbutantique—indeed,theywerefullyasalive,anduseful,asanywritingcanbe.

Obviouslymuchmoreisatstakeherethanagardenfence.MyThoreauproblemisanothernamefortheproblem of American environmentalism, which historically has had much more to say about leavingnaturealonethanabouthowwemightuseitwell.Totheextentthatwe’refinallybeginningtohearanew,moreneighborlyconversationbetweenAmericanenvironmentalistsandAmericanfarmers,nottomentionbetweenurbaneatersandrural foodproducers,Berrydeservesmuchof thecredit forgetting it startedwithsentenceslikethese:

Whyshouldconservationistshaveapositiveinterestin...farming?Therearelotsofreasons,buttheplainestis:Conservationistseat.Tobeinterestedinfoodbutnotinfoodproductionisclearlyabsurd.Urbanconservationistsmay feelentitled tobeunconcernedabout foodproductionbecause theyarenotfarmers.Buttheycan’tbeletoffsoeasily,fortheyarefarmingbyproxy.Theycaneatonlyiflandisfarmedontheirbehalfbysomebodysomewhereinsomefashion.Ifconservationistswillattempttoresumeresponsibility for theirneed toeat, theywillbe ledback fairlydirectly toall theirpreviousconcernsforthewelfareofnature.(“ConservationistandAgrarian,”2002)

Thatweareallimplicatedinfarming—that,inhisnow-famousformulation,“eatingisanagricultural

act”—isperhapsBerry’ssignalcontributiontotherethinkingoffoodandfarmingunderwaytoday,andinstyle as well as content this stands as a classically Berry-esque idea: at once perfectly obvious andcompletelyarresting.Toreadtheseessaysistofeelthatwayoverandoveragain,tobesomehowstoppedinyour tracksby theplainly self-evident.Here are a fewmore such ideas that await you in thepagesahead:

We have been winning, to our inestimable loss, a competition against our own land and our ownpeople.Atpresent,whatwehavetoshowforthis“victory”isasurplusoffood.Butthisisasurplusachievedbytheruinofitssources.(“NatureasMeasure,”1989)

“Sustainableagriculture”...referstoawayoffarmingthatcanbecontinuedindefinitelybecauseitconformstothetermsimposeduponitbythenatureofplacesandthenatureofpeople.(“StupidityinConcentration,”2002)

Here we come to the heart of the matter—the absolute divorce that the industrial economy hasachievedbetweenitselfandallidealsandstandardsoutsideitself.(“ADefenseoftheFamilyFarm,”1986)

This old sun-based agriculture was fundamentally alien to the industrial economy; industrialcorporationscouldmakerelatively littleprofit fromit. . . . [But]as farmersbecamemoreandmoredependantonfossil fuelenergy,aradicalchangeoccurredin theirminds.Oncefocusedonbiology,thelifeandhealthof livingthings, their thinkingnowbegantofocusontechnologyandeconomics.Credit,forexample,becameaspressinganissueastheweather.(“EnergyinAgriculture,”1979)

Doestheconcentrationofproductioninthehandsof fewerandfewerbigoperatorsreallyservetheendsofcleanlinessandhealth?Ordoesitmakeeasierandmorelucrativethepossibilityofcollusionbetweenirresponsibleproducersandcorruptinspectors?(“SanitationandtheSmallFarm,”1977)

There is, then, a politics of food that, like any politics, involves our freedom.We still (sometimes)rememberthatwecannotbefreeifourmindsandvoicesarecontrolledbysomeoneelse.Butwehaveneglectedtounderstandthatwecannotbefreeifourfoodanditssourcesarecontrolledbysomeoneelse....Onereasontoeatresponsiblyistolivefree.(“ThePleasuresofEating,”1989)

The adjective “prophetic” is often attached to Berry’s nonfiction, and while I can understand whypeople would use the word—he has done an unerring job over the past forty years of showing uspreciselywheretheerrorsofourwayswilllead—hisproseneverscreamsorsquintsinrage.Itisalwaysaspatientandlogical,asplumbandsquareandscrupulous,aswell-planedwoodwork.Ihavelearnedasmuch from the construction of his sentences as I have from the construction of his ideas. Inmy studyBerry’sbookssitontheshortshelfIreachforwheneverIgettangledinasentence;readingafewlinesatrandom will often do the trick, break the knot. To enact that unmistakable voice in one’s head is toadministeratonicstrongenoughtofreshenthoughtandexpressionbothand,atitsbest,toscrubthecrudofreceivedopinionfromoureverydaythoughtlessthinking.

LetmeleaveyouwithoneveryrecentexampleofBerryathisbest,drawnfromanop-edpiecethathe

published(withhisoldfriendandcollaboratorWesJackson)shortlyaftertheeconomycrashedinthefallof2008.

For50or60years,wehaveletourselvesbelievethataslongaswehavemoneywewillhavefood.Thisisamistake.Ifwecontinueouroffensesagainstthelandandthelaborbywhichweare fed, the foodsupplywilldecline,andwewillhaveaproblem farmorecomplex than thefailureofourpapereconomy.Thegovernmentwillbringforthnofoodbyprovidinghundredsofbillionsofdollarstotheagribusinesscorporations.

I like this passage for its idea—the phrase “paper economy” alone is worth a million words ofcommentary on the financial crisis—but even more for the very happy news it brings: that thisindispensablevoiceisstilloutthereaddressingusinourtimeofneed,andremainsasbracingasever.

PARTI

FARMING

NatureasMeasure

(1989)

ILIVEINApartof thecountry thatatone timeagoodfarmercould takesomepleasure in lookingat.WhenIfirstbecameawareofit, inthe1940s,thebetterland,atleast,wasgenerallywellfarmed.Thefarmsweremostlysmallandwerehighlydiversified,producingcattle,sheep,andhogs, tobacco,corn,andthesmallgrains;nearlyallthefarmersmilkedafewcowsforhomeuseandtomarketmilkorcream.Nearlyeveryfarmhouseholdmaintainedagarden,keptaflockofpoultry,andfatteneditsownmeathogs.Therewasalsoanextensive“supportsystem”foragriculture:Everycommunityhaditsblacksmithshop,shopsthatrepairedharnessandmachinery,andstoresthatdealtinfarmequipmentandsupplies.

Nowthecountryisnotwellfarmed,anddrivingthroughithasbecomeadepressingexperience.Somegoodsmallfarmersremain,andtheirfarmsstandoutinthelandscapelikejewels.Buttheyarefewandfar between, and they are getting fewer every year. The buildings and other improvements of the oldfarmingareeverywhereindecayorhavevanishedaltogether.Theproduceofthecountryisincreasinglyspecialized. The small dairies are gone. Most of the sheep flocks are gone, and so are most of theenterprises of the old household economy.There is less livestock andmore cash-grain farming.Whencash-grainfarmingcomesin,thefencesgo,thelivestockgoes,erosionincreases,andthefieldsbecomeweedy.

Likethefarmland,thefarmcommunitiesaredeclininganderoding.Thefarmerswhoarestillfarmingdo not farmwith asmuch skill as they did forty years ago, and there are not nearly somany farmersfarmingas therewerefortyyearsago.Astheoldhavedied, theyhavenotbeenreplaced;as theyoungcomeofage,theyleavefarmingorleavethecommunity.Andasthelandandthepeopledeteriorate,sonecessarilymustthesupportsystem.Noneofthesmallruraltownsisthrivingasitdidfortyyearsago.Theproprietorsofsmallbusinessesgiveupordieandarenotreplaced.Asthefarmtradedeclines,farmequipment franchises are revoked. The remaining farmers must drive longer and longer distances formachinesandpartsandrepairs.

Lookingatthecountrynow,onecannotescapetheconclusionthattherearenolongerenoughpeopleonthelandtofarmitwellandtotakepropercareofit.Afurtherandmoreominousconclusionisthatthereisnolongeraconsiderablenumberofpeopleknowledgeableenoughtolookatthecountryandseethatitisnotproperlycaredfor—thoughthefaceofthecountryisnoweverywheremarkedbytheagonyofourenterpriseofself-destruction.

AndsuddenlyinthiswastingcountrysidethereistalkofraisingproductionquotasonBurleytobaccoby24percent,andtobaccogrowersarecomingunderpressurefromthemanufacturerstodecreasetheiruseofchemicals.EveryoneIhavetalkedtoisdoubtfulthatwehaveenoughpeopleleftinfarmingtomeettheincreaseddemandforeitherquantityorquality,anddoubtfulthatwestillhavethebarnroomtohouse

theincreasedacreage.Inotherwords,thedemandgoinguphasmettheculturecomingdown.Noonecanbeoptimisticabouttheresults.

Tobacco, I know, is not a food, but it comes from the same resources of land and people that foodcomes from, and this emerging dilemma in the production of tobacco can only foreshadow a similardilemmaintheproductionoffood.Ateverypointinourfoodeconomy,presentconditionsremaining,wemustexpecttocometoatimewhendemand(forquantityorquality)goingupwillmeettheculturecomingdown. The fact is that we have nearly destroyed American farming, and in the process have nearlydestroyedourcountry.

How has this happened? It has happened because of the application to farming of far too simple astandard.Formanyyears,asanation,wehaveaskedourlandonlytoproduce,andwehaveaskedourfarmersonlytoproduce.Wehavebelievedthatthissingleeconomicstandardnotonlyguaranteedgoodperformance but also preserved the ultimate truth and rightness of our aims. We have boughtunconditionallytheeconomists’linethatcompetitionandinnovationwouldsolveallproblems,andthatwewouldfinallyaccomplishatechnologicalend-runaroundbiologicalrealityandthehumancondition.

Competitionandinnovationhaveindeedsolved,forthetimebeing,theproblemofproduction.Butthesolution has been extravagant, thoughtless, and far too expensive. We have been winning, to ourinestimableloss,acompetitionagainstourownlandandourownpeople.Atpresent,whatwehavetoshowforthis“victory”isasurplusoffood.Butthisisasurplusachievedbytheruinofitssources,andithasbeenused,byapologistsforourpresenteconomy,todisguisethedamagebywhichitwasproduced.Food,clearly,isthemostimportanteconomicproduct—exceptwhenthereisasurplus.Whenthereisasurplus,accordingtoourpresenteconomicassumptions,foodistheleastimportantproduct.Thesurplusbecomesfamousasevidencetoconsumersthattheyhavenothingtoworryabout,thatthereisnoproblem,thatpresenteconomicassumptionsarecorrect.

Butourpresent economicassumptions are failing in agriculture, and to thosehavingeyes to see theevidenceiseverywhere,inthecitiesaswellasinthecountryside.Thesingulardemandforproductionhas been unable to acknowledge the importance of the sources of production in nature and in humanculture.Of course agriculturemust be productive; that is a requirement as urgent as it is obvious.Buturgent as it is, it is not the first requirement; there are twomore requirements equally important andequallyurgent.Oneisthatifagricultureistoremainproductive,itmustpreservetheland,andthefertilityandecologicalhealthoftheland;theland,thatis,mustbeusedwell.Afurtherrequirement,therefore,isthatifthelandistobeusedwell,thepeoplewhouseitmustknowitwell,mustbehighlymotivatedtouseitwell,mustknowhowtouseitwell,musthavetimetouseitwell,andmustbeabletoaffordtouseitwell.Nothing thathashappened in theagricultural revolutionof the last fiftyyearshasdisprovedorinvalidatedtheserequirements,thougheverythingthathashappenedhasignoredordefiedthem.

Inlightof thenecessitythat thefarmlandandthefarmpeopleshouldthrivewhileproducing,wecanseethatthesinglestandardofproductivityhasfailed.

Nowwemustlearntoreplacethatstandardbyonethatismorecomprehensive:thestandardofnature.Theefforttodothisisnotnew.ItwasbegunearlyinthiscenturybyLibertyHydeBaileyoftheCornellUniversityCollegeofAgriculture,byF.H.Kingof theUniversityofWisconsinCollegeofAgricultureandtheUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture,byJ.RussellSmith,professorofeconomicgeographyatColumbiaUniversity, by theBritish agricultural scientistSirAlbertHoward, andbyothers; and it hascontinuedintoourowntimein theworkofsuchscientistsasJohnTodd,WesJackson,andothers.The

standardofnatureisnotsosimpleorsoeasyastandardasthestandardofproductivity.Theterm“nature”isnotsodefiniteorstableaconceptastheweightsandmeasuresofproductivity.Butweknowwhatwemean when we say that the first settlers in any American place recognized that place’s agriculturalpotential “by itsnature”—that is,by thedepthandqualityof its soil, thekindandqualityof itsnativevegetation,andsoon.Andweknowwhatwemeanwhenwesaythatalltoooftenwehaveproceededtoignorethenatureofourplacesinfarmingthem.Byreturningto“thenatureoftheplace”asstandard,weacknowledge the necessary limits of our own intentions. Farming cannot take place except in nature;therefore,ifnaturedoesnotthrive,farmingcannotthrive.Butweknowtoothatnatureincludesus.Itisnotaplace intowhichwereachfromsomesafestandpointoutside it.Weare in itandareapartof itwhileweuse it. If itdoesnot thrive,wecannot thrive.Theappropriatemeasureof farming then is theworld’shealthandourhealth,andthisisinescapablyonemeasure.

Buttheonenessofthismeasureisfardifferentfromthesingularityofthestandardofproductivitythatwehavebeenusing;itisfarmorecomplex.Oneofitsconcerns,oneoftheinevitablenaturalmeasures,isproductivity;butitisalsoconcernedforthehealthofallthecreaturesbelongingtoagivenplace,fromthecreaturesofthesoilandwatertothehumansandothercreaturesofthelandsurfacetothebirdsoftheair.Theuseofnatureasmeasureproposesanatonementbetweenourselvesandourworld,betweeneconomyandecology,betweenthedomesticandthewild.Oritproposesaconsciousandcarefulrecognitionoftheinterdependencebetweenourselvesandnaturethatinfacthasalwaysexistedand,ifwearetolive,mustalwaysexist.

Industrial agriculture, built according to the single standard of productivity, has dealt with nature,includinghumannature,inthemannerofamonologistoranorator.Ithasnotaskedforanything,orwaitedto hear any response. It has told naturewhat itwanted, and in various cleverways has takenwhat itwanted.Andsinceitproposednolimitonitswants,exhaustionhasbeenitsinevitableandforeseeableresult.This,clearly,isadictatorialortotalitarianformofbehavior,anditisastotalitarianinitsuseofpeople as it is in its useof nature. Its connections to theworld and tohumans and theother creaturesbecomemore andmore abstract, as its economy, its authority, and its power becomemore andmorecentralized.

Ontheotherhand,anagricultureusingnature,includinghumannature,asitsmeasurewouldapproachtheworld in themannerof a conversationalist. Itwouldnot impose itsvisionand itsdemandsuponaworldthatitconceivesofasastockpileofrawmaterial,inertandindifferenttoanyusethatmaybemadeof it. Itwouldnotproceeddirectlyorsoon tosomesupposedly idealstateof things. Itwould proceeddirectlyandsoontoseriousthoughtaboutourconditionandourpredicament.Onallfarms,farmerswouldundertaketoknowresponsiblywheretheyareandto“consultthegeniusoftheplace.”Theywouldaskwhatnaturewouldbedoingthereifnoonewerefarmingthere.Theywouldaskwhatnaturewouldpermitthemtodothere,andwhat theycoulddotherewiththeleastharmtotheplaceandtotheirnaturalandhumanneighbors.Andtheywouldaskwhatnaturewouldhelp themtodothere.Andaftereachasking,knowingthatnaturewillrespond,theywouldattendcarefullytoherresponse.Theuseoftheplacewouldnecessarily change, and the response of the place to that use would necessarily change the user. Theconversation itself would thus assume a kind of creaturely life, binding the place and its inhabitantstogether,changingandgrowingtonoend,nofinalaccomplishment,thatcanbeconceivedorforeseen.

Farming in thisway, though itcertainlywouldproceedbydesire, isnotvisionary in thepoliticalorutopian sense. In a conversation, you always expect a reply. And if you honor the other party to theconversation,ifyouhonortheothernessoftheotherparty,youunderstandthatyoumustnotexpectalways

toreceiveareplythatyouforeseeorareplythatyouwilllike.Aconversationisimmitigablytwo-sidedandalwaystosomedegreemysterious;itrequiresfaith.

For a long time now we have understood ourselves as traveling toward some sort of industrialparadise,somenewEdenconceivedandconstructedentirelybyhumaningenuity.Andwehavethoughtourselves free to use and abuse nature in any way that might further this enterprise. Now we faceoverwhelmingevidencethatwearenotsmartenoughtorecoverEdenbyassault,andthatnaturedoesnottolerateorexcuseourabuses.If,inspiteoftheevidenceagainstus,wearefindingithardtorelinquishouroldambition,wearealsoseeingmoreclearlyeverydayhowthatambitionhasreducedandenslavedus.Weseehoweverything—thewholeworld—isbelittledbytheideathatallcreationismovingoroughttomovetowardanendthatsomebody,somehumanbody,hasthoughtup.Tobefreeofthatendandthatambitionwouldbeadelightfulandpreciousthing.Oncefreeofit,wemightagaingoaboutourworkandour lives with a seriousness and pleasure denied to us when we merely submit to a fate alreadydeterminedbygiganticpolitics,economics,andtechnology.

Such freedom is implicit in the adoption of nature as themeasure of economic life. The reunion ofnatureandeconomyproposesanecessarydemocracy,forneithereconomynornaturecanbeabstractinpractice.When we adopt nature as measure, we require practice that is locally knowledgeable. Theparticularfarm,thatis,mustnotbetreatedasanyfarm.Andtheparticularknowledgeofparticularplacesisbeyondthecompetenceofanycentralizedpowerorauthority.Farmingbythemeasureofnature,whichistosaythenatureoftheparticularplace,meansthatfarmersmusttendfarmsthattheyknowandlove,farmssmallenoughtoknowandlove,usingtoolsandmethodsthattheyknowandlove,inthecompanyofneighborsthattheyknowandlove.

Inrecentyears,oursocietyhasbeenrequired to thinkagainof the issuesofuseandabuseofhumanbeings.Weunderstand,forinstance,thattheinabilitytodistinguishbetweenaparticularwomanandanywomanisaconditionpredisposingtoabuse.Itistimethatwelearntoapplythesameunderstanding toourcountry.Theinabilitytodistinguishbetweenafarmandanyfarmisaconditionpredisposingtoabuse,andabusehasbeentheresult.Rape,indeed,hasbeentheresult,andwehaveseenthatwearenotexemptfromthedamagewehaveinflicted.Nowwemustthinkofmarriage.

StupidityinConcentration

(2002)

I.CONFINEMENT,CONCENTRATION,SEPARATION

MYTASKHEREistoshowthegreatstupidityofindustrialanimalproduction.Factoryfarms,likethisessay,have theaimofcrammingasmuchaspossible intoassmallaspaceaspossible.Tounderstandthese animal factories, we need to keep in mind three principles: confinement, concentration, andseparation.

The principle of confinement in so-called animal science is derived from the industrial version ofefficiency.Thedesigners of animal factories appear tohavehad inmind the exampleof concentrationcampsorprisons,theaimofwhichistohouseandfeedthegreatestnumberinthesmallestspaceattheleastexpenseofmoney,labor,andattention.Tosubjectinnocentcreaturestosuchtreatmenthaslongbeenrecognized as heartless. Animal factories make an economic virtue of heartlessness toward domesticanimals,towhichhumansoweinsteadalargedebtofrespectandgratitude.

The defenders of animal factories typically assume, or wish others to assume, that these facilitiesconcentrateanimalsonly.Butthatisnotso.Theyalsoconcentratetheexcrementoftheanimals—which,whenproperlydispersed,isavaluablesourceoffertility,but,whenconcentrated,isatbestawaste,atworstapoison.

Perhaps even more dangerous is the inevitability that large concentrations of animals will inviteconcentrationsofdiseaseorganisms,whichinturnrequireconcentratedandcontinuoususeofantibiotics.And here the issue enlarges beyond the ecological problem to what some scientists think of as anevolutionaryproblem:Theanimalfactorybecomesabreedinggroundfor treatment-resistantpathogens,exactlyaslargefieldmonoculturesbecomebreedinggroundsforpesticide-resistantpests.

Toconcentratefood-producinganimalsinlargenumbersinoneplaceinevitablyseparatesthemfromthesourcesoftheirfeed.Pastureandbarnyardanimalsareremovedfromtheiroldplacesintheorderofadiversifiedfarm,wheretheyroamedaboutinsomefreedom,foragingtoasignificantextentfortheirownfood, grazing in open pastures, or recycling barnyard and household wastes. Confined in the pens ofanimal factories, they are made dependent almost exclusively upon grains which are grown in largemonocultures, at a now generally recognized ecological cost, and which must be transported to theanimalssometimesoverlongdistances.Animalfactoriesareenergy-wastingenterprisesflourishinginatimewhenweneedtobethinkingofenergyconservation.

Theindustrializationofagriculture,byconcentrationandseparation,overthrowstherestraintsinherent

in the diversity and balance of healthy ecosystems and good farms. This results in an unprecedentedcapacity for overproduction,which drives down farm income,which separates yetmore farmers fromtheir farms. For the independent farmers of the traditional small family farm, the animal factoriessubstitutehiredlaborers,whoatworkareconfinedinthesameunpleasantandunhealthysituationastheanimals. Production at such a cost is temporary. The cost finally is diminishment of the human andecologicalcapacitytoproduce.

Animalfactoriesoughttohavebeenthesubjectofmuchgovernmentconcern,ifgovernmentisinfactconcernedaboutthewelfareofthelandandthepeople.But,instead,theconfinedanimalfeedingindustryhasbeenthebeneficiaryofgovernmentencouragementandgovernmentincentives.Thisistheresultofapolitical brain disease that causes people in power to think that anything that makes more money or“createsjobs”isgood.

We have animal factories, in other words, because of a governmental addiction to short-termeconomics.Short-termeconomicsisthepracticeofmakingasmuchmoneyasyoucanasfastasyoucanbyanypossiblemeanswhile ignoring the long-termeffects.Short-termeconomics is the economicsofself-interest and greed. People who operate on the basis of short-term economics accumulate large“externalized” costs, which they charge to the future—that is, to the world and to everybody’sgrandchildren.

Peoplewhoareconcernedaboutwhattheirgrandchildrenwillhavetoeat,drink,andbreathetendtobeinterestedinlong-termeconomics.Long-termeconomicsinvolvesagreatdealbesidesthequestionofhow tomake a lot ofmoney in a hurry.Long-term economists such as John Ikerd of theUniversity ofMissouribelieve inapplying“theGoldenRuleacross thegenerations—doing for futuregenerationsaswe would have them do for us.” Professor Ikerd says: “The three cornerstones of sustainability areecologicalsoundness,economicviability,andsocialjustice.”Hethinksthatanimalfactoriesaredeficientbyallthreemeasures.

Thesefactoriesraiseissuesofpublichealth,ofsoilandwaterandairpollution,ofthequalityofhumanwork,of thehumanetreatmentofanimals,of theproperorderingandconductofagriculture,andof thelongevityandhealthfulnessoffoodproduction.

Ifthepeopleinourstateandnationalgovernmentsundertooktoevaluateeconomicenterprisesbythestandardsoflong-termeconomics,theywouldhavetoemploytheirmindsinactualthinking.Formanyofthem, thiswouldbeashatteringexperience,somethingaltogethernew,but itwouldalsocause themtolearnthingsanddothingsthatwouldimprovethelivesoftheirconstituents.

II.FACTORYFARMSVERSUSFARMS

FACTORYFARMSINCREASEandconcentratetheecologicalrisksoffoodproduction.Thisisawell-documentedmatteroffact.TheriversandestuariesofNorthCarolina,touseonlyoneexample,testifytohowquicklya“private”animalfactorycanbecomeanecologicalcatas-totropheandapublicliability.

Afarm,ontheotherhand,dispersestheecologicalrisksinvolvedinfoodproduction.Agoodfarmnotonlydispersestheserisks,butalsominimizesthem.Onagoodfarm,ecologicalresponsibilityisinherentin proper methodologies of land management, and in correct balances between animals and acres,

productionandcarryingcapacity.Agoodfarmdoesnotputatriskthehealthfulnessoftheland,thewater,andtheair.

Theecologicaldifferencesbetweenafactoryfarmandafarmmaybeparamountinatimeofrapidlyaccelerating destruction of the natural world. But there is also an economic difference that, from thestandpointofhumancommunities,iscritical.

Afactoryfarmlocksthefarmerinatthebottomofacorporatehierarchy.Inreturnfortheassumptionofgreateconomicandotherrisks,thefarmerispermittedtoparticipateminimallyintheindustry’searnings.In return,moreover, for the security of a contractwith the corporation, the farmer gives up the farm’sdiversityandversatility,reducingittoaspecialistoperationwithoneuse.

According to one company’s projections, a farmerwould buy into the broiler business at a cost of$624,275. That would be for four houses that would produce 506,000 birds per year. Under thecompany’sterms,thisinvestmentwouldproduceayearlynetincomeof$23,762.Thatwouldbeanannualreturnoninvestmentof3.8percent.

I don’t knowwhat percentage of annual return this company’s share-holders expect to realize fromtheirinvestment.Idoknowthatifitisnotsubstantiallybetterthanthefarmer’spercentage,theywouldbewelladvisedtoselloutandinvestelsewhere.

Thefactoryfarm,ratherthanservingthefarmfamilyandthelocalcommunity,isaneconomicsiphon,suckingvalueoutofthelocallandscapeandthelocalcommunityintodistantbankaccounts.

ToenticethemtobuyKentuckians’workandproductssocheaply,ourstategovernmenthasgiventheanimalconfinementcorporationssome$200millioninstateandfederaltax“incentives.”Ingratitudeforthesegifts,thesecorporationsnowwishtoberelievedofanymandatedpublicliabilityorresponsibilityfortheiractivitieshere.

Idon’tknowthatthearroganceandimpudenceofthishavebeenequaledbyanyotherindustry.Fornotonlyhavethesepeopledemonstrated,bytheircontemptforlawsandregulationshereandelsewhere,theirintentiontobebadneighbors;theycomerepeatedlybeforeourelectedrepresentativestoaskforspecialexemptions.But in thatvery request theyacknowledge thegreat risksanddangers that are involved intheirwayofdoingbusiness.Whyshouldtheinnocent,whyshouldpeoplewithagoodconscience,wanttobeexemptfromliability?

It is clear that theadvocatesof factory farmingarenotadvocatesof farming.Theydonot speak forfarmers.

Whattheysupportisstate-sponsoredcolonialism—governmentof,by,andforthecorporations.

III.SUSTAINABILITY

THEWORD“SUSTAINABLE”iswellonitswaytobecomingalabel,liketheword“organic.”AndsoIwant to propose a definition of “sustainable agriculture.” This phrase, I suggest, refers to a way offarmingthatcanbecontinuedindefinitelybecauseitconformstothetermsimposeduponitbythenatureofplacesandthenatureofpeople.

Our present agriculture, in general, is not ecologically sustainable now, and it is a long way frombecomingso.Itistootoxic.Itistoodependentonfossilfuels.Itistoowastefulofsoil,ofsoilfertility,andofwater.Itisdestructiveofthehealthofthenaturalsystemsthatsurroundandsupportoureconomiclife.Anditisdestructiveofgeneticdiversity,bothdomesticandwild.

Sofar,theseproblemshavenotreceivedenoughattentionfromthenewsmediaorpoliticians,butthedayiscomingwhentheywill.Agreatmanypeoplewhoknowaboutagricultureareworryingabouttheseproblems already. It seems likely that the public, increasingly conscious of the issues of personal andecologicalhealth,willsoonerorlaterforcethepoliticalleadershiptopayattention.Andalotoffarmersandgrassrootsfarmorganizationsarenowtakingseriouslytheproblemofecologicalsustainability.

Butthereisarelatedissuethat isevenmoreneglected,onethathasbeenlargelyobscured,evenforpeopleawareof the requirementofecologicalsustainability,by thevogueof theso-called freemarketandtheglobaleconomy.Iamtalkingabouttheissueoftheeconomicsustainabilityoffarmsandfarmers,farmfamiliesandfarmcommunities.

Itoughttobeobviousthatinordertohavesustainableagriculture,youhavegottomakesustainablethelivesand livelihoodsof thepeoplewhodo thework.The landcannot thrive if thepeoplewhoare itsusers and caretakers do not thrive. Ecological sustainability requires a complex local culture as thepreserver of the necessary knowledge and skill; and this in turn requires a settled, stable, prosperouslocalpopulationoffarmersandotherlandusers.Itoughttobeobviousthatagriculturecannotbemadesustainablebyadwindlingpopulationofeconomicallydepressed farmersandagrowingpopulationofmigrantworkers.

Why is our farm population dwindling away? Why are the still-surviving farms so frequently indesperateeconomiccircumstances?Whyisthesuiciderateamongfarmersthreetimesthatofthecountryasawhole?

There is one reason that is paramount: The present agricultural economy, as designed by theagribusiness corporations (and the politicians, bureaucrats, economists, and experts who do theirbidding),usesfarmersasexpendable“resources”intheprocessofproduction,thesamewayitusesthetopsoil,thegroundwater,andtheecologicalintegrityoffarmlandscapes.

From the standpoint of sustainability, either of farmland or farm people, the present agriculturaleconomy is a failure. It is, in fact, a catastrophe. And there is no use in thinking that agriculture canbecomesustainablebybetteradaptingtothetermsimposedbythiseconomy.Thatishopeless,becauseitsterms are the wrong terms. The purpose of this economy is rapid, short-term exploitation, notsustainability.

Thestoryweareinnowisexactlythesamestorywehavebeeninforthelasthundredyears.Itisthestory of a fundamental conflict between the interests of farmers and farming and the interests of theagribusinesscorporations.Itisuselesstosupposeorpretendthatthisconflictdoesnotexist,ortohopethatyoucansomehowservebothsidesatonce.Theinterestsaredifferent,theyareinconflict,andyouhavetogetononesideortheother.

As a case in point, let us consider the economics ofKentucky’s chicken factories,which some arepleased to lookuponas ahelp to farmers.TheCourier-Journal onMay28, 2000, told the storyof aMcLeanCounty farmerwho raises 1.2million chickens a year.His borrowed investment of $750,000bringshimanannualincomeof$20,000to$30,000.Thisdeclaresitselfimmediatelyasa“deal”tailor-made for desperate farmers. Who besides a desperate farmer would see $20,000 or $30,000 as an

acceptable annual return on an investment of $750,000 plus a year’s work? In the poultry-processingcorporationsthatsponsorsuch“farming,”howmanyCEOswouldseethatasanacceptablereturn?Thefact is that agriculture cannot bemade sustainable in thisway. The ecological risks are high, and theeconomic structure is forbidding.Howmany children of farmers in such an arrangementwillwant tofarm?

Somepeoplewouldliketoclaimthatthissortof“economicdevelopment”is“inevitable.”Buttheonlythings that seem inevitable about it are the corporate greed thatmotivates it and the careerism of theacademicexpertswhotrytojustifyit.OnMay28,theCourier-JournalquotedanagribusinessapologistattheUniversityofKentucky’sexperimentstationinPrinceton,GaryParker,whosaidindefenseoftheanimalfactories:“Agricultureisahigh-volume,high-cost,high-risktypebusiness.Youhavetoborrowatremendousamountofmoney.Youhavetogenerateatremendousamountofincomejusttobarelymakealiving.”

The firstproblemwithMr.Parker’s justification is that it amounts toaperfectcondemnationof thiskindofagriculture.InaneditorialonJune4,theCourier-JournalquotedMr.Parker,andthensaidthatsuchagriculture,thoughcompromisingandrisky,“cangenerategreatrewards.”TheCourier-Journaldidnot saywhowould get those “great rewards.”Wemay be sure, however, that theywill not go to thefarmers,who,accordingtoMr.Parker’sconfession,arejustbarelymakingaliving.

The second problemwithMr. Parker’s statement is that it is not necessarily true. In contrast to thefactoryfarmthatrealizesaprofitof$20,000or$30,000onthesaleof1,200,000chickens,Iknowafarmfamilywho,lastyear,asapartofadiversifiedsmallfarmenterprise,produced2,000pasturedchickensforanetincomeof$6,000.Thisfarmenterpriseinvolvednolargeinvestmentforhousingorequipment,no large debt, no contract, and no environmental risk. The chickens were of excellent quality. Thecustomersforthemwereordinarycitizens,abouthalfofwhomwerefromthelocalruralcommunity.Thedemandfarexceeds thesupply.Mostof theproceedsfor thesechickenswent to thefamily thatdid theworkofproducingthem.Asubstantialportionofthatmoneywillbespentinthelocalcommunity.Suchapossibility has not been noticed by Mr. Parker or theCourier-Journal because, I suppose, it is not“tremendous”anditservestheinterestoffarmers,notcorporations.

AgriculturalSolutionsforAgriculturalProblems

(1978)

ITMAYTURNoutthat themostpowerfulandthemostdestructivechangeofmoderntimeshasbeenachange in language: the rise of the image, ormetaphor, of themachine.Until the industrial revolutionoccurred in themindsofmostof thepeople in theso-calleddevelopedcountries, thedominant imageswereorganic:Theyhadtodowithlivingthings;theywerebiological,pastoral,agricultural,orfamilial.Godwasseenasa“shepherd,”thefaithfulas“thesheepofHispasture.”One’shomecountrywasknownasone’s“motherland.”Certainpeopleweresaid tohave thestrengthofa lion, thegraceofadeer, thespeedofafalcon,thecunningofafox,etc.Jesusspokeofhimselfasa“bridegroom.”Peoplewhotookgood care of the earthwere said to practice “husbandry.”The ideal relationships amongpeoplewere“brotherhood”and“sisterhood.”

Nowwedonot flinch tohearmenandwomenreferred toas“units”as if theywereasuniformandinterchangeable asmachine parts. It is common, and considered acceptable, to refer to themind as acomputer:one’sthoughtsare“inputs”;otherpeople’sresponsesare“feedback.”Andthebodyisthoughtof as amachine; it is said, for instance, to use food as “fuel”; and the best workers and athletes arepraised by being compared to machines.Work is judged almost exclusively now by its “efficiency,”which, as used, is a mechanical standard, or by its profitability, which is our only trusted index ofmechanicalefficiency.One’scountryisnolongerlovedfamiliallyandintimatelyasa“motherland,”butratherpricedaccordingtoits“productivity”of“rawmaterials”and“naturalresources”—valued,thatis,strictlyaccordingtoitsabilitytokeepthemachinesrunning.AndrecentlyR.BuckminsterFullerassertedthat“theuniversephysically is itself themost incredible technology”—thenecessary implicationbeingthatGodisnotfather,shepherd,orbridegroom,butamechanic,operatingbyprincipleswhich,accordingtoFuller,“canonlybeexpressedmathematically.”

In viewof this revolution of language,which is in effect the uprooting of the humanmind, it is notsurprisingtorealizethatfarmingtoohasbeenmadetoserveundertheyokeofthisextremelyreductivemetaphor.Farming,accordingtomostofthemostpowerfulpeoplenowconcernedwithit,isnolongerawayof life, no longerhusbandryor evenagriculture; it is an industryknownas “agribusiness,”whichlooksuponafarmasa“factory,”anduponfarmers,plants,animals,andthelanditselfasinterchangeablepartsor“unitsofproduction.”

Thisviewoffarminghasbeendominantnowforageneration,andsoit isnottoosoontoask:Howwell does itwork?Wemust answer that itworks as any industrialmachineworks: very “efficiently”accordingtothetermsofanextremelyspecializedaccounting.Thatistosaythatitapparentlymakes itpossibleforabout4percentofthepopulationto“feed”therest.Solongaswekeepthefocusnarrowedto the “food factory” itself,wehave to be impressed: It is elaboratelyorganized; it is technologicallysophisticated;itis,byitsowndefinitionoftheterm,marvelously“efficient.”

Onlywhenwewidenthefocusdoweseethatthis“factory”isinfactafailure.Withinitselfithastheorderofamachine,but,likeotherenterprisesoftheindustrialvision,itispartofarapidlywideninganddeepening disorder. It will be sufficient here to list some of the serious problems that have ademonstrableconnectionwith industrial agriculture: (1) soil erosion, (2) soil compaction, (3) soil andwater pollution, (4) pests and diseases resulting from monoculture and ecological deterioration, (5)depopulationofruralcommunities,and(6)decivilizationofthecities.

Themostobvious falsehoodof “agribusiness” accountinghas todowith the alleged “efficiency”of“agribusiness” technology. This is, in the first place, an efficiency calculated in the productivity ofworkers,notofacres.Inthesecondplacetheproductivityper“man-hour,”asgivenoutby“agribusiness”apologists, is dangerously—and, onemust assume, intentionally—misleading. For the 4 percent of ourpopulationthatisleftonthefarmdoesnot,byanystretchofimagination,feedtherest.That4percentisonly a small part, and the worst-paid part, of a food production network that includes purchasers,wholesalers, retailers, processors, packagers, transporters, and the manufacturers and salesmen ofmachines, building materials, feeds, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, medicines, and fuel. All theseproducersareatonceincompetitionwitheachotheranddependentoneachother,andallaredependentonthepetroleumindustry.

As for the farmers themselves, they have long ago lost control of their destiny. They are no longer“independentfarmers,”subscribingtothatancientandperhapsindispensableideal,butareagentsoftheircreditorsandofthemarket.Theyare“unitsofproduction”who,orwhich,mustperform“efficiently”—regardlessofwhattheygetoutofiteitherasinvestorsorashumanbeings.

Inthelargeraccounting,then,industrialagricultureisafailureonitswaytobeingacatastrophe.Whyisitafailure?Thereare,Ithink,twoinescapablereasons.

Thefirstisthattheindustrialvisionisperhapsinherentlyanoversimplifyingvision,whichproceedsontheassumptionthatconsequenceisalwayssingular;industrialistsinvariablyassumethattheyaresolvingfor X—X being production. In order to solve for X, industrial agriculturists have to reduce anyagricultural problem to a problem in mechanics—as, for example, modern confinement-feedingtechniquesbecamepossibleonlywhenanimalscouldbeconsideredasmachines.

Whatthisvisionexcludes,asamatterofcourse,arebiologyontheonehand,andhumancultureontheother. Once vision is enlarged to include these considerations, we see readily that—as wisdom hasalways counseled us—consequences are invariably multiple, self-multiplying, long-lasting, andunforeseeable in something like geometric proportion to the size or power of the cause. Taking ourbearings from traditionalwisdom and from the insights of the ecologists—which, so far as I can see,confirmtraditionalwisdom—werealizethatinacountrythesizeoftheUnitedStates,andeconomicallyuniform,thesmallestpossibleagricultural“unitofproduction”isverylargeindeed.Itconsistsofallthefarmland,plusallthefarmers,plusallthefarmingcommunities,plusalltheknowledgeandthetechnicalmeans of agriculture, plus all the available species of domestic plants and animals, plus the naturalsystems and cycles that surround farming and support it, plus the knowledge, taste, judgment, kitchenskills,etc.ofallthepeoplewhobuyfood.Apropersolutiontoanagriculturalproblemmustpreserveandpromotethegoodhealthofthis“unit.”Nothinglesswilldo.

Thesecondreasonforthefailureofindustrialagricultureisitswastefulness.Innaturalorbiologicalsystems,waste does not occur.And it is easy to produce examples of nonindustrial human cultures inwhichwastewas or is virtually unknown.All that is sloughed off in the living arc of a natural cycle

remainswithinthecycle;itbecomesfertility,thepoweroflifetocontinue.Innaturedeathanddecayareasnecessary—are,onemayalmostsay,aslively—aslife;andsonothingiswasted.Thereisreallynosuchthing,then,asnaturalproduction;innature,thereisonlyreproduction.

Butwaste—so far, at least—has always been intrinsic to industrial production. There have alwaysbeenunusable“by-products.”Becauseindustrialcyclesarenevercomplete—becausethereisnoreturn—therearetwocharacteristicresultsofindustrialenterprise:exhaustionandcontamination.Theenergyindustry,forinstance, isnotacycle,butonlyashortarcbetweenanemptyholeandpoisonedair.Andfarming,whichisinherentlycyclic,capableofregeneratingandreproducingitselfindefinitely,becomessimilarly destructive and self-exhaustingwhen transformed into an industry.Agricultural pollution is aseriousandgrowingproblem.Andindustrialagricultureisforcedbyitsverycharactertotreat thesoilitselfasa“rawmaterial,”whichitproceedsto“useup.”Ithasbeenestimated,forinstance,thatatthepresentrateofcroplanderosionIowa’ssoilwillbeexhaustedbytheyear2050.Ihaveseennoattempttocalculate thehuman costof such farming—byattrition,displacement, socialdisruption,etc.—Iassumebecauseitisincalculable.

Thisfailureofindustrialagricultureisnotmoreobvious,ormorenoticed,becausemanyofitsworstsocial and economic consequences have collected in the cities, and are erroneously called “urbanproblems.”Also,becausethefarmpopulationisnowsosmall,mostpeopleknownothingoffarming,andcannotrecognizeagriculturalproblemswhentheyseethem.

Butifindustrialagricultureisafailure,thenhowdoesitcontinuetoproducesuchanenormousvolumeoffood?Onereasonisthatmostcountrieswhereindustrialagricultureispracticedhavesoilsthatwereoriginallygood,possessinggreatnaturalreservesoffertility.(Industrialagricultureismuchmorequicklydestructive in places where the fertility reserves of the soil are not great—as in the Amazon basin.)Another reason is that, as natural fertility has declined, we have so far been able to subsidize foodproduction by large applications of chemical fertilizer. These have effectively disguised the loss ofnatural fertility, but it is important to emphasize that they are a disguise. They delay some of theconsequencesoffailure,butcannotpreventthem.Chemicalfertilizersarerequiredinvastamounts,theyare increasingly expensive, and most of them come from sources that are not renewable. Industrialagriculture is now absolutely dependent on them, and this dependence is one of its fundamentalweaknesses.

Anotherweaknessofindustrialagricultureisitsabsolutedependenceonanenormousandintricate—hencefragile—economicandindustrialorganization.Industrialfoodproductioncanbegravelyimpairedor stopped by any number of causes, none of which need be agricultural: a trucker’s strike, an oilshortage,acreditshortage,amanufacturing“error”suchasthePBBcatastropheinMichigan.

Athirdweaknessistheabsolutedependenceofmostofthepopulationonindustrialagriculture—andthelackofany“backupsystem.”Wehaveanunprecedentedlylargeurbanpopulationthathasnolandtogrowfoodon,noknowledgeofhowtogrowit,andlessandlessknowledgeofwhattodowithitafteritisgrown.Thatthispopulationcancontinuetoeatthroughshortage,strike,embargo,riot,depression,war—or anyof theother large-scale afflictions that societies have alwaysbeenheir to and that industrialsocietiesareuniquelyvulnerableto—isnotacertaintyorevenafaith;itisasuperstition.

As an example of the unexamined confusions and contradictions that underlie industrial agriculture,considerAgricultureSecretaryBobBergland’srecentremarksonthestateofagricultureinChina:“Fromthemanpower-productionpointofview,they’reterriblyinefficient—700millionpeopledoingthemost

pedestriankindofthings.Butinproductionperacre,they’reenormouslysuccessful.TheygetninetimesasmanycaloriesperacreaswedointheUnitedStates.”

Thiscomment is remarkablefor its failure toacknowledgeanypossibleconnectionbetweenChina’slargeagriculturalworkforceanditshighper-acreproductivity.InmanypartsofChina,accordingtoonerecent observer, the agriculture is still much closer to what we call gardening than to what we callfarming.Becausetheirfarmingisdoneoncomparativelysmallplots,usingalotofhandlabor,Chinesefarmers have at their disposal such high-production techniques as intercropping and close rotations,which with us are available only to home gardeners. Many Chinese fields have maintained theproductivityofgardensforthousandsofyears,andthisisdirectlyattributabletothegreatnumbersofthefarmingpopulation.Eachacrecanbeintensivelyusedandcaredfor,maintainedforcenturiesatmaximumfertilityandyield,becausethereareenoughknowledgeablepeopletodothenecessaryhandwork.

It is naive to assume, asMr.Bergland implicitly does, that such an agriculture canbe improvedby“modernization”—thatis,bytheintroductionofindustrialstandards,methods,andtechnology.Howcanthis agriculture be industrialized without destroying its intensive methods, and thus reducing itsproductivity per acre? How can the so-called pedestrian tasks be taken over by machines withoutdisplacingpeople,increasingunemployment,degradingthequalityoflandmaintenance,increasingslumsand other urban blights? How, in other words, can this revolution fail to cause in China the samedisordersthatithasalreadycausedintheUnitedStates?Idonotmeantoimplythatthesequestionscanbeansweredsimply.MypointisthatbeforeweparticipateintheindustrializationofChineseagricultureweoughttoaskandanswerthesequestions.

Finally,theSecretary’sstatementisremarkableforitsrevealinguseoftheword“pedestrian.”Thisisausagestrictlyinkeepingwiththeindustrialrevolutionofourlanguage.Thefarther industrializationhasgone with us, and the more it has influenced our values and behavior, the more contemptuous andbelittlinghastheadjective“pedestrian”become.Ifyouwanttoknowhowhighlyanything“pedestrian”isregarded,trywalkingalongtheedgeofabusyhighway;youwillseethatyouareregardedmainlyasanobstruction to theprogressofgreaterpowerandvelocity.The lesspowerandvelocitya thinghas, themore“pedestrian”itis.Aplowwithonebottomis,asamatterofcourse,more“pedestrian”thanaplowwith eight bottoms; the quality of use is not recognized as an issue. The hand laborers are thus to beeliminated from China’s fields for the same reason that we now build housing developments withoutsidewalks:Thepedestrian,notbeingallowedfor,isnotallowed.Bytheuseofthisterm,theSecretaryignorestheissueofthequalityofworkontheonehand,andontheotherhandtheissueofsocialvaluesand aims. Is fieldwork necessarily improvedwhen donewithmachines instead of people?And is aworkernecessarily improvedbybeing replacedbyamachine?Does aworker invariablyworkbetter,more ably, withmore interest and satisfaction, when his power is mechanically magnified? And is aworkerbetteroffworkingata“pedestrian”farmtaskorunemployedinanurbanghetto?Inwhichinstanceishiscountrybetteroff?

IhavebelaboredSecretaryBergland’sstatementatsuchlengthnotbecauseitissoodd,butbecauseitis so characteristic of the dominant American approach to agriculture. He is using—unconsciously, Isuspect—thelanguageofagricultural industrialism,whichfailstosolveagriculturalproblemscorrectlybecauseitcannotunderstandordefinethemasagriculturalproblems.

I WILL NOW try to define an approach to agriculture that is agricultural, that will lead to proper

solutions, and that will, in consequence, safeguard and promote the health of the great unit of foodproduction,whichincludesusallandallofourcountry.InordertodothisIwilldealwithfourproblems,which seem tome inherent in thedisciplineof farming, andwhicharepractical in the sense that theirultimatesolutionscannotoccurinpublicplaces—inorganizations,inmarkets,orinpolicies—butonlyonfarms.Thesearetheproblemsofscale,ofbalance,ofdiversity,ofquality.Thattheseproblemscannotbeseparated,andthatnooneofthemcanbesolvedwithoutsolvingtheothers,testifiestotheirauthenticity.

1.TheProblemofScale.Theidentificationofscaleasa“problem”impliesthatthingscanbetoobigaswellastoosmall,andIbelievethatthisisso.Technologycangrowtoasizethatisfirstundemocraticandtheninhuman.Itcangrowbeyondthecontrolofindividualhumanbeings—andso,perhaps,beyondthecontrolofhumaninstitutions.Howlargecanamachinebebeforeitceasestoservepeopleandbeginstosubjugatethem?

Thesizeof landholdings is likewiseapolitical fact. In anygiven region there is a farmsize that isdemocratic, and a farm size that is plutocraticor totalitarian.Agreat danger todemocracynow in theUnitedStatesisthesteepdeclineinthenumberofpeoplewhoownfarmland—orlandedpropertyofanykind.(Accordingtoajust-publishedreportoftheGeneralAccountingOffice,“Today,itisestimatedthatlessthanone-halfofallfarmlandisownedbytheoperator.”)EarlButzhassuggestedthatthisismadeupforbytheincreasednumbersofpeoplewhoowninsurancepolicies.Butthevalueofinsurancepoliciesfluctuateswiththevalueofmoney,whereastherealvalueoflandnevervaries;itisalwaysequaltothevalue of survival, of life. When this value is controlled by a wealthy or powerful minority, thendemocracyisreducedtomeregovernmentalforms,easytodestroyorignore.

Moreover,inanygivenregionthereisalimitbeyondwhichafarmoutgrowstheattention,affection,andcareofasingleowner.

The sizeof fields is also amatter of agricultural concern.Fields canbe toobig topermit effectiverotation of grazing, or to prevent erosion of land in cultivation. In general, the steeper the ground, thesmallershouldbethefields.OnthesteepslopesoftheAndes,forinstance,agriculturehassurvivedforthousandsofyears.Thissurvivalhasobviouslydependedonholding thesoil inplace,and theAndeanpeasantshaveanextensivemethodologyoferosioncontrol.Ofalltheirmeansandmethods,noneismoreimportantthanthesmallnessoftheirfields—whichispermittedbythesmallnessoftheirtechnology,mostofthelandstillbeingworkedbyhandorwithoxen.

2.TheProblemofBalance.Finding the correct ratio betweenpeople and land, so thatmaintenancealways equalsproduction.This is obviously related to theproblemof scale. In the correct solution totheseproblems,suchproblemsassoilerosionandsoilcompactionwillbesolved.

Butalsoeachfarmandeachfarmermustestablishtheproperratiobetweenplantsandanimals.Thisisthefoundationofagriculturalindependence.Inthisbalanceofplantsandanimalsthefertilitycycleiskeptcomplete,orasnearlycompleteaspossible.Ideally,thefarmwouldprovideitsownfertility.However,incommercialfarming,whensomanynutrientsareshippedoffthefarmasfood,itisnecessarytoreturnthemtothefarmintheformofcomposted“urbanwastes”—sewage,garbage,etc.

Bystudyingtheproblemofbalance,onediscoversthecarryingcapacityofafarm—thatis,theamountitcanproducewithoutdiminishingitsabilitytoproduce.

Whentheproblemofbalanceissolved,afarm’sproductionbecomesmoreorlessconstant.Thefarmwillnolongerbestockedorcultivatedaccordingtofluctuationsofthemarket—whichisnotagriculturebutanimitation,onthefarm,ofindustrialeconomics.

3.TheProblemofDiversity.This is the only possible agricultural “backup system.”On the farm itmeansnotputtingalltheeggsinonebasket;itmeans—withinthelimitsofnature,sense,andpracticality—havingasmanykinds,asmanyspecies,aspossible.

Intermsofourcountry’sagricultureasawhole,too,itmeansthediversityofspecies.Butitalsomeansasmanydifferentkindsofgoodagricultureaspossible: farmschanginginkind,asnecessary, fromonelocationtoanother;butalsotruckfarmsandpart-timefarmsnearcities,toincreaselocalself-sufficiencyandindependence;andhomegardenseverywhere,inthecitiesaswellasinthecountry.

4.TheProblemofQuality.Quality, as I shallunderstand ithere, is indistinguishable fromhealth—bodily health, coming from good food, but also economic, political, cultural, and spiritual health.Allthesekindsofhealtharerelated.AndIhopethatmydiscussionoftheotherproblemshasbeguntomakeclearhowdependenthealthisongoodwork.

INDUSTRIALAGRICULTUREHAStendedtolookonthefarmerasa“worker”—asortofobsoletebutnotyetdispensablemachine—actingon theadviceofscientistsandeconomists.Wehaveneglected thetruththatagoodfarmerisacraftsmanofthehighestorder,akindofartist.Itisthegoodworkofgoodfarmers—nothingelse—thatensuresasufficiencyoffoodoverthelongterm.

Ignoringthat,industrialeconomicshasencouragedpoorworkonthefarm.Ibelievethatithasdonesobecausepoorworkcanbeeasilypriced.Sincepoorworklastsonlyashorttime,themoneyvalueofitswholelifecanbereadilycalculated.Goodwork,whichinfactorinfluenceenduresbeyondtheforesightof economists, can be valued but not priced, because itsworth is incalculable. I am talking about thedifference, say, between awire fence and a stonewall, or between anygasoline engine and anygoodbreedoflivestock.

I ammore andmore convinced that the only guarantee of quality in practice lies in the subsistenceprinciple—that is, in the use of the product by the producer—a principle depreciated virtually out ofexistence by industrial agriculture. Indeed, it is sometimes offered as one of the benefits of industrialagriculturethatfarmfamiliesnowpatronizethesupermarketsjustlikecitypeople.Ontheotherhand,itcan be well argued that people who use their own products will be as concerned for quality as forquantity,whereaspeoplewhoproduceexclusivelyforthemarketwillbemainlyinterestedinquantity.

Itwillbenoticedthatproductionisnotonmylistofproblems.ThereasonisthatifthefourproblemsIhavedealtwithareproperlysolved,productionwillnotbeaproblem.Goodproduction ismerely theresultofgoodfarming.

ADefenseoftheFamilyFarm

(1986)

DEFENDINGTHEFAMILY farm is like defending theBill ofRights or the Sermon on theMount orShakespeare’splays.Oneisamazedatthenecessityfordefense,andyetoneagreesgladly,knowingthatthefamilyfarmisbotheminentlydefensibleandapartofthedefinitionofone’sownhumanity.Buthavingagreed to this defense, one remembers uneasily that there has been a public clamor in defense of thefamilyfarmthroughoutalltheyearsofitsdecline—that,infact,“thefamilyfarm”hasbecomeapoliticalcatchword,likedemocracyandChristianity,andmuchevilhasbeendoneinitsname.

Severalcarefuldistinctionsarethereforenecessary.WhatIshallmeanbytheterm“familyfarm”isafarm small enough to be farmedby a family andone that is farmedby a family, perhapswith a smallamountofhiredhelp.Ishallnotmeanafarmthatisownedbyafamilyandworkedbyotherpeople.Thefamilyfarmisboththehomeandtheworkplaceofthefamilythatownsit.

By the verb “farm,” I do notmean just the production ofmarketable crops but also the responsiblemaintenanceofthehealthandusabilityoftheplacewhileitisinproduction.Afamilyfarmisonethatisproperlycaredforbyitsfamily.

Furthermore, the term“familyfarm” implies longevity in theconnectionbetweenfamilyandfarm.Afamilyfarmisnotafarmthatafamilyhasboughtonspeculationandisonlyoccupyingandusinguntilitcan be profitably sold. Neither, strictly speaking, is it a farm that a family has newly bought, though,dependingontheintentionsofthefamily,wemaybeabletosaythatsuchafarmispotentiallyafamilyfarm.Thissuggeststhatwemayhavetothinkintermsofranksordegreesoffamilyfarms.Afarmthathasbeeninthesamefamilyforthreegenerationsmayrankhigherasafamilyfarmthanafarmthathasbeenina family only one generation; it may have a higher degree of familiness or familiarity than the one-generationfarm.Suchdistinctionshaveapracticalusefulnesstotheunderstandingofagriculture,and,asIhopetoshow,therearerewardsoflongevitythatdonotaccrueonlytothefamilyfarm.

Imentioned the possibility that a family farmmight use a small amount of hired help. This greatlycomplicatesmatters,andIwishitwerepossibletosay,simply,thatafamilyfarmisfarmedwithfamilylabor.Butitseemsimportanttoallowforthepossibilityofsupplementingfamilylaborwithwageworkorsome formof sharecropping.Notonlymay family laborbecome insufficient as a result, say,of ageordebility but also an equitable system of wage earning or sharecropping would permit unpropertiedfamiliestoearntheirwaytofarmownership.Thecriticalpoints,indefining“familyfarm,”arethattheamountofnonfamilylaborshouldbesmallandthatitshouldsupplement,notreplace,familylabor.Onafamily farm, the familymembersareworkers,notoverseers. Ifa familyona family farmdoes requiresupplementarylabor,itseemsdesirablethatthehiredhelpshouldliveontheplaceandworkyear-round;theideaofafamilyfarmisjeopardizedbysupposingthatthefarmfamilymightbesimplytheguardians

ormaintainersofcropsplantedandharvestedbyseasonalworkers.Theserequirements,ofcourse,implybothsmallscaleanddiversity.

Finally,Ithinkwemustallowforthepossibilitythatafamilyfarmmightbeverysmallormarginalandthatitmightnotentirelysupportitsfamily.Insuchcases,thoughtheeconomicreturnmightbereduced,thevaluesofthefamily-ownedandfamily-workedsmallfarmarestillavailablebothtothefamilyandtothenation.

THEIDEAOFthefamilyfarm,asIhavejustdefinedit,isconformableineverywaytotheideaofgoodfarming—thatis,farmingthatdoesnotdestroyeitherfarmlandorfarmpeople.Thetwoideasmay,infact,beinseparable.IffamilyfarmingandgoodfarmingareasnearlysynonymousasIsuspecttheyare,thatisbecauseofalawthatiswellunderstood,still,bymostfarmersbutthathasbeenignoredinthecolleges,offices,andcorporationsofagricultureforthirty-fiveorfortyyears.Thelawreadssomethinglikethis:Landthatisinhumanusemustbelovinglyused;itrequiresintimateknowledge,attention,andcare.

The practicalmeaning of this law (to borrow an insight fromWes Jackson1) is that there is a ratiobetween eyes and acres, between farm size and farm hands, that is correct.We know that this law isunrelenting—that,forexample,oneofthemeaningsofourcurrenthighratesofsoilerosionisthatwedonothaveenoughfarmers;wehaveenoughfarmerstousethelandbutnotenoughtouseitandprotectitatthesametime.

Inthislaw,whichisnotsubjecttohumanrepeal,isthejustificationofthesmall,family-owned,family-worked farm, for this lawgives apreeminent and irrevocablevalue to familiarity, the family life thatalonecanproperlyconnectapeopletoaland.Thisconnection,admittedly,iseasytosentimentalize,andwemustbecarefulnottodoso.Weallknowthatsmallfamilyfarmscanbeabusedbecauseweknowthatsometimestheyhavebeen;nevertheless,itistruethatfamiliaritytendstomitigateandtocorrectabuse.Afamily that has farmed land through two or three generations will possess not just the land but arememberedhistoryofitsownmistakesandoftheremediesofthosemistakes.Itwillknownotjustwhatitcando,whatistechnologicallypossible,butalsowhatitmustdoandwhatitmustnotdo;thefamilywillhaveunderstoodthewaysinwhichitandthefarmempowerandlimitoneanother.Thisisthevalueoflongevityinlandholding:Inthelongterm,knowledgeandaffectionaccumulate,and,inthelongterm,knowledgeandaffectionpay.Theydonotjustpaythefamilyingoodsandmoney;theyalsopaythefamilyandthewholecountryinhealthandsatisfaction.

But the justificationsof thefamilyfarmarenotmerelyagricultural; theyarepoliticalandculturalaswell.Thequestionofthesurvivalofthefamilyfarmandthefarmfamilyisoneversionofthequestionofwhowillownthecountry,whichis,ultimately,thequestionofwhowillownthepeople.Shalltheusablepropertyofourcountrybedemocraticallydivided,ornot?Shallthepowerofpropertybeademocraticpower,ornot?Ifmanypeopledonotowntheusableproperty,thentheymustsubmittothefewwhodoown it. They cannot eat or be sheltered or clothed except in submission. They will find themselvesentirely dependent onmoney; theywill find costs always higher, andmoney always harder to get. Torenouncetheprincipleofdemocraticproperty,whichistheonlybasisofdemocraticliberty,inexchangeforspeciousnotionsofefficiencyortheeconomicsoftheso-calledfreemarketisatragicfolly.

Thereisonemorejustification,amongmany,thatIwanttotalkabout—namely,thatthesmallfarmofagoodfarmer,likethesmallshopofagoodcraftsmanorcraftswoman,givesworkaqualityandadignity

thatitisdangerous,bothtotheworkerandthenation,forhumanworktogowithout.Ifusingtenworkersto make one pin results in the production of many more pins than the ten workers could produceindividually,thatisundeniablyanimprovementinproduction,andperhapsuniformityisavirtueinpins.But, in theprocess, tenworkershavebeendemeaned; theyhavebeendenied theeconomicuseof theirminds; theirworkhasbecome thoughtlessandskill-less.RobertHeilbronersays that such“divisionoflaborreducestheactivityoflabortodismemberedgestures.”2

Eric Gill sees in this industrial dismemberment of labor a crucial distinction betweenmaking anddoing,andhedescribes“thedegradationofthemind”thatistheresultoftheshiftfrommakingtodoing.3Thisdegradationofthemindcannot,ofcourse,bewithoutconsequences.Oneobviousconsequenceisthedegradationofproducts.Whenworkers’mindsaredegradedbylossofresponsibilityforwhatisbeingmade,theycannotusejudgment;theyhavenousefortheircriticalfaculties;theyhavenooccasionsfortheexerciseofworkmanship,ofworkmanlypride.Andtheconsumerisdegradedbylossoftheopportunityforqualitativechoice.Thisiswhywemustnowbuyourclothesandimmediatelyresewthebuttons;itiswhyourexpensivepurchasesquicklybecomejunk.

Withindustrializationhascomeageneraldepreciationofwork.Asthepriceofworkhasgoneup,thevalueofithasgonedown,untilitisnowsodepressedthatpeoplesimplydonotwanttodoitanymore.WecansaywithoutexaggerationthatthepresentnationalambitionoftheUnitedStatesisunemployment.People live for quitting time, forweekends, for vacations, and for retirement;moreover, this ambitionseemstobeclassless,astrueintheexecutivesuitesasontheassemblylines.Oneworksnotbecausetheworkisnecessary,valuable,usefultoadesirableend,orbecauseonelovestodoit,butonlytobeabletoquit—a condition that a saner time would regard as infernal, a condemnation. This is explained, ofcourse,bythedullnessof thework,bythelossofresponsibilityfor,orcreditfor,orknowledgeof thethingmade.Whatcanbethestatusoftheworkingsmallfarmerinanationwhosemottoisasighofrelief:“ThankGodit’sFriday”?

Butthereisanevenmoreimportantconsequence:Bythedismembermentofwork,bythedegradationofourmindsasworkers,wearedeniedourhighestcalling,for,asGillsays,“everymaniscalledtogivelovetotheworkofhishands.Everymaniscalledtobeanartist.”4Thesmallfamilyfarmisoneofthelast places—they are getting rarer every day—where men and women (and girls and boys, too) cananswerthatcalltobeanartist,tolearntogivelovetotheworkoftheirhands.Itisoneofthelastplaceswherethemaker—andsomefarmersstilldotalkabout“makingthecrops”—isresponsible,fromstarttofinish,forthethingmade.Thiscertainlyisaspiritualvalue,butitisnotforthatreasonanimpracticaloruneconomicone. In fact, from theexerciseof this responsibility, thisgivingof love to theworkof thehands,thefarmer,thefarm,theconsumer,andthenationallstandtogaininthemostpracticalways:Theygainthemeansoflife,thegoodnessoffood,andthelongevityanddependabilityofthesourcesoffood,both natural and cultural. The proper answer to the spiritual calling becomes, in turn, the properfulfillmentofphysicalneed.

THEFAMILYFARM,then, isgood,andtoshowthat it isgoodiseasy.Thosewhohavedonemost todestroyithave,Ithink,foundnoevilinit.But,ifagoodthingisfailingamongus,prettymuchwithoutbeingarguedagainstandprettymuchwithoutprofessedenemies,thenwemustaskwhy it shouldfail. Ihavespentyearstryingtoanswerthisquestion,and,whileIamsureofsomeanswers,Iamalsosurethatthecompleteanswerwillbehardtocomebybecausethecompleteanswerhastodowithwhoandwhat

weareasapeople;thefaultliesinouridentityandthereforewillbehardforustosee.

However,wemusttrytosee,andthebestplacetobeginmaybewiththefactthatthefamilyfarmisnottheonlygoodthingthatisfailingamongus.Thefamilyfarmisfailingbecauseitbelongstoanorderofvaluesandakindoflifethatarefailing.Wecanonlyfinditwonderful,whenweputourmindstoit,thatmanypeoplenowseemwillingtomountanemergencyeffortto“savethefamilyfarm”whohavenotyetthoughttosavethefamilyorthecommunity,theneighborhoodschoolsorthesmalllocalbusinesses,thedomesticartsofhouseholdandhomestead,orculturalandmoraltradition—allofwhicharealsofailing,andonallofwhichthesurvivalofthefamilyfarmdepends.

Thefamilyfarmisfailingbecausethepatternitbelongstoisfailing,andtheprincipalreasonforthisfailure is the universal adoption, by our people and our leaders alike, of industrial values,which arebasedonthreeassumptions:

1.Thatvalueequalsprice—thatthevalueofafarm,forexample,iswhateveritwouldbringonsale,becausebothaplaceanditspriceare“assets.”Thereisnoessentialdifferencebetweenfarmingandsellingafarm.

2.Thatallrelationsaremechanical.Thatafarm,forexample,canbeusedlikeafactory,becausethereisnoessentialdifferencebetweenafarmandafactory.

3. That the sufficient and definitive human motive is competitiveness—that a community, forexample, can be treated like a resource or amarket, because there is no difference between acommunityandaresourceoramarket.

Theindustrialmindisamindwithoutcompunction; itsimplyaccepts thatpeople,ultimately,willbetreatedasthingsandthatthings,ultimately,willbetreatedasgarbage.

Such a mind is indifferent to the connections, which are necessarily both practical and cultural,betweenpeopleandland;whichistosaythatitisindifferenttothefundamentaleconomyandeconomicsof human life. Our economy is increasingly abstract, increasingly a thing of paper, unable either todescribeortoservetherealeconomythatdetermineswhetherornotpeoplewilleatandbeclothedandsheltered.Anditisthisincreasinglyfalseorfantasticaleconomythatisinvokedasastandardofnationalhealthandhappinessbyourpoliticalleaders.

Thatthisso-calledeconomycanbeusedasauniversalstandardcanonlymeanthatitisitselfwithoutstandards. Industrial economists cannot measure the economy by the health of nature, for they regardnatureas simplya sourceof“rawmaterials.”Theycannotmeasure itby thehealthofpeople, for theyregardpeopleas“labor” (that is, as toolsormachineparts)oras“consumers.”Theycanmeasure thehealthoftheeconomyonlyinsumsofmoney.

Herewecometotheheartofthematter—theabsolutedivorcethattheindustrialeconomyhasachievedbetweenitselfandallidealsandstandardsoutsideitself.Itdoesthis,ofcourse,byarrogatingtoitselfthestatus of primary reality. Once that is established, all its ties to principles of morality, religion, orgovernmentnecessarilyfallslack.

Butaculturedisintegrateswhenitseconomydisconnectsfromitsgovernment,morality,andreligion.Ifwearedismemberedinoureconomiclife,howcanwebemembersinourcommunalandspirituallife?Weassumethatwecanhaveanexploitive,ruthlesslycompetitive,profit-for-profit’s-sakeeconomy,andyetremainadecentandademocraticnation,aswestillapparentlywishtothinkourselves.Thissimplymeans that our highest principles and standards have no practical force or influence and are reducedmerelytotalk.

ThatthisistruewasacknowledgedbyWilliamSafireinarecentcolumn,inwhichhedeclaredthatoureconomyisdrivenbygreedandthatgreed,therefore,shouldnolongercountasoneofthesevendeadlysins.“Greed,”hesaid,“isfinallybeingrecognizedasavirtue...thebestengineofbettermentknowntoman.”Itis,moreover,anagriculturalvirtue:“ThecureforworldhungeristhedrivingforceofGreed.”Such statements would be possible only to someone who sees the industrial economy as the ultimatereality.Mr.Safireattemptsadisclaimer,perhapstomaintainhisstatusasaconservative:“IholdnobriefforAnger,Envy,Lust,Gluttony,PrideorSloth.”5Butthisisnotacatthatcanbeletonlypartlyoutofthebag.Infact,allsevenofthedeadlysinsare“drivingforces”ofthiseconomy,asitsadvertisementsandcommercialsplainlyshow.

Asanation, then,wearenotveryreligiousandnotverydemocratic,and that iswhywehavebeendestroyingthefamilyfarmforthelastfortyyears—alongwithothersmalllocaleconomicenterprisesofallkinds.WehavebeenwillingformillionsofpeopletobecondemnedtofailureanddispossessionbytheworkingsofaneconomyutterlyindifferenttoanyclaimstheymayhavehadeitheraschildrenofGodorascitizensofademocracy.“That’sthewayadynamiceconomyworks,”wehavesaid.Wehavesaid,“Getbigorgetout.”Wehavesaid,“Adaptordie.”Andwehavewashedourhandsofthem.

THROUGHOUTTHISPERIODofdrasticattritionon thefarm,wesupposedlyhavebeen“subsidizingagriculture,”but, asWes Jacksonhaspointedout,6 this is amisstatement.Whatwehaveactuallybeendoingisusingthefarmerstolaundermoneyfortheagribusinesscorporations,whichhavecontrolledboththeir supplies and their markets, while the farmers have overproduced and been at the mercy of themarkets. The result has been that the farmers have failed by the millions, and the agribusinesscorporationshaveprospered—or theyprospereduntil thepresent farmdepression,whensomeof themhavefinallyrealizedthat,afterall,theyaredependentontheircustomers,thefarmers.

Throughout this same desperate time, the colleges of agriculture, the experiment stations, and theextension services have been working under their old mandate to promote “a sound and prosperousagriculture and rural life,” to “aid in maintaining an equitable balance between agriculture and othersegments of the economy,” to contribute “to the establishment and maintenance of a permanent andeffective agricultural industry,” and to help “the development and improvement of the rural home andrurallife.”7

That the land-grantsystemhasfailed thiscommissionis,bynow,obvious.Iamaware that therearemany individual professors, scientists, and extensionworkerswhose lives have been dedicated to thefulfillmentofthiscommissionandwhoseworkhasgenuinelyservedtheruralhomeandrurallife.But,ingeneral, itcannolongerbedenied that thesystemasawholehasfailed.Onehundredandtwenty-fouryearsaftertheMorrillAct,ninety-nineyearsaftertheHatchAct,seventy-twoyearsaftertheSmith-LeverAct, the “industrial classes” are not liberally educated, agriculture and rural life are not sound orprosperousorpermanent,andthereisnoequitablebalancebetweenagricultureandothersegmentsoftheeconomy.Anybody’sstatisticsonthereductionofthefarmpopulation,onthedecayofruralcommunities,onsoilerosion,soilandwaterpollution,watershortages,andfarmbankruptciestellindisputablyastoryoffailure.

This failurecannotbeunderstoodapart from thecomplexallegiancesbetween the land-grant systemand the aims, ambitions, and values of the agribusiness corporations. The willingness of land-grantprofessors,scientists,andextensionexpertstoserveasstate-paidresearchersandtravelingsalesmenfor

thosecorporationshasbeenwelldocumentedandiswidelyknown.

The reasons for this stateof affairs, again, are complex. Ihavealreadygiven someof them; Idon’tpretendtoknowthemall.ButIwouldliketomentiononethatIthinkisprobablythemosttelling:thattheofficesoftheland-grantcomplex,liketheofficesoftheagriculturalbureaucracy,havebeenlookeduponbytheiraspirantsandtheiroccupantsasameansnottoservefarmers,buttoescapefarming.Overandoveragain,onehearsthespecialistsandexpertsofagricultureintroducedas“oldfarmboys”whohavegoneon(asisinvariablyimplied)tobetterthings.Thereasonforthisisplainenough:Thelifeofafarmerhascharacteristicallybeenafairlyhardone,andthelifeofacollegeprofessororprofessionalexperthascharacteristically been fairly easy. Farmers—working family farmers—do not have tenure, businesshours, freeweekends, paid vacations, sabbaticals, and retirement funds; they do not have professionalstatus.

The direction of the career of agricultural professionals is, typically, not toward farming or towardassociationwithfarmers.Itis“upward”throughthehierarchyofauniversity,abureau,oranagribusinesscorporation.Theydonot,likeCincinnatus,leavetheplowtoservetheirpeopleandreturntotheplow.Theyleavetheplow,simply,forthesakeofleavingtheplow.

Thismeans that there has been for several decades a radical disconnection between the land-grantinstitutions and the farms, and this disconnection has left the land-grant professionals free to give badadvice;indeed,iftheycangetthisadvicepublishedintherightplace,fromthestandpointoftheircareersitdoesnotmatterwhethertheiradviceisgoodornot.

Forexample,afteryearsofmilkglut,whendairyfarmersareeverywherethreatenedbytheirsurplusproduction,universityexpertsarestillworkingtoincreasemilkproductionandstilladvisingfarmerstoculltheirleastproductivecows—apparentlyobliviousbothofthepossibleexistenceofotherstandardsofjudgmentandofthefactthatthiscullingoftheleastproductivecowsis,ultimately,thecullingofthesmallerfarmers.

Perhapsthiscouldbedismissedashumanfrailtyorinevitablebureaucraticblundering—exceptthattheresult is damage, caused by people who probably would not have given such advice if they werethemselves in a position to suffer from it. Serious responsibilities are undertaken by public givers ofadvice,andseriouswrongisdonewhentheadviceisbad.SurelyakindofmonstrosityisinvolvedwhentenuredprofessorswithprotectedincomesrecommendoreventolerateDarwinianeconomicpoliciesforfarmers, or announce (as oneuniversity economist after another has done) that the failure of so-calledinefficientfarmersisgoodforagricultureandgoodforthecountry.Theyseenoinconsistency,apparently,between their ownprotectionist economy and the “freemarket” economy that they recommend to theirsupposedconstituents,towhomthe“freemarket”hasproved,timeandagain,tobefatal.Nordotheyseeanyinconsistency,apparently,betweentheeconomyofauniversity,whosesources,likethoseofanytax-supported institution, are highly diversified, and the extremely specialized economies that they haverecommendedtotheirfarmer-constituents.Theseinconsistenciesneverthelessexist,andtheyexplainwhy,sofar,therehasbeennoepidemicofbankruptciesamongprofessorsofagriculturaleconomics.

These,ofcourse,aresimplyinstancesofthenotoriousdiscrepancybetweentheoryandpractice.Butthisdiscrepancyneednotexist,oritneednotbesoextreme,inthecollegesofagriculture.Theanswertotheproblemissimplythatthosewhoprofessshouldpractice.Oratleastasignificantpercentageofthemshould. This is, in fact, the rule in other colleges and departments of the university. A professor ofmedicinewhowasnodoctorwouldreadilybeseenasanoddity;sowouldalawprofessorwhocould

nottryacase;sowouldaprofessorofarchitecturewhocouldnotdesignabuilding.What,then,wouldbeso strange about an agriculture professorwhowould be, andwhowould be expected to be, a provenfarmer?

BUTITWOULDbewrong,Ithink,toimplythatthefarmersaremerelythevictimsoftheirpredicamentandsharenoneoftheblame.Infact,they,alongwithalltherestofus,dosharetheblame,andtheirfirsthopeofsurvivalisinunderstandingthattheydo.

Farmers,asmuchasanyothergroup,havesubscribed to the industrial fantasies that I listedearlier:that value equals price, that all relations are mechanical, and that competitiveness is a proper andsufficientmotive.Farmers,liketherestofus,haveassumed,underthetutelageofpeoplewiththingstosell,thatselfishnessandextravagancearemerelynormal.Liketherestofus,farmershavebelievedthattheymight safely live a life prescribed by the advertisers of products, rather than the life required byfundamentalhumannecessitiesandresponsibilities.

One could argue that the great breakthrough of industrial agriculture occurred when most farmersbecameconvincedthatitwouldbebettertoownaneighbor’sfarmthantohaveaneighbor,andwhentheybecamewilling,necessarilyatthesametime,toborrowextravagantamountsofmoney.Theythusviolatedthe two fundamental laws of domestic or community economy: You must be thrifty and you must begenerous;or,toputitinamorepracticalway,youmustbe(withinreason)independent,andyoumustbeneighborly.Withthatviolation,farmersbecamevulnerabletoeverythingthathasintendedtheirruin.

Aneconomicprogramthatencouragestheunlimitedgrowthofindividualholdingsnotonlyanticipatesbutactivelyproposesthefailureofmanypeople.Indeed,asourantimonopolylawstestify,itproposesthefailure,ultimately,ofallbutone.Itisafact,Ibelieve,thatmanypeoplehavenowlosttheirfarmsandareoutoffarmingwhowouldstillbeinplacehadtheybeenwillingfortheirneighborstosurvivealongwiththemselves. In light of this, we see that the machines, chemicals, and credit that farmers have beenpersuaded to use as “labor savers” have, in fact, performed as neighbor replacers. And whereasneighborhoodtends toworkasaservicefree to itsmembers, themachines,chemicals,andcredithavecomeatacostsetbypeoplewhowerenotneighbors.

THATISAdescriptionoftheproblemofthefamilyfarm,asIseeit.Itisadangerousproblem,butIdonot think it is hopeless. On the contrary, a number of solutions to the problem are implied in mydescriptionofit.

What,then,canbedone?

Themost obvious, themost desirable, solutionwould be to secure that “equitable balance betweenagricultureandothersegmentsoftheeconomy”thatisoneofthestatedgoalsoftheHatchAct.Toavoidtheintricaciesoftheideaof“parity,”whichweinevitablythinkofhere,Iwilljustsaythatthepriceoffarmproducts,astheyleavethefarm,shouldbeonaparwiththepriceofthoseproductsthatthefarmermustbuy.

Inordertoachievethiswithminimalpublicexpense,wemustcontrolagriculturalproduction;supplymust be adjusted to demand.Obviously this is something that individual farmers, or individual states,cannot do for themselves; it is a job that belongs appropriately to the federal government. As a

governmental function, it is perfectly in keepingwith the ideal, everywhere implicit in the originatingdocumentsofourgovernment,thatthesmallhavearighttocertainprotectionsfromthegreat.Wehave,within limits thatareobviousand reasonable, theright tobe small farmersor smallbusinessmenor -women, just as, or perhaps insofar as,we have a right to life, liberty, and prosperity. The individualcitizenisnottobevictimizedbytherichanymorethanbythepowerful.WhenMartyStrangewrites,“Tothe extent that only the exceptional succeed, the system fails,”8 he is economically and agriculturallysound,butheisalsospeakingdirectlyfromAmericanpoliticaltradition.

Theplightofthefamilyfarmwouldbeimprovedalsobyothergovernmentalchanges—forexample,inpolicieshavingtodowithtaxationandcredit.

Ourpoliticalproblem,of course, is that farmers areneithernumerous enoughnor rich enough tobeoptimistic aboutgovernmenthelp.Thegovernment tends, rather, to find their surplusproductionusefulandtheireconomicfailureideologicallydesirable.Thus,itseemstomethatwemustconcentrateonthosethingsthatfarmersandfarmingcommunitiescandoforthemselves—strivinginthemeantimeforpoliciesthatwouldbedesirable.

Itmaybethatthegravestdangertofarmersistheirinclinationtolooktothegovernmentforhelp,aftertheagribusinesscorporationsandtheuniversities(towhichtheyhavealreadylooked)havefailedthem.In theprocess, theyhave forgottenhow to look to themselves, to their farms, to their families, to theirneighbors,andtotheirtradition.

MartyStrangehaswrittenalsoofhisbelief“thatcommercialagriculturecansurvivewithinpluralisticAmericansociety,asweknowit—if[myemphasis]thefarmisrebuiltonsomeofthevalueswithwhichit ispopularlyassociated:conservation, independence,self-reliance, family,andcommunity.Tosustainitself, commercial agriculturewill have to reorganize its social and economic structure aswell as itstechnologicalbaseandproductionmethodsinawaythatreinforcesthesevalues.”9Iagree.Thosearethevalues that offer us survival, not just as farmers, but as human beings.And Iwould point out that thetransformationthatMartyisproposingcannotbeaccomplishedbythegovernments,thecorporations,ortheuniversities;ifitistobedone,thefarmersthemselves,theirfamilies,andtheirneighborswillhavetodoit.

WhatIamproposing,inshort,isthatfarmersfindtheirwayoutofthegypjointknownastheindustrialeconomy.

Thefirstitemontheagenda,Isuggest,istheremakingoftheruralneighborhoodsandcommunities.Thedecayorlossofthesehasdemonstratedtheirvalue;wefind,aswetrytogetalongwithoutthem,thattheyareworthsomethingtous—spiritually,socially,andeconomically.Andwehearagainthevoicesoutofour cultural tradition telling us that to have community, people don’t need a “community center” or“recreational facilities” or any of the rest of the paraphernalia of “community improvement” that isalwaysforsale.Instead,theyneedtoloveeachother,trusteachother,andhelpeachother.Thatishard.Allofusknowthatnocommunity isgoing todo those thingseasilyorperfectly,andyetweknowthatthereismorehopeinthatdifficultyandimperfectionthaninalltheneatinstructionsforgettingbigandgettingrichthathavecomeoutoftheuniversitiesandtheagribusinesscorporationsinthepastfiftyyears.

Second,thefarmersmustlooktotheirfarmsandconsiderthelosses,humanandeconomic,thatmaybeimplicitinthewaythosefarmsarestructuredandused.Iftheydothat,manyofthemwillunderstandhowtheyhavebeencheatedbytheindustrialorthodoxyofcompetition—howspecializationhasthrowntheminto competitionwith other farmer-specialists, howbigness of scale has thrown them into competition

withneighborsandfriendsandfamily,howtheconsumereconomyhasthrownthemintocompetitionwiththemselves.

Ifitisafactthatforanygivenfarmthereisaratiobetweenpeopleandacresthatiscorrect,therearealsocorrectratiosbetweendependenceandindependenceandbetweenconsumptionandproduction.Forafarmfamily,acertaindegreeofindependenceispossibleandisdesirable,butnofarmerandnofamilycanbeentirelyindependent.Acertaindegreeofdependenceisinescapable;whetherornotitisdesirableisaquestionofwhoishelpedbyit.Ifafamilyremovesitsdependencefromitsneighbors—if,indeed,farmersremovetheirdependencefromtheirfamilies—andgiveittotheagribusinesscorporations(andtomoneylenders),thechancesare,aswehaveseen,thatthefarmersandtheirfamilieswillnotbegreatlyhelped.This suggests thatdependenceon familyandneighborsmayconstituteaverydesirablekindofindependence.

Itisclear,inthesameway,thatafarmanditsfamilycannotbeonlyproductive; theremustbesomedegreeofconsumption.This,also,isinescapable;whetherornotitisdesirabledependsontheratio.Ifthe farmconsumes toomuch in relation towhat itproduces, then the farmfamily isat themercyof itssuppliersandisexposedtodangerstowhichitneednotbeexposed.When,forinstance,farmersfarmonsolargeascalethattheycannotselltheirlaborwithoutenormousconsumptionofequipmentandsupplies,thentheyarevulnerable.ItalkedtoanOhiofarmerrecentlywhocultivatedhiscorncropwithateamofhorses.Heexplainedthat,whenhewasplowinghiscorn,hewassellinghislaborandthatofhisteam(laborfueledbythefarmitselfand,therefore,verycheap)ratherthanbuyingherbicides.Hispointwassimplythatthereisacriticaldifferencebetweenbuyingandsellingandthatthenameofthisdifferenceattheyear’sendoughttobenetgain.

Similarly,whenfarmersletthemselvesbepersuadedtobuytheirfoodinsteadofgrowit,theybecomeconsumersinsteadofproducersandloseaconsiderableincomefromtheirfarms.Thisissimplytosaythatthereisadomesticeconomythatispropertothefarminglifeandthatitisdifferentfromthedomesticeconomyoftheindustrialsuburbs.

FINALLY,IWANTtosaythatIhavenotbeentalkingfromspeculationbutfromproof.Ihavehadinmindthroughout thisessay theoneexampleknowntomeofanAmericancommunityofsmall familyfarmerswho have not only survived but thrived during some very difficult years: Imean theAmish. I do notrecommend,ofcourse,thatallfarmersshouldbecomeAmish,nordoIwanttosuggestthattheAmishareperfectpeopleorthattheirwayoflifeisperfect.WhatIwanttorecommendaresomeAmishprinciples:

1.Theyhavepreservedtheirfamiliesandcommunities.2.Theyhavemaintainedthepracticesofneighborhood.3.Theyhavemaintainedthedomesticartsofkitchenandgarden,householdandhomestead.4.Theyhavelimitedtheiruseoftechnologysoasnottodisplaceoralienateavailablehumanlabororavailablefreesourcesofpower(thesun,wind,water,andsoon).

5.Theyhavelimitedtheirfarmstoascalethatiscompatiblebothwiththepracticeofneighborhoodandwiththeoptimumuseoflow-powertechnology.

6.Bythepracticesandlimitsalreadymentioned,theyhavelimitedtheircosts.7.Theyhaveeducatedtheirchildrentoliveathomeandservetheircommunities.8.Theyesteemfarmingasbothapracticalartandaspiritualdiscipline.

These principles define a world to be lived in by human beings, not a world to be exploited by

managers,stockholders,andexperts.

NOTES

1Inconversation.

2RobertHeilbroner,“TheArtofWork,”OccasionalPaperoftheCouncilofScholars(Washington,D.C.:LibraryofCongress,1984),p.20.

3EricGill,AHolyTraditionofWorking(Suffolk,England:GolgonoozaPress,1983),p.61.

4Ibid.,p.65.

5WilliamSafire,“MakeThatSixDeadlySins—ARe-examinationShowsGreedtoBeaVirtue,”Courier-Journal(Louisville,Ky.),7Jan.1986.

6Inconversation.

7HatchAct,UnitedStatesCode,Section361b.

8MartyStrange,“TheEconomicStructureofaSustainableAgriculture,”inMeetingtheExpectationsoftheLand,ed.WesJackson,WendellBerry,andBruceColman(SanFrancisco:NorthPointPress,1984),p.118.

9Ibid.,p.116.

LettheFarmJudge

(1997)

TOME,ONEofthemostinformativebooksonagricultureisBritishSheep,publishedby theNationalSheepAssociationofBritain.Thisbookcontainsphotographsanddescriptionsofsixty-fiveBritishsheepbreedsand“recognizedhalf-breds.”Ihavespentagooddealoftimelookingatthepicturesinthisbookand reading its breed descriptions, for think that it represents one of the great accomplishments ofagriculture.ItmakesamostimpressivecasefortheintelligenceandthejudgmentofBritishfarmersovermanycenturies.

WhatdoesitmeanthatanislandnotmuchbiggerthanKansasornotmuchmorethantwicethesizeofKentuckyshouldhavedevelopedsixtyor sobreedsof sheep? Itmeans thatmany thousandsof farmerswerepayingthemostdiscriminatingattention,notonlytotheirsheep,butalsotothenatureoftheirlocallandscapesandeconomies,foralongtime.Theywererespondingintelligentlytotherequirementoflocaladaptation.Theresult,whensuchaneffortiscarriedonbyenoughintelligentfarmersinthesameregionforalongtime,isthedevelopmentofadistinctbreedthatfitsregionalneeds.Suchlocaladaptationisthemostimportantrequirementforagriculture,whereveritoccurs.Ifyouaregoingtoadaptyourfarmingtoavarietyoflandscapes,youaregoingtoneedavarietyoflivestockbreeds,andavarietyoftypeswithinbreeds.

Thegreatdiversityoflivestockbreeds,alongwiththegreatdiversityofdomesticplantvarieties,canbethoughtofasasortofvocabularywithwhichwemaymakeappropriateresponsestothedemandsofagreatdiversityoflocalities.Thegoalofintelligentfarmers,whodesirethelong-termsuccessoffarming,istoadapttheirworktotheirplaces.Localadaptationalwaysrequiresreasonablycorrectanswerstotwoquestions:What is the nature—the need and the opportunity—of the local economy? and,What is thenatureoftheplace?Forexample,itisamistaketoanswertheeconomicquestionbyplowingtoosteepahillside,justasitisamistaketoanswerthegeographicorecologicalquestioninawaythatdeniesthefarmeraliving.

Intelligent livestock breedersmay find that, in practice, the two questions become one: How can Iproducethebestmeatatthelowesteconomicandecologicalcost?Thisquestioncannotbesatisfactorilyansweredbythemarket,bythemeatpackingindustry,bybreedsocieties,orbyshowringjudges.Itcannotbeansweredsatisfactorilyby“animalscience”experts,orbygeneticengineers.Itcanonlybeansweredsatisfactorilybythefarmer,andonlyifthefarm,theplaceitself,isallowedtoplayapartintheprocessofselection.

Itgoeswithoutsayingthattheanimalfinallyproducedbyanyfarmwillbeaproducttosomeextentofthejudgmentofthefarmer,themeatpacker,thebreedsociety,andtheshowringjudge.Butthefarmtoomustbepermittedtomakeandenforceitsjudgment.Ifitisnotpermittedtodoso,thentherecanbeno

local adaptation.Andwhere there is no local adaptation, the farmer and the farmmust pay significantpenalties.

In our era, because of commercial demand and the allure of the show ring, livestock breeding hastended to concentrate on the production of outstanding individual animals as determined by the idealbreedcharacteristicsortheidealcarcass.Inotherwords,agoodbroodcoworeweisonethatproducesoffspringthatfittheprevailingshoworcommercialstandards.Wedon’tworryenoughaboutthecostofproduction,whichwouldleadusdirectlytotheissueoflocaladaptation.Thissortofnegligence,Ithink,couldhavebeenpossibleonly inour time,when “cheap” fossil fuel has set thepattern in agriculture.Sufficeittosaythatmuchthoughtlessnessinlivestockbreedinghasbeensubsidizedbylargecheckspaidtoveterinariansanddrugcompanies,andcoveredoverbyfatmadeofallegedlycheapcorn.

Allegedly cheap fossil fuel, allegedly cheap transportation, andallegedly cheapcornandother feedgrains have pushed agriculture toward uniformity, obscuring regional differences and, with them, theusefulnessoflocallyadaptedbreeds,especiallythosethatdowellonforages.Thisiswhytherearenowonly a few dominant breeds, andwhy those breeds are large and grain-dependent.Now, for example,nearlyalldairycowsareHolsteins,andthemodernsheepismorethanlikelytohaveablackfaceandtobe“bigandtall.”

MyfriendMauryTelleenhaspointedout tomethatfiftyyearsagotheAyrshirewasapopulardairycowinNewEnglandandKansas.Thereasonwasherabilitytomakemilkonthefeedthatwaslocallyavailable;shedidnotrequiretheoptimalconditionsandfeedstuffsofIowaorIllinois.Shewas,Maurysays,“acowthatcould‘getalong.’”Itisdangeroustoassumethatwehavegotbeyondtheneedforfarmanimalsthatcan“getalong.”

Ifwe assume that the inescapable goal of the farmer, especially in the present economy,must be toreducecosts,and,further,thatcostsarereducedbylocaladaptation,thenwecanbegintothinkabouttheproblemsoflivestockbreedingbynotingthatcorn,whateveritsmarketprice,isnotcheap.Whatischeapisgrass—grazedgrass—andwherethegrassgrowsdeterminesthekindofanimalneededtograzeit.

Ourfarm, in the lowerKentuckyRivervalley, ismostlyonhillsides.Heavyanimals tend todamagehillsides,especiallyinwinter.Ourexperiencewithbroodcowsshowedusthatourfarmneedssheep.Itneeds,inaddition,sheepthatcanmaketheirlivingbygrazingcoarsepastureonhillsides.Andsointhefallof1978weboughtsixBorderCheviotewesandabuck.Atpresentwehaveaboutthirtyewes,andeventuallywewillhavemore.

Ourchoiceofbreedwasagoodone.TheBorderCheviotisahillsheep,developedtomakegooduseofsuchroughpastureaswehave.Moreover,itcanmakegooduseofalittlecorn,andourfarmiscapableof producing a little corn. There have been problems, of course. Some of them have had to do withadaptingourselvestoourbreed.Thesehavebeenimportant,butjustasimportanthavebeentheproblemsofadaptingourflocktoourfarm.AndthosearetheproblemsIwanttodiscuss.

TherearenowprobablymoreCheviotsintheMidwestthanelsewhereintheUnitedStates.Forus,atanyrate,theinevitablesourceofbreedingstockhasbeentheMidwest,andmanyofourproblemshavebeentraceabletothatfact.WhatIamgoingtosayimpliesnofaultinthemidwesternbreeders,towhomweandourbreedhaveanenormousdebt.Itisneverthelesstruethat,foraflockofsheep,livingiseasierin theprairie lands thanonaKentuckyhillside. Justwalkingaroundonahillside farm involvesmorestrainandrequiresmoreenergy,andthelessfertilethelandthefartheraewewillhavetowalktofillherbelly. Knees that might have remained sound on the gentle topography of Ohio or Iowamay become

arthriticatourplace.Alsoaewethatwouldhavetwinlambsonaprairiefarmmayhaveonlyoneonahill farm.Similarly, a lambwillgrow to slaughterweightmore slowlywherehehas toallocatemoreenergy to getting around. We once sold five yearling ewes to our friend Bob Willerton in Danvers,Illinois,whereontheirfirstlambingtheyproducedelevenlambs.Onourfarm,theymighthaveproducedsevenoreight.Wehavenoticedthesamedifferencewithcullewesthatwehavesenttoourson’sfarm,whichislesssteepandmorefertilethanours.

Ourfarm,then,isaskingforaewethatcanstayhealthy,livelong,breedsuccessfully,havetwolambswithout assistance, and feed them well, in comparatively demanding circumstances. Experience hasshownusthattheBorderCheviotbreediscapableofproducingaeweofthiskind,butthatitdoesnotdosoinevitably.Ineighteenyears,andoutofagoodmanyewesboughtorraised,wehaveidentifiedsofaronlytwoewefamilies(thefemaledescendantsof twoewes) thatfairlydependablyperformasweandourplacerequire.

Theresultsofidentifyingandkeepingthedaughtersoftheseewefamilieshavebeenverysatisfactory.This year they made up more than half of our bred ewes. Presumably because of that, our lambingpercentage,whichpreviouslyhoveredaround150percent,increasedto172percent.Thisyearalsowereducedourwinterhay-feedingbyonemonth,notbeginninguntilthefirstofFebruary.Nextyear,wehopetofeednohayuntilwebringtheewestothebarnforlambing,whichwillbeaboutthefirstofMarch.1Inlivestockbreedingitisalwaystooearlytobrag,butofcourseweareencouraged.

In the language of Phillip Sponenberg and Carolyn Christman’s excellent Conservation BreedingHandbook,wehaveemployed“extensive”or“land-race”husbandryinmanagingastandardizedbreed.Fromthefirst,ourflockhasbeen“challengedbytheenvironment”—requiredtoliveonwhattheplacecanmostcheaplyandsustainablyprovide,mainlypasture,withaminimumofattentionandvirtuallynoprofessionalveterinarycare.Wegiveseleniuminjectionstoewesandlambsanduseaprudentamountofmedicationforparasites.Wegivenoinoculationsexceptfortetanustothenewbornlambs,andwehavenevertrimmedahoof.

Until recently,andevennowwithewes,ourpracticehasbeen tobuybargains,animals that foronereasonoranotherfellbelowthestandardsoftheshowring.ButIdon’tbelievethatourflockwouldhavedevelopedtoourstandardsandrequirementsanyfaster ifwehadbought thechampionsoutof thebestshowseveryyear.Someofthequalitieswewereaftersimplyarenotvisibletoshowringjudges.

Iamnottryingtoarguethatthereisnogoodinlivestockshows.Theshowringisausefultool;itisobviouslyinstructivewhengoodbreedersbringgoodanimalstogetherforcomparison.Iamsayingonlythat the show ring alone cannot establish andmaintain adequate standards for livestock breeders.Youcouldnotdeveloplocallyadaptedstrainsifyouronlystandardscamefromtheshowringorfrombreedsocieties.

The point is that, especially now when grain-feeding and confinement-feeding are so common, noAmericanbreedershouldexpectanybreedtobelocallyadapted.Breedersshouldrecognizethatfromthestandpointoflocaladaptationandcheapproduction,everypurchaseofabreedinganimalisagamble.Anewlypurchasedeweorbuckmay improve theperformanceofyour flockonyour farmor itmaynot.Goodbreederswillknow,ortheywillsoonfindout,thattheirsisnottheonlyjudgmentthatisinvolved.While the breeder is judging, the breeder’s farm also is judging, enforcing its demands, and makingselections.Andthisisasitshouldbe.Thejudgmentofthefarmservesthebreed,helpingtopreserveitsgeneticdiversity.

Becauseof thenecessityof purchasing sires from time to time, the continuityof the locally adaptedflock must reside in the female lineages. Studying and preserving the most long-lived, thrifty, andproductiveewefamiliesareparamount.But thisneednotbe laborious, foryourfarmwillbeselectingalongwithyou.Youpicktheindividualsthat lookgood.Thisalwaysimpliesthat theyhavedonewell;and sooner or later you will know the look of “your kind,” the kind that is apt to do well on yourplace.Yourfarm,however,willpicktheonesthat last.Evenifyoudonotselectatall,or ifyouselectwrongly,aewethatisnotfittedtoyourfarmwillnotcontributeasmanybreedinganimalstoyourflockaswillaewethatisfittedtoyourfarm.

Itisgenerallyacknowledgedthatashepherdshouldknowwhatheorsheisdoing.Itisnotsogenerallyunderstood that the flock should know what it is doing—that is, how to live, thrive, and reproducesuccessfully on its home farm.But this knowledge, bred into the flock, is critical; itmeansmeat fromgrass,atthelowestcost.

NOTE

1Wedidsothenextyear,andhavecontinuedtodoso,exceptintimesofdeeporcrustedsnow.WewinterourewesonahillsidethatisungrazedfromearlyAugustuntilaboutChristmas.

EnergyinAgriculture

(1979)

IHAVEJUSTBEENrereadingDonaldHall’slovelymemoir,StringTooShorttoBeSaved.It isaboutthesummersofhisboyhoodthattheauthorspentonhisgrandparents’NewHampshirefarm,fromthelate1930suntiltheearly1950s.Therearemanygoodthingsinthisbook,butoneofthebestisitsdescriptionofthelifeandeconomyofanold-timeNewEnglandsmallfarm.

ThefarmofKateandWesleyWells,astheirgrandsonknewit,wasalreadyarelic.Itwaswhatwouldnowbecalleda“marginalfarm”inmountainouscountry,inanagriculturalcommunitythathadbeendyingsince theCivilWar.The farmproduced food for thehousehold andmadea cash income froma smallhand-milkedherdofHolsteinsandaflockofsheep.Itfurnishedtreesforfirewoodandmaplesyrup.TheWellsessenttheirdaughterstoschoolbythesaleoftimberfromawoodlot.Thefarmanditshouseholdwere“poor”byourpresentstandards,takinginverylittlemoney—butspendingverylittletoo,andthatisthemost important thing about it. Its principle was thrift. Its needs were kept within the limits of itsresources.

Thisfarmwasorderedaccordingtoanoldagrarianpatternwhichmadeitfarmoreindependentthanmodernfarmsbuiltuponthepatternofindustrialcapitalism.Anditsenergyeconomywasasindependentasitsmoneyeconomy.Theworkingenergyofthisfarmcamemainlyfromitspeopleandfromonehorse.

Mr.Hall’smemories informus,morepowerfully thananyargument, that the lifeofWesleyandKateWellswasalifeworthliving,decentthoughnoteasy;notadventurousoraffluent,either—ornotinoursense—butsociable,neighborly,andhumane.Theywereintelligent,morallycompetent,upright,kindtopeopleandanimals,fullofgenerousmemoriesandgoodhumor.Fromallthattheirgrandsonsaysofthem,it isclear thathisacquaintancewith themand theirplacewasprofoundlyenabling tohismindandhisfeelings.

Onecannotreadthisbook—orI,anyhow,cannot—withoutaskinghowthatsortoflifeescapedus,howitdepreciatedasapossibilitysothatwewereabletogiveitupinorder,aswethought, to“improve”ourselves.Mr. Hall makes it plain that farms like his grandparents’ did not die out in New Englandnecessarilybecauseofbadfarming,orbecausetheydidnotprovideaviablewayoflife.Theydiedforwantofpeoplewiththemotivation,theskill,thecharacter,andtheculturetokeepthemalive.Theydied,in otherwords, by a change in cultural value. Though it survived fairly intact until themiddle of thiscentury,Mr.Hall remembers thathisgrandparents’ farmwas surroundedbypeople and farms thathaddwindledawaybecausethehumansuccessionhadbeenbroken.Itwasnolongeraplacetocometo,butaplacetoleave.

AtthetimeMr.Hallwritesabout,somethingwasgainingspeedinourcountrythatI thinkwillseemmoreandmorestrangeastimegoeson.Thiswasacurioussetofassumptions,bothpersonalandpublic,

about“progress.” Ifyoucouldget intoaprofession, itwasassumed, thenofcourseyoumustnotbeafarmer; if you could move to the city, then you must not stay in the country; if you could farmmoreprofitably in the corn belt than on themountainsides ofNewEngland, then themountainsides ofNewEngland must not be farmed. For years this set of assumptions was rarely spoken and more rarelyquestioned,andyetithasbeenoneofthemostpowerfulsocialforcesatworkinthiscountryinmoderntimes.

Buttheseassumptionscouldnotaccomplishmuchontheirown.Whatgavethempower,andmadethemablefinallytodominateandreshapeoursociety,wasthegrowthoftechnologyfortheproductionanduseoffossilfuelenergy.Thisenergycouldbemadeavailabletoempowersuchunprecedentedsocialchangebecauseitwas“cheap.”Butwewereabletoconsiderit“cheap”onlybyakindofmoralsimplicity:theassumption thatwehada“right” toasmuchof it aswecoulduse.Thiswasa“right”madesolelybymight.Becausefossilfuels,howeverabundanttheyoncewere,wereneverthelesslimitedinquantityandnot renewable, they obviously did not “belong” to one generation more than another.We ignored theclaimsofposteritysimplybecausewecould,thelivingbeingstrongerthantheunborn,andsoworkedthe“miracle”ofindustrialprogressbythetheftofenergyfrom(amongothers)ourchildren.

Thatistherealfoundationofourprogressandouraffluence.Thereasonthatwearearichnationisnotthatwehaveearnedsomuchwealth—youcannot,byanyhonestmeans,earnordeservesomuch.Thereason is simply thatwehave learned, andbecomewilling, tomarket anduseup inourown time thebirthrightandlivelihoodofposterity.

Andsoitistoosimpletosaythatthe“marginal”farmsofNewEnglandwereabandonedbecauseofprogressorbecausetheywerenolongerproductiveordesirableaslivingplaces.Theyweregivenupforone very “practical” reason: They did not lend themselves readily to exploitation by fossil fueltechnology.TheirdeclinebeganwiththeriseofsteampowerandtheindustrialeconomyaftertheCivilWar;thecomingofindustrialagricultureafterWorldWarIIfinishedthemoff.Industrialagricultureneedslargeholdingsand large level fields.As the scaleof technologygrows, the small farmswith small orsteepfieldsarepushedfartherandfarthertowardtheeconomicmarginsandarefinallyabandoned.Andsoindustrialagriculturesticksitselfdeeperanddeeperintoacuriousparadox:Thelargeritstechnologygrows in order “to feed theworld,” themore potentially productive “marginal” land it either ruins orcausestobeabandoned.IfthesweepinglandscapesofNebraskanowhavetobereshapedbycomputerandbulldozertoallowthemoreefficientoperationofbigfarmmachines,thenthousandsofacresofthesmaller-featuredhillcountryoftheeasternstatesmustobviouslybeconsidered“unfarmable.”Orsotheindustrialistsofagriculturehaveruled.

Andsoenergyisnotjustfuel.Itisapowerfulsocialandculturalinfluence.Thekindandquantityoftheenergyweusedetermine thekindandqualityof the lifewe live.Our conversion to fossil fuel energysubjectedsocietytoasortoftechnologicaldeterminism,shiftingpopulationandvaluesaccordingtothenewpatterns andvalues of industrialization.Ruralwealth andmaterials and rural peoplewere caughtwithin the gravitational field of the industrial economy and flowed to the cities, from whichcomparatively little flowedback in return.And so thehuman lifeof farmsteadsand rural communitiesdwindledeverywhere,andinsomeplacesperished.

IFTHESHIFT to fossil fuel energy radically changed the life and the values of farm communities, itshouldbenosurprisethatitalsoradicallychangedourunderstandingofagriculture.Somefiguresfroman

articlebyProfessorMarkD.Shawhelptoshowthenatureofthischange.The“foodsystem,”accordingtoProfessorShaw,nowuses16.5percentofallenergyused in theUnitedStates.This16.5percent isusedinthefollowingways:

On-farmproduction 3.0%Manufacturing 4.9%Wholesalemarketing 0.5%Retailmarketing 0.8%Foodpreparation(inhome) 4.4%Foodpreparation(commercial) 2.9%

Apologistsforindustrialagriculturefrequentlystopwiththatfirstfigure—showingthatagricultureusesonlyasmallamountofenergy,relativelyspeaking,andthatpeoplehuntingacauseofthe“energycrisis”should thereforepoint their fingerselsewhere.Theother figures, amounting to13.5percentofnationalenergyconsumption,aremoreinteresting,fortheysuggestthewaythefoodsystemhasbeenexpandedtomakeroomforindustrialenterprise.Betweenfarmandhome,producerandconsumer,wehaveinterposedmanufacturers,acomplexmarketingstructure,andfoodpreparation.Iamnotsurehowthislastcategorydiffers from“manufacturing.”AndIwould like toknowwhatpercentageof theenergybudgetgoesfortransportation,andwhetherornotProfessorShawfiguredinthemilesthatpeoplenowdrivetoshop.Thegist is nevertheless plain enough: The industrial economy grows and thrives by lengthening andcomplicatingtheessentialconnectionbetweenproducerandconsumer.Inalocalfoodeconomy,dealingin fresh produce to be prepared in the home (thus eliminating transporters, manufacturers, packagers,preparers,etc.), theenergybudgetwouldbesubstantially lower,andwemighthavebothcheaper foodandhigherearningsonthefarm.

ButProfessorShawprovidesanothersetoffiguresthatisevenmoretelling.Thesehavetodowiththe“sourcesofenergyforPennsylvaniaagriculture”(Idon’tthinkthesignificancewouldvarymuchfromonestatetoanother):

Nuclear 1%Coal 5%Naturalgas 27%Petroleum 67%

Andsoweseethat,thoughouragriculturemayuserelativelylittlefossilfuelenergy,itisalmosttotallydependentonwhatitdoesuse.Itusesfossilfuelenergyalmostexclusivelyandusesitincompetitionwithotherusers.Andthesourcesofthisenergyarenotrenewable.

Thiscriticaldependenceonnonrenewableenergysourcesisthedirectresultoftheindustrializationofagriculture. Before industrialization, agriculture depended almost exclusively on solar energy. Solarenergynotonlygrewtheplants,asitstilldoes,butalsoprovidedtheproductivepoweroffarmsintheformoftheworkofhumansandanimals.Thisenergyisderivedandmadeavailablebiologically,anditisrecyclable.Itisinexhaustibleinthetopsoilsolongasgoodhusbandrykeepsthelifecycleintact.

This old sun-based agriculture was fundamentally alien to the industrial economy; industrialcorporationscouldmakerelativelylittleprofitfromit.Inordertomakeagriculturefullyexploitablebyindustryitwasnecessary(inBarryCommoner’sterms)toweaken“thefarm’slinktothesun”andtomakethe farmlanda“colony”of the industrialcorporations.Thefarmershad tobepersuaded togiveup thefreeenergyofthesuninordertopaydearlyforthemachine-derivedenergyofthefossilfuels.

Thus we have another example of a system artificially expanded for profit. The farm’s originallyorganic, coherent, independentproduction systemwasexpanded intoa complexdependenceon remotesourcesandonmanufacturedsupplies.

What happened, from a cultural point of view,was thatmachineswere substituted for farmers, andenergy took the place of skill. As farmers becamemore andmore dependent on fossil fuel energy, aradicalchangeoccurredintheirminds.Oncefocusedonbiology,thelifeandhealthoflivingthings,theirthinkingnowbegan to focuson technologyandeconomics.Credit, forexample,becameaspressinganissue as theweather, for farmers had begun to climb the one-way ladder of survival by debt. Biggermachinesrequiredmoreland,andmorelandrequiredyetbiggermachines,whichrequiredyetmoreland,andonandon—thesurvivorsclimbingtoprecariousandoftentemporarysuccessbywayofmachinesandmortgagesandtheruinoftheirneighbors.Andsothefarmbecamea“factory,”wherespeed,“efficiency,”andprofitabilitywerethemainstandardsofperformance.Thesestandards,ofcourse,areindustrial,notagricultural.

Theoldsolaragriculture,moreover,was timeoriented.Timelinesswasitsvirtue.Onetookpride inhavingtheknowledgetodothingsattherighttime.Industrialagricultureisspaceoriented.Itsvirtueisspeed.Onetakesprideinbeingfirst.Therighttime,bycontrast,couldbelateaswellasearly;theproofoftheworkwasinitsquality.

THEMOSTIMPORTANTpointIhavetomakeisthatonceagricultureshifteditsdependencefromsolar,biologically derived energy to machine-derived fossil fuel energy, it committed itself, as a matter ofcourse,toseveralkindsofwaste:

1.Thewasteofsolarenergy,notjustasmotivepower,butevenasgrowingpower.Aslandholdingsbecome largerand thenumberof farmers smaller,moreandmore fieldsmustgowithoutcovercrops,whichmeansthatformanydaysinthefallandearlyspringthesunlightonthesefieldsisnotcapturedingreenleavesandsomadeusefultothesoilandtopeople.Itgoestowaste.

2.Thewasteofhumanenergyandability.Industrialagriculturereplacespeoplewithmachines;theabilityofmillionsofpeople tobecomeskillfuland todowork thereforecomes tonothing.Wenowhavemillionsonsomekindofgovernmentsupport,grownuselessandhelpless,whileourcountrybecomesunhealthyanduglyforwantofhumanworkandcare.Andwehaveadditionalmillionsnotonwelfarewhohavegrownalmostequallyuselessandhelplessforwantofhealth.Howmuchpotentiallyusefulenergydowenowhavestored inhumanbelly fat?Andwhat is itcostingus,notonlyinmedicalbills,butinmoneyspentondiets,drugs,andexercisemachines?

3.Thewasteofanimalenergy.Imeannot just theabandonmentof livehorsepower,but thewasteinvolvedinconfinement-feeding.Whyusefossilfuelenergytobringfoodtograzinganimalsthatareadmirablydesignedtogogetitthemselves?

4. Thewaste of soil and soil health.Because the number of farmers has now grown so small inproportiontothenumberofacresthatmustbefarmed,ithasbeennecessarytoresorttoallsortsofmechanicalshortcuts.Butshortcutsneverhaveresultedingoodwork,andthereisnoreasontobelievethattheyeverwill.Whenafarmermustcoveranenormousacreagewithinthestrictlimitsoftheseasonsofplantingandharvest,speednecessarilybecomesthefirstconsideration.Andsothe machinery, not the land, becomes the focus of attention and the standard of the work.Consequently, thefieldsget largersoas torequire less turning,waterwaysareplowedout,andoneseeslessandlessterracingandcontourorstripplowing.And,asImentionedabove,lessand

lesslandissowedinacovercrop;whensuchlargeacreagesmustbeharvested,thereisnotimeforafallseeding.Theresultiscatastrophicsoilerosioneveninsuch“flat”statesasIowa.

Aproblemrelatedtosoilwasteisthatofsoilcompaction.Partofthereasonforthisisthatindustrialagriculture reduces the humus in the soil, which becomesmore cohesive and less porous as a result.Anotherreasonistheuseofheavierequipment,whichbecomesnecessary,inthefirstplace,becauseofsoilcompaction.Butthemainreason,Ithink,isagainthatwedon’thaveenoughfarmerstofarmthelandproperly.Theindustrialfarmerhassomuchlandthathecannotaffordtowaitfor“therighttime”toworkhisfields.Aslongasthegroundwillsupporthisequipment,heplowsandharrows;thetimeisrightfortheworkwhenevertheworkismechanicallypossible.Itiscommonplacenow,whereverIhavetraveledinfarmcountry,toseefieldscuttopiecesbydeepwheeltracks.

Thefinal ironyis thatweareabusingourlandinthiswaypartlyinordertocorrectour“balanceofpayments”—thatis,inordertobuyforeignpetroleum.Inthelanguageofsome“agribusiness”expertsweareusing“agridollars” tooffset thedrainof “petrodollars.”Weare, in effect, exportingour topsoil inordertokeepourtractorsrunning.

Thereisnoquestionthatyoucancoveralotofgroundwiththebigmachinesnowonthemarket.Alotofpeople seementrancedby thepowerand speedof thosemachines,which themanufacturers love torefer to as “monsters” and “acre eaters.”But the result is not farming; it is a process closely akin tomining. In what is left of the country communities, in earshot of the monster acre eaters of the“agribusinessmen,”alotofoldfarmersmustbeturningoverintheirgraves.

ConservationistandAgrarian

(2002)

IAMACONSERVATIONISTandafarmer,awildernessadvocateandanagrarian.Iaminfavoroftheworld’swildness,notonlybecauseIlikeit,butalsobecauseIthinkitisnecessarytotheworld’slifeandto our own. For the same reason, I want to preserve the natural health and integrity of the world’seconomiclandscapes,whichistosaythatIwanttheworld’sfarmers,ranchers,andforesterstoliveinstable,locallyadapted,resource-preservingcommunities,andIwantthemtothrive.

One thing that thismeans is that I have spentmy life on two losing sides. As long as I have beenconscious, the great causes of agrarianism and conservation, despite local victories, have suffered anaccumulation of losses, some of them probably irreparable—while the third side, that of the land-exploitingcorporations,hasappearedtogroweverricher.Isay“appeared”becauseIthinktheirwealthis illusory. Their capitalism is based, finally, not on the resources of nature, which it is recklesslydestroying, but on fantasy.Not long ago I heard an economist say, “If the consumer ever stops livingbeyondhismeans,we’llhavearecession.”Andsothetwosidesofnatureandtheruralcommunitiesarebeingdefeatedbyathirdsidethatwilleventuallybefoundtohavedefeateditself.

Perhapsinordertosurviveitsinherentabsurdity,thethirdsideisassertingitspowerasneverbefore:byitscontrolofpolitics,ofpubliceducation,andofthenewsmedia;byitsdominanceofscience;andbybiotechnology,whichit iscommercializingwithunprecedentedhasteandaggressioninordertocontroltotally the world’s land-using economies and its food supply. This massive ascendancy of corporatepoweroverdemocraticprocessisprobablythemostominousdevelopmentsincetheendofWorldWarII,andforthemostpart“thefreeworld”seemstoberegardingitasmerelynormal.

Mysorrowinhavingbeenforsolongontwolosingsideshasbeencompoundedbyknowingthatthosetwosideshavebeeninconflict,notonlywiththeircommonenemy,thethirdside,butalso,andbynowalmostconventionally,witheachother.AndIamfurtheraggrievedinunderstandingthateverybodyonmytwosidesisdeeplyimplicatedinthesinsandinthefateoftheself-destructivethirdside.

Asapartofmyowneffort to thinkbetter, Idecidednot longagothatIwouldnotendorseanymorewildernesspreservationprojectsthatdonotseekalsotoimprovethehealthofthesurroundingeconomiclandscapes and human communities. One of my reasons is that I don’t think we can preserve eitherwildnessorwildernessareasifwecan’tpreservetheeconomiclandscapesandthepeoplewhousethem.Thishasputmeintodiscomfortwithsomeofmyconservationfriends,butthatdiscomfortonlybalancesthe discomfort I feel when farmers or ranchers identify me as an “environmentalist,” both because IdislikethetermandbecauseIsympathizewithfarmersandranchers.

Whatever its difficulties, my decision to cooperate no longer in the separation of the wild and thedomestic has helped me to see more clearly the compatibility and even the coherence of my two

allegiances. The dualism of domestic and wild is, after all, mostly false, and it is misleading. It hasobscured for us the domesticity of the wild creatures. More important, it has obscured the absolutedependenceofhumandomesticityuponthewildnessthatsupportsitandinfactpermeatesit.Insufferingthenow-commonaccusationthathumansare“anthropocentric”(uglyword),weforgetthatthewildsheepandthewildwolvesarerespectivelyovicentricandlupocentric.Theworld,wemaysay,iswild,andallthecreaturesarehomemakerswithin it,practicingdomesticity:mating, raisingyoung,seekingfoodandcomfort. Likewise, though the wild sheep and the farm-bred sheep are in some ways unlike in theirdomesticities,weforgettooeasilythatifthe“domestic”sheepbecometoounwild,assomeoccasionallydo,theybecomeuneconomicanduseless:Theyhavereproductiveproblems,conformationproblems,andsoon.Domesticityandwildnessareinfactintimatelyconnected.Whatisutterlyalientobothiscorporateindustrialism—adisplaced economic life that iswithout affection for the placeswhere it is lived andwithoutrespectforthematerialsituses.

The question we must deal with is not whether the domestic and the wild are separate or can beseparated;itishow,inthehumaneconomy,theirindissolubleandnecessaryconnectioncanbeproperlymaintained.

But to say thatwildness and domesticity are not separate, and thatwe humans are to a large extentresponsibleforthepropermaintenanceoftheirrelationship,istocomeunderaheavyresponsibilitytobepractical.Ihavetwothoroughlypracticalquestionsonmymind.

THEFIRSTIS:Whyshouldconservationistshaveapositiveinterestin,forexample,farming?Therearelots of reasons, but the plainest is: Conservationists eat. To be interested in food but not in foodproduction is clearly absurd. Urban conservationists may feel entitled to be unconcerned about foodproductionbecause theyarenot farmers.But theycan’tbe letoffsoeasily, for theyallare farmingbyproxy.Theycaneatonly if land is farmedon theirbehalfbysomebodysomewhere insomefashion. Ifconservationistswillattempt toresumeresponsibilityfor theirneedtoeat, theywillbe ledbackfairlydirectlytoalltheirpreviousconcernsforthewelfareofnature.

Doconservationists,then,wishtoeatwellorpoorly?Wouldtheyliketheirfoodsupplytobesecurefromoneyeartothenext?Wouldtheyliketheirfoodtobefreeofpoisons,antibiotics,aliengenes,andothercontaminants?Wouldtheylikeasignificantportionofittobefresh?Wouldtheylikeittocometothematthelowestpossibleecologicalcost?Theanswers,ifresponsiblygiven,willinfluenceproduction,willinfluencelanduse,willdeterminetheconfigurationandthehealthoflandscapes.

Ifconservationistsmerelyeatwhateverthesupermarketprovidesandthegovernmentallows,theyaregivingeconomicsupporttoall-outindustrialfoodproduction:toanimalfactories;tothedepletionofsoil,rivers,andaquifers;tocropmonoculturesandtheconsequentlossesofbiologicalandgeneticdiversity;tothepollution,toxicity,andovermedicationthataretheinevitableaccompanimentsofall-outindustrialfood production; to a food system based on long-distance transportation and the consequent waste ofpetroleumand the spreadofpests anddiseases; and to thedivisionof thecountryside intoever largerfarmsandeverlargerfieldsreceivingalwayslesshumanaffectionandhumancare.

If,ontheotherhand,conservationistsarewillingtoinsistonhavingthebestfood,producedinthebestway,asclosetotheirhomesaspossible,andiftheyarewillingtolearntojudgethequalityoffoodandfoodproduction,thentheyaregoingtogiveeconomicsupporttoanentirelydifferentkindoflanduseinanentirelydifferentlandscape.Thislandscapewillhaveahigherratioofcaretakerstoacres,ofcareto

use. Itwill be at oncemoredomestic andmorewild than the industrial landscape.Can increasing thenumberoffarmsandfarmersinanagriculturallandscapeenhancethequalityofthatlandscapeaswildlifehabitat?Canitincreasewhatwemightcallthewildernessvalueofthatlandscape?Itcandoso,andthedeterminingfactorwouldbediversity.Don’tforgetthatwearetalkingaboutalandscapethatischangingin response to an increase in local consumer demand for local food. Imagine a modern agriculturallandscapedevotedmainlytocornandsoybeansandtoanimalfactories.Andthenimagineitsneighboringcitydevelopingademandforgood,locallygrownfood.Tomeetthatdemand,localfarmingwouldhavetodiversify.

Ifthatdemandisserious,ifitistakenseriously,ifitcomesfrominformedandpermanentlycommittedconsumers, if itpromises thenecessaryeconomicsupport, then that radicallyoversimplified landscapewillchange.Thecropmonoculturesandanimalfactorieswillgivewaytothemixedfarmingofplantsandanimals.Pasturedflocksandherdsofmeatanimals,dairyherds,andpoultryflockswillreturn,requiring,ofcourse,pasturesandhayfields. If theurbanconsumerswouldextend theircompetentconcern for thefarming economy to include the forest economy and its diversity of products, that would improve thequalityandcare,andincreasetheacreage,offarmwoodlands.Andweshouldnotforgetthepossibilitythatgoodfarmersmight,fortheirowninstructionandpleasure,preservepatchesofwoodlandunused.Asthe meadows and woodlands flourished in the landscape, so would the wild birds and animals. Theacreages devoted to corn and soybeans, grown principally as livestock feed or as rawmaterials forindustry,woulddiminishinfavorofthefruitsandvegetablesrequiredbyhumandinnertables.

As theacreageunderperennial cover increased, soil erosionwoulddecreaseand thewater-holdingcapacityofthesoilwouldincrease.Creeksandriverswouldgrowcleanerandtheirflowmoreconstant.As farms diversified, theywould tend to become smaller because complexity andwork increasewithdiversity,andsothelandscapewouldacquiremoreowners.Asthenumberoffarmersandthediversityoftheir farms increased, the toxicityofagriculturewoulddecrease—insofarasagriculturalchemicalsareused to replace labor and to defray the biological costs of monoculture. As food production becamedecentralized, animalwasteswould be dispersed, andwould be absorbed and retained in the soil asnutrientsratherthanflowingawayaswasteandaspollutants.Thedetailsofsuchatransformationcouldbe elaborated almost endlessly. Tomake short work of it here, we could just say that a dangerouslyoversimplifiedlandscapewouldbecomehealthfullycomplex,botheconomicallyandecologically.

Moreover,sincewearetalkingaboutacitythatwouldbelivinginlargemeasurefromitslocalfieldsandforests,wearetalkingalsoaboutalocaleconomyofdecentralized,small,nonpollutingvalue-addingfactories and shops that would be scaled to fit into the landscapewith the least ecological or socialdisruption.Andthuswecanalsocredittothiseconomyanincreaseinindependentsmallbusinesses,inself-employment, and a decrease in the combustible fuel needed for transportation and (I believe) forproduction.

Suchaneconomyistechnicallypossible,therecanbenodoubtofthat;wehavethenecessarymethodsandequipment.Thecapacityofnaturetoaccommodate,andeventocooperatein,suchaneconomyisalsoundoubtable;wehavethenecessaryhistoricalexamples.Thisisnot,fromnature’spointofview,apipedream.

What is doubtable, or at least unproven, is the capacity of modern humans to choose, make, andmaintain such an economy. For at least half a century we have taken for granted that the methods offarming could safely be determined by themechanisms of industry, and that the economies of farmingcould safely be determined by the economic interests of industrial corporations.We are now running

rapidly to the endof thepossibilityof that assumption.The social, ecological, andeven the economiccostshavebecometoogreat,andthecostsarestillincreasing,allovertheworld.

Nowwemusttrytoenvisionanagriculturefoundednotonmechanicalprinciples,butontheprinciplesofbiologyandecology.SirAlbertHowardandWesJacksonhavearguedatlengthforsuchachangeofstandards. If youwant to farm sustainably, they have told us, then you have got tomake your farmingconform to thenatural laws thatgovern the localecosystem.Youhavegot to farmwithbothplantsandanimals inasgreatadiversityaspossible,youhavegot toconserve fertility, recyclewastes,keep theground covered, and so on. Or, as J. Russell Smith put it seventy years ago, you have got to “fit thefarmingtotheland”—nottotheavailabletechnologyorthemarket,asimportantasthoseconsiderationsare,buttotheland.Itisnecessary,inshort,tomaintainaproperconnectionbetweenthedomesticandthewild.Theparamountstandardbywhichtheworkistobejudgedisthehealthoftheplacewheretheworkisdone.

Butthisisnotatransformationthatwecanjustdriftinto,aswedriftinandoutoffashions,anditisnotonethatweshouldwaittobeforcedintobylarge-scaleecologicalbreakdown.Itwon’thappenifalotofpeople—consumers and producers, city people and country people, conservationists and land users—don’tgettogetherdeliberatelytomakeithappen.

Those are some of the reasons why conservationists should take an interest in farming and makecommoncausewithgoodfarmers.NowImustgetontothesecondofmypracticalquestions.

WHY SHOULD FARMERS be conservationists? Or maybe I had better ask why are good farmersconservationists?Thefarmerlivesandworksinthemeetingplaceofnatureandthehumaneconomy,theplacewheretheneedforconservationismostobviousandmosturgent.Farmerseitherfittheirfarmingtotheirfarms,conformtothelawsofnature,andkeepthenaturalpowersandservicesintact—ortheydonot.Iftheydonot,thentheyincreasetheecologicaldeficitthatisbeingchargedtothefuture.(Ihadbetteradmitthatsomefarmersdoincreasetheecologicaldeficit,buttheyarenotthefarmersIamtalkingabout.Iamnotaskingconservationiststosupportdestructivewaysoffarming.)

Good farmers,who takeseriously theirdutiesasstewardsofCreationandof their land’s inheritors,contribute to thewelfare of society inmoreways than society usually acknowledges, or even knows.Thesefarmersproducevaluablegoods,ofcourse;buttheyalsoconservesoil,theyconservewater,theyconservewildlife,theyconserveopenspace,theyconservescenery.

Allthatismerelywhatfarmersoughttodo.Butsinceourpresentsociety’sfirststandardinallthingsisprofitanditlovestodwellon“economicreality,”Ican’tresistaglanceatthesegoodfarmersintheireconomiccircumstances, for these farmerswillbepoorlypaid for thegoods theyproduce,and for theservicestheyrendertoconservationtheywillnotbepaidatall.Goodfarmerstodaymaymarketproductsof high quality and perform well all the services I have listed, and still be unable to afford healthinsurance,andstillfindthemselvesmercilesslycaricaturedinthepublicmediaasruralsimpletons,hicks,orrednecks.Andthentheyhearthevoicesofthe“economicrealists”:“Getbigorgetout.Selloutandgoto town.Adaptordie.”Wehavehad fiftyyearsof such realism inagriculture,and the resulthasbeenmoreandmorelarge-scalemonoculturesandfactoryfarms,withtheireverlargersocialandecological—andultimatelyeconomic—costs.

Whydogoodfarmersfarmwellforpoorpayandworkasgoodstewardsofnaturefornopay,manyof

them,moreover,havingnohopethattheirfarmswillbefarmedbytheirchildren(forthereasonsgiven)orthattheywillbefarmedbyanybody?

Well, I was raised by farmers, have farmed myself, and have in turn raised two farmers—whichsuggeststomethatImayknowsomethingaboutfarmers,andalsothatIdon’tknowverymuch.ButovertheyearsIalongwithalotofotherpeoplehavewondered,“Whydotheydoit?”Whydofarmersfarm,giventheireconomicadversitiesontopofthemanyfrustrationsanddifficultiesnormaltofarming?Andalwaystheansweris:“Love.Theymustdoitforlove.”Farmersfarmfortheloveoffarming.Theylovetowatchandnurturethegrowthofplants.Theylovetoliveinthepresenceofanimals.Theylovetoworkoutdoors.Theylovetheweather,maybeevenwhenitismakingthemmiserable.Theylovetolivewheretheyworkandtoworkwheretheylive.Ifthescaleoftheirfarmingissmallenough,theyliketoworkinthecompanyoftheirchildrenandwiththehelpoftheirchildren.Theylovethemeasureofindependencethatfarmlifecanstillprovide.Ihaveanideathatalotoffarmershavegonetoalotoftroublemerelytobeself-employed,toliveatleastapartoftheirliveswithoutaboss.

Andsothefirstthingfarmersasconservationistsmusttrytoconserveistheirloveoffarmingandtheirloveofindependence.Ofcoursetheycanconservethesethingsonlybyhandingthemdown,bypassingthemontotheirchildren,ortosomebody’schildren.Perhapsthemosturgenttaskforallofuswhowantto eat well and to keep eating is to encourage farm-raised children to take up farming.Andwemustrecognize that thisonlycanbedoneeconomically.Farmchildrenarenotencouragedbywatching theirparentstaketheirproductstomarketonlytohavethemstolenatpriceslessthanthecostofproduction.

But farmersobviouslyare responsible forconservingmuchmore thanagrarianskillsandattitudes. Ihavealreadytoldwhyfarmersshouldbe,asmuchasanyconservationists,conserversofthewildnessofthe world—and that is their inescapable dependence on nature. Good farmers, I believe, recognize adifferencethatisfundamentalbetweenwhatisnaturalandwhatisman-made.Theyknowthatifyoutreata farm as a factory and living creatures as machines, or if you tolerate the idea of “engineering”organisms,thenyouareonyourwaytosomethingdestructiveand,soonerorlater,tooexpensive.Totreatcreaturesasmachinesisanerrorwithlargepracticalimplications.

Goodfarmersknowtoo thatnaturecanbeaneconomically.Natural fertility ischeaper,often in theshortrun,alwaysinthelongrun,thanpurchasedfertility.Naturalhealth,inbredandnurtured,ischeaperthanpharmaceuticalsandchemicals.Solarenergy—ifyouknowhowtocaptureanduseit:ingrass,say,andthebodiesofanimals—ischeaperthanpetroleum.Thehighlyindustrializedfactoryfarmisentirelydependenton“purchasedinputs.”Theagrarianfarm,wellintegratedintothenaturalsystemsthatsupportit,runstoaneconomicallysignificantextentonresourcesandsuppliesthatarefree.

Itisnowcommonlyassumedthatwhenhumanstooktoagriculturetheygaveuphuntingandgathering.Buthuntingandgatheringremaineduntilrecentlyanintegralandlivelypartofmyownregion’straditionalfarminglife.Peoplehuntedforwildgame;theyfishedthepondsandstreams;theygatheredwildgreensinthespring,hickorynutsandwalnutsinthefall;theypickedwildberriesandotherfruits;theyprospectedforwildhoney.Someofthemostmemorable,andleastregrettable,nightsofmyownyouthwerespentincoonhuntingwithfarmers.There isnodenying that theseactivitiescontributed to theeconomyof farmhouseholds, but a further fact is that theywere pleasures; theywerewilderness pleasures, not greatlydifferentfromthepleasurespursuedbyconservationistsandwildernesslovers.AsIwasalwaysaware,myfriends thecoonhunterswerenotmotivated justby thewish to treecoonsandlisten tohoundsandlisten toeachother,allofwhichweresufficientlyattractive; theywerecoonhuntersalsobecause theywanted to be afoot in the woods at night.Most of the farmers I have known, and certainly the most

interestingones,havehadthecapacitytorambleaboutoutdoorsforthemerehappinessofit,alerttothedoingsofthecreatures,amusedbythesightofafoxcatchinggrasshoppers,orbythepuzzleofwildtracksinthesnow.

As thecountrysidehasdepopulatedand the remaining farmershavecomeundergreater stress, thesewildernesspleasureshavefallenaway.Buttheyhavenotyetbeenaltogetherabandoned;theyrepresentsomethingprobably essential to the character of the best farming, and they shouldbe remembered andrevived.

Those,then,aresomereasonswhygoodfarmersareconservationists,andwhyallfarmersoughttobe.

WHATIHAVEbeentryingtodoistodefineacongruityorcommunityofinterestbetweenfarmersandconservationistswhoarenotfarmers.Tonametheintereststhatthesetwogroupshaveincommon,andtoobserve, as I did at the beginning, that they also have common enemies, is to raise a question that isbecomingincreasinglyurgent:Whydon’tthetwogroupspubliclyandforcefullyagreeonthethingstheyagree on, and make an effort to cooperate? I don’t mean to belittle their disagreements, which Iacknowledgetobeimportant.Nevertheless,cooperationisnownecessary,anditispossible.IfKentuckytobaccofarmerscanmeetwithantismokinggroups,drawupasetof“coreprinciples”towhichtheyallagree, and then support those principles, something of the sort surely could happen betweenconservationistsandcertainland-usingenterprises:familyfarmsandranches,small-scale,locallyownedforestryandforestproductsindustries,andperhapsothers.Somethingofthesort,infact,isbeginningtohappen,butsofartheeffortsaretoosmallandtooscattered.Thelargerorganizationsonbothsidesneedtotakeaninterestandgetinvolved.

If these two sides, which need to cooperate, have so far been at odds, what is the problem? Theproblem,Ithink,iseconomic.Thesmalllandusers,ontheonehand,arestrugglingsohardtosurviveinaneconomycontrolledbythecorporationsthattheyaredistractedfromtheirowneconomy’sactualbasisinnature.Theyalsohavenotpaidenoughattentiontothedifferencebetweentheiralwaysthreatenedlocaleconomiesandtheapparentlythrivingcorporateeconomythatisexploitingthem.

On the other hand, the mostly urban conservationists, who mostly are ignorant of the economicadversitiesof,say, family-scale farmingor ranching,havepaidfar too littleattention to theconnectionbetweentheireconomiclifeandthedespoliationofnature.Theyhavetroubleseeingthatthebadfarmingandforestrypracticesthattheyopposeasconservationistsaredoneontheirbehalf,andwiththeirconsentimpliedintheeconomicproxiestheyhavegivenasconsumers.

These clearly are serious problems. Both of them indicate that the industrial economy is not a truedescription of economic reality, and moreover that this economy has been wonderfully successful ingettingitsfalsehoodsbelieved.Toomanylandusersandtoomanyconservationistsseemtohaveacceptedthedoctrinethattheavailabilityofgoodsisdeterminedbytheavailabilityofcash,orcredit,andbythemarket. In other words, they have accepted the idea always implicit in the arguments of the land-exploitingcorporations: that therecanbe,and that there is,asafedisconnectionbetweeneconomyandecology, between human domesticity and the wild world. Industrializing farmers have too readilyassumedthatthenatureoftheirlandcouldsafelybesubordinatedtothecapabilityoftheirtechnology,andthatconservationcouldsafelybelefttoconservationists.Conservationistshavetooreadilyassumedthattheintegrityofthenaturalworldcouldbepreservedmainlybypreservingtractsofwilderness,andthatthenatureandnurtureoftheeconomiclandscapescouldsafelybelefttoagribusiness,thetimberindustry,

debt-riddenfarmersandranchers,andmigrantlaborers.

Tome,itappearsthatthesetwosidesareasdividedastheyarebecauseeachisclingingtoitsownversionofacommoneconomicerror.Howcanthisbecorrected?Idon’tthinkitcanbe,solongaseachofthetwosidesremainsclosedupinitsownconversation.Ithinkthetwosidesneedtoenterintooneconversation. They have got to talk to one another. Conservationists have got to know and dealcompetentlywiththemethodsandeconomicsoflanduse.Landusershavegottorecognizetheurgency,eventheeconomicurgency,oftherequirementsofconservation.

Failingthis,thesetwosideswillsimplyconcedeaneasyvictorytotheircommonenemy,thethirdside,thecorporatetotalitarianismwhichisnowrapidlyconsolidatingas“theglobaleconomy”andwhichwillutterlydominateboththenaturalworldanditshumancommunities.

SanitationandtheSmallFarm

(1971)

IN THE TIME when my memories begin—the late 1930s—people in the country did not go aroundempty-handed asmuch as they do now. As I remember them from that time, farm people on the waysomewherecharacteristicallyhadbucketsorkettlesorbaskets in theirhands,sometimessackson theirshoulders.

Those were hard times—not unusual in our agricultural history—and so a lot of the fetching andcarryinghadtodowithforaging,searchingthefieldsandwoodsfornature’sfreeprovisions:greensinthespringtime,fruitsandberriesinthesummer,nutsinthefall.Therewasfishinginwarmweatherandhuntingincoldweather;peopledidthesethingsforfoodandforpleasure,notfor“sport.”Theeconomiesofmanyhouseholdsweresmallandthorough,andpeopletooktheseseasonalopportunitiesseriously.

For the same reason, they practiced household husbandry. They raised gardens, fattenedmeat hogs,milkedcows,keptflocksofchickensandotherpoultry.Theseenterprisesweremarginaltothefarm,butcentraltothehousehold.Inasense,theycomprisedthedirectbondbetweenfarmandhousehold.Theseenterprisesproducedsurpluseswhich,inthosedays,weremarketable.Andsowhenonesawfarmpeopleintowntheywouldbeladenwithbucketsofcreamorbasketsofeggs.Ormaybeyouwouldseeawomangoingintothegrocerystore,carryingtwoorthreeoldhenswiththeirlegstiedtogether.Sometimesthissurpluspaidforwhatthefamilyhadtobuyatthestore.Sometimesafterthey“bought”theirgroceriesinthisway,theyhadmoneytotakehome.Thesehouseholdswereplacesofproduction,atleastsomeofthetimeoperatingat anet economicgain.The ideaof “consumption”was alien to them. I amnot talkingaboutpracticesofexceptionalfamilies,butaboutwhatwasordinarilydoneonvirtuallyallfarms.

That economy was in the truest sense democratic. Everybody could participate in it—even littlechildren. An important source of instruction and pleasure to a child growing up on a farm wasparticipation in the family economy.Children learned about the adultworld by participating in it in asmallway,bydoingalittleworkandmakingalittlemoney—amuchmoreeffective,becausepleasurable,andamuchcheapermethodthanthepresentoneofrequiringtheadultworldtobelearnedintheabstractinschool.One’seldersinthosedayswerealwaysadmonishingonetosavenickelsanddimes,andtherewastangiblepurposeintheiradvice:Withenoughnickelsanddimes,onecouldbuyacoworasow;withthe income from a cow or a sow, one could begin to save to buy a farm.This schemewas plausibleenough,evidently,foritseemedthatallgrown-upshadmeditatedonit.Now,accordingtothesavantsofagriculture—andmostgrown-upsnowbelievethem—onedoesnotstartinfarmingwithasoworacow;onemuststartwithaquarterofamilliondollars.Whatarethepoliticalimplicationsofthateconomy?

Ihaveso farmentionedonly themostcommonsmall itemsof trade,but itwasalsopossible tosell

prepared foods: pies, bread, butter, beaten biscuits, cured hams, etc. And among the most attractiveenterprisesof that timewere thesmalldairies thatwereaddedwithoutmuchexpenseor trouble to thesmall,diversifiedfarms.Therewouldusuallybeamilkingroomorstallpartitionedoffinabarn,withhomemade wooden stanchions to accommodate perhaps three to half a dozen cows. The cows weremilkedbyhand.Themilkwascooledincansinatubofwellwater.Foraminimalexpenditureandanhourorsoofeffortnightandmorning,thefarmgainedasteady,dependableincome.Allthisconformedtotheidealofmygrandfather’sgenerationoffarmers,whichwasto“sellsomethingeveryweek”—amaximofdiversity,stability,andsmallscale.

Boththeforaginginfieldsandwoodsandthesmallhusbandriesofhouseholdandbarnhavenowbeenalmostentirelyreplacedbythe“consumereconomy,”whichassumesthatitisbettertobuywhateveroneneeds than to find itormake itorgrow it.Advertisementsandother formsofpropagandasuggest thatpeopleshouldcongratulatethemselvesonthequantityandvarietyoftheirpurchases.Shopping,inspiteoftrafficandcrowds,isheldtobe“easy”and“convenient.”Spendingmoneygivesonestatus.Andphysicalexertion for any useful purpose is looked down upon; it is permissible to work hard for “sport” or“recreation,”buttomakeanypracticaluseofthebodyisconsideredbeneathdignity.

Asidefromthefashionsofleisureandaffluence—sovaluabletocorporations,sodestructiveofvalues—thegreatestdestroyerofthesmalleconomiesofthesmallfarmshasbeenthedoctrineofsanitation.Ihavenoargumentagainstcleanlinessandhealthfulness;Iamforthemasmuchasanyone.Ido,however,questionthevalidityandthehonestyofthesanitationlawsthathavecometoruleoverfarmproductioninthelastthirtyorfortyyears.Whyhavenewsanitationlawsalwaysrequiredmore,andmoreexpensive,equipment?Whyhavetheyalwaysworkedagainstthesurvivalofthesmallproducer?Isitimpossibletobeinexpensivelyhealthfulandclean?

Iamnotascientistorasanitationexpert,andcannotgiveconclusiveanswerstothosequestions;IcanonlysaywhatIhaveobservedandwhatIthink.InaremarkablyshorttimeIhaveseenthedemiseofallthesmalldairyoperationsinmypartofthecountry,theshuttingdownofalllocalcreameriesandofallthesmalllocaldealersinmilkandmilkproducts.Ihaveseenthegrocersforcedtoquitdealingineggsproducedbylocalfarmers,andhaveseentheclosingofallmarketsforsmallquantitiesofpoultry.

Recently,incontinuationofthe“trend,”thelocalslaughterhousesinKentuckywererequiredtomakeexpensivealterationsorgooutofbusiness.Mostofthemwentoutofbusiness.Thesewerenotofferingmeatforsaleinthewholesaleorretailtrade.Theydidcustomworkmainlyforlocalfarmerswhobroughttheir animals in for slaughter and took themeat home or to a locker plant for processing. Theywereessentialtotheeffortofmanypeopletoliveself-sufficientlyfromtheirownproduce—andthesepeoplehadraisednoobjectionstothewaytheirmeatwasbeinghandled.Thefewestablishmentsthatmanagedtosurvivethis“improvement”founditnecessary,ofcourse,tochargehigherpricesfortheirwork.Whobenefitedfromthis?Notthecustomers,whowereputtoconsiderableexpenseandinconvenience,iftheywere not forced to quit producing their ownmeat altogether.Not, certainly, the slaughterhouses or thelocaleconomies.Not,sofarasIcansee,thepublic’shealth.Theonlyconceivablebeneficiarieswerethemeatpackingcorporations,andforthisquestionablegainlocallifewasweakenedatitseconomicroots.

This sortof thing is always justifiedas “consumerprotection.”Butweneed to aska fewquestionsabout that. How are consumers protected by a system that puts more and more miles, middlemen,agencies,andinspectorsbetweenthemandtheproducers?How,overalltheseobstacles,canconsumersmake producers aware of their tastes and needs? How are consumers protected by a system thatapparentlycannot“improve”exceptbyeliminatingthesmallproducer,increasingthecostofproduction,

andincreasingtheretailpriceoftheproduct?

Does theconcentrationofproduction in thehandsof fewerand fewerbigoperators reallyserve theendsof cleanliness andhealth?Ordoes itmake easier andmore lucrative thepossibility of collusionbetweenirresponsibleproducersandcorruptinspectors?

In so strenuously andexpensivelyprotecting food fromcontaminationbygerms,howmuchhaveweincreased the possibility of its contamination by antibiotics, preservatives, and various industrialpoisons?ThenotoriousPBBdisasterinMichigancouldprobablynothavehappenedinadecentralizedsystemofsmalllocalsuppliersandproducers.

And, finally,whatdowedo toourpeople,our communities,our economy,andourpolitical systemwhenweallowournecessitiestobeproducedbyacentralizedsystemoflargeoperators,dependentonexpensivetechnology,andregulatedbyexpensivebureaucracy?Themodernfoodindustryissaidtobea“miracleoftechnology.”Butitiswelltorememberthatthistechnology,inadditiontoso-calledmiracles,produceseconomicandpoliticalconsequencesthatarenotfavorabletodemocracy.

Theconnectionsamongfarming, technology,economics,andpoliticsare importantformanyreasons,oneofthemostobviousbeingtheirinfluenceonfoodproduction.Probablytheworstfaultofourpresentsystemisthatitsimplyeliminatesfromproductionthelandthatisnotsuitablefor,aswellasthepeoplewhocannotafford, large-scaletechnology.Andit ignoresthepotentialproductivityofthese“marginal”acresandpeople.

Itispossibletoraisetheseissuesbecauseourleadershavebeentellingusforyearsthatouragricultureneeds to become more and more productive. If they mean what they say, they will have to reviseproduction standards and open the necessarymarkets to provide a livelihood for small farmers.Onlysmallfarmerscankeeptheso-calledmarginallandinproduction,foronlytheycangivetheintensivecarenecessarytokeepitproductive.

RenewingHusbandry

(2004)

I REMEMBER WELL A summer morning in about 1950 when my father sent a hired man with aMcCormickHighGearNo.9mowingmachineandateamofmulestothefieldIwasmowingwithournearlynewFarmallA.Thatmemoryisalandmarkinmymindandmyhistory.Ihadbeenbornintothewayoffarmingrepresentedbythemuleteam,andIlovedit.Iknewirresistiblythatthemulesweregoodones.Theyweresteppingalongbeautifullyatarateofspeedinfactonlyalittleslowerthanmine.ButnowIsawthemsuddenlyfromthevantagepointof thetractor,andIrememberhowfiercelyIresentedtheirslowness.Isawthemas“inmyway.”Forthosewhohavehadnosimilarexperience,Iwasfeelingexactlytheoutrageandthelow-gradesuperiorityofahotroddercaughtbehindanageddawdlerinurbantraffic.Itisundoubtedlysignificantthatinthesummerof1950Ipassedmysixteenthbirthdayandbecameeligibletosolveallmyproblemsbydrivinganautomobile.

This isnotanexceptionalora remarkablydramaticbitofhistory. I recite ithere toconfirmthat theindustrializationofagricultureisapartofmyfamiliarexperience.Idon’thavetheprivilegeoflookingatitasanoutsider. It isnot incomprehensible tome.Theburdenof thisessay,on thecontrary, is that theindustrializationof agriculture is a grandoversimplification, too readily comprehensible, tome and toeverybodyelse.

Weweremowingthatmorning,theteamsterwithhismulesandIwiththetractor,inthefieldbehindthebarnonmyfather’shomeplace,whereheandbeforehimhisfatherhadbeenborn,andwherehisfatherhaddiedinFebruaryof1946.Theoldwayoffarmingwasintactinmygrandfather’sminduntilthedayhedied at eighty-two.Hehadworkedmules all his life, understood them thoroughly, and loved thegoodonespassionately.Heknewtractorsonlyfromadistance,hehadseenonlyafewofthem,andherejectedthemoutofhandbecausehethought,correctly,thattheycompactedthesoil.

Evenso,fouryearsafterhisdeathhisgrandson’ssuddenresentmentofthe“slow”muleteamforetoldwhathistorywouldbearout:Thetractorwouldstayandthemuleswouldgo.Yearafteryear,agriculturewould be adapted more and more to the technology and the processes of industry and to the rule ofindustrialeconomics.Thistransformationoccurredwithastonishingspeedbecause,bythemeasuresitsetfor itself, itwaswonderfullysuccessful. It“saved labor,” itconferred theprestigeofmodernity,and itwashighlyproductive.

THOUGHINEVERentirelydepartedfromfarmingoratleastfromthoughtsoffarming,andmyaffectionformyhomelandremainedstrong,duringthefourteenyearsafter1950IwasmuchawayfromhomeandwasnotgivingtofarmingthecloseandcontinuousattentionIhavegiventoitinthefortyyearssince.

In1964myfamilyandIreturnedtoKentucky,andinayearweresettledonahillsidefarminmynativecommunity,wherewehavecontinuedtolive.PerhapsbecauseIwasareturnedtravelerintendingtostay,Inowsawtheplacemoreclearlythanbefore.Isawitcritically,too,foritwasevidentatoncethatthehuman lifeof theplace, the lifeof the farmsand the farmingcommunity,was indecline.Theold self-sufficientwayoffarmingwaspassingaway.TheeconomicprosperitythathadvisitedthefarmersbrieflyduringWorldWarIIandforafewyearsafterwardhadended.Thelittletownsthatoncehadbeensocialandeconomiccenters,throngedwithcountrypeopleonSaturdaysandSaturdaynights,werelosingouttothe bigger towns and the cities. The rural neighborhoods, once held together by common memories,commonwork,and thesharingofhelp,hadbegun todissolve.Therewereno longer localmarkets forchickensoreggsorcream.Thespringlambindustry,onceastapleoftheregion,wasgone.Thetractorsand othermechanical devices certainlywere saving the labor of the farmers and farmhandswho hadmovedaway,butthosewhohadstayedwereworkingharderandlongerthanever.

Because I rememberedwithaffectionand respectmygrandparentsandothercountrypeopleof theirgeneration,andbecauseIhadadmirablefriendsandneighborswithwhomIwasagainfarming,Ibegantoaskwhatwashappening,andwhy.Ibegantoaskwhatwouldbetheeffectsontheland,onthecommunity,onthenaturalworld,andontheartoffarming.Andthesequestionshaveoccupiedmesteadilyeversince.

Theeffectsofthisprocessofindustrializationhavebecomesoapparent,sonumerous,sofavorabletotheagribusinesscorporations,andsounfavorabletoeverythingelsethatbynowthequestionstroublingmeandafewothersinthe1960sand1970sarebeingaskedeverywhere.

There are no doubtmanyways of accounting for this change, but for convenience and brevity I amgoingtoattributeittotheemergenceofcontextasanissue.Ithasbecomeincreasinglyclearthatthewaywe farmaffects the local community, and that the economyof the local community affects thewaywefarm; that thewaywe farmaffects thehealth and integrityof the local ecosystem, and that the farm isintricately dependent, even economically, upon the health of the local ecosystem. We can no longerpretendthatagricultureisasortofeconomicmachinewithinterchangeableparts,thesameeverywhere,determined by “market forces” and independent of everything else.We are not farming in a specialistcapsuleoraprofessionalistdepartment;wearefarmingintheworld,inawebworkofdependencesandinfluencesmoreintricatethanwewilleverunderstand.Ithasbecomeclear,inshort,thatwehavebeenrunning our fundamental economic enterprise by the wrong rules. We were wrong to assume thatagriculturecouldbeadequatelydefinedbyreductionistscienceanddeterministeconomics.

Ifyoucankeepthecontextnarrowenough(andtheaccountingperiodshortenough),thentheindustrialcriteria of labor saving and high productivity seem to work well. But the old rules of ecologicalcoherenceandofcommunitylifehaveremainedineffect.Thecostsofignoringthemhaveaccumulated,until now theboundariesofour reductive andmechanical explanationshavecollapsed.Their collapsereveals,plainlyforalltosee,theecologicalandsocialdamagesthattheyweremeanttoconceal.Itwillseemparadoxicaltosomethatthenationalandglobalcorporateeconomieshavenarrowedthecontextforthinkingaboutagriculture,butitismerelythetruth.Thoselargeeconomies,intheirunderstandingandintheir accounting, have excluded any concern for the land and the people. Now, in the midst of muchunnecessaryhumanandecologicaldamage,wearefacingthenecessityofanewstartinagriculture.

ANDSOITisnotpossibletolookbackatthetableauofteamandtractoronthatmorningin1950andseeitasIsawitthen.ThatisnotbecauseIhavechanged,thoughobviouslyIhave;itisbecause,inthefifty-

fouryearssincethen,historyandthelawofconsequencehavewidenedthecontextofthesceneascircleswidenonwateraroundathrownstone.

Myimpatienceattheslownessofthemules,Ithink,wasafairlyrepresentativeemotion.IthoughtIwaswitnessingacontestofmachineagainstorganism,whichthemachinewasboundtowin.Ididnotseethattheteamarrivedatthefieldthatmorningfromthehistoryoffarmingandfromthefarmitself,whereasthetractorarrivedfromalmostanoppositehistory,andbymeansofaprocessreachingalongwaybeyondthat farmoranyfarm. It tookmea long time tounderstand that the teambelonged to the farmandwasdirectly supportable by it, whereas the tractor belonged to an economy that would remain alien toagriculture,functioningentirelybymeansofdistantsuppliesandlongsupplylines.Thetractor’sarrivalhadsignaled,amongother things,agriculture’sshift fromanalmostexclusivedependenceonfreesolarenergytoatotaldependenceoncostlyfossilfuel.Butin1950,likemostpeopleatthattime,Iwasyearsawayfromthefirstinklingofthelimitsofthesupplyofcheapfuel.

Wehadenteredaneraoflimitlessness,ortheillusionthereof,andthisinitselfisasortofwonder.Mygrandfatherlivedalifeoflimits,bothsufferedandstrictlyobserved,inaworldoflimits.Ilearnedmuchofthatworldfromhimandothers,andthenIchanged;Ienteredtheworldoflabor-savingmachinesandof limitlesscheapfossil fuel. Itwould takemeyearsofreading, thought,andexperience to learnagainthatinthisworldlimitsarenotonlyinescapablebutindispensable.

Mypurposehereisnottodisturbthequestionoftheuseofdraftanimalsinagriculture—thoughIdoubtthatitwillsleepindefinitely.Iwantinsteadtotalkaboutthetractorasaninfluence.Themeansweusetodoourworkalmostcertainlyaffectthewaywelookattheworld.IfthefragmentofautobiographyIbeganwithmeansanything,itmeansthatmytransformationfromaboywhohadsofargrownupdrivingateamtoaboydrivingatractorwasasight-changingexperience.

Broughtupasa teamsterbutnowdrivinga tractor,aboyalmostsuddenly,almostperforce,sees thefarminadifferentway:asgroundtobegotoverbyameansentirelydifferent,atanentirelydifferentcost.Theteam,liketheboy,wouldgrowweary,butthatwearinesshasallatoncebeensubtracted,andtheboyis now divided from the ground by the absence of a living connection that enforced sympathy as apracticalgood.Thetractorcanworkatmaximumspeedhourafterhourwithouttiring.Thereisnolongerareasontoremembertheshadyspotswhereitwasgoodtostopandrest.Tirelessnessandspeedenforceasecond,moreperilouschangeinthewaytheboyseesthefarm:Seeingitasgroundtobegotoverasfastas possible and, ideally, without stopping, he has taken on the psychology of a traveler by interstatehighwayorbyair.Thefocusofhisattentionhasshiftedfromtheplacetothetechnology.

Inowsuspectthatifweworkwithmachinestheworldwillseemtoustobeamachine,butifweworkwith living creatures the world will appear to us as a living creature. Be that as it may, mechanicalfarmingcertainlymakesiteasytothinkmechanicallyaboutthelandanditscreatures.Itmakesiteasytothinkmechanicallyevenaboutoneself,andthetirelessnessoftractorsbroughtanewdepthofwearinessintohumanexperience,atacosttohealthandfamilylifethathasnotbeenfullyaccounted.

Onceone’sfarmandone’sthoughtshavebeensufficientlymechanized,industrialagriculture’sfocusonproduction, as opposed tomaintenance or stewardship, becomesmerely logical.And here the troublecompletes itself. The almost exclusive emphasis on production permits the way of working to bedetermined,notbythenatureandcharacterofthefarminitsecosystemandinitshumancommunity,butratherbythenationalortheglobaleconomyandtheavailableoraffordabletechnology.Thefarmandallconcernsnot immediatelyassociatedwithproductionhaveineffectdisappearedfromsight.Thefarmer

too ineffecthasvanished.Heisno longerworkingasan independentandloyalagentofhisplace,hisfamily,andhiscommunity,butinsteadastheagentofaneconomythatisfundamentallyadversetohimandtoallthatheoughttostandfor.

Aftermechanizationitiscertainlypossibleforafarmertomaintainapropercreaturelyandstewardlyawarenessof the lives inherkeeping. Ifyou look,youcan still find farmerswhoare farmingwellonmechanizedfarms.Aftermechanization,however, tomaintain thiskindofawarenessrequiresadistincteffortofwill.Andifweaskwhataretheculturalresourcesthatcaninformandsustainsuchaneffortofwill,Ibelievethatwewillfindthemgatheredundertheheadingofhusbandry,andheremyessayarrivesfinallyatitssubject.

THEWORDhusbandryisthenameofaconnection.Initsoriginalsense,itisthenameoftheworkofadomesticman,amanwhohasacceptedabondageto thehousehold.Wehavenocausehere, I think, toraise the issueof“sexual roles.”Weneedonly tosay thatourearthly life requiresbothhusbandryandhousewifery,andthatnobody,certainlynohousehold,isexcusedfromaproperattendancetoboth.

Husbandrypertainsfirsttothehousehold;itconnectsthefarmtothehousehold.Itisanartweddedtotheartofhousewifery.Tohusbandis tousewithcare, tokeep, tosave, tomakelast, toconserve.Oldusagetellsusthatthereisahusbandryalsooftheland,ofthesoil,ofthedomesticplantsandanimals—obviouslybecauseoftheimportanceofthesethingstothehousehold.Andtherehavebeentimes,oneofwhich isnow,whensomepeoplehave tried topracticeaproperhumanhusbandryof thenondomesticcreatures in recognition of the dependence of our households and domestic life upon thewildworld.Husbandryisthenameofallthepracticesthatsustainlifebyconnectingusconservinglytoourplacesandourworld;itistheartofkeepingtiedallthestrandsinthelivingnetworkthatsustainsus.

Andsoitappearsthatmostandperhapsallofindustrialagriculture’smanifestfailuresaretheresultofanattempt tomake the landproducewithouthusbandry.Theattempt to remakeagricultureasascienceandanindustryhasexcludedfromit theage-oldhusbandrythatwascentralandessential toit,andthatdenotedalwaysthefundamentaldomesticconnectionsanddemandedarestorativecareintheuseofthelandanditscreatures.

Thisefforthaditsinitialandprobablyitsmostradicalsuccessinseparatingfarmingfromtheeconomyof subsistence. ThroughWorldWar II, farm life inmy region (and, I think, nearly everywhere) restedsolidlyuponthegarden,dairy,poultryflock,andmeatanimals that fed thefarm’sfamily.Especially inhardtimesthesefarmfamilies,andtheirfarmstoo,survivedbymeansoftheirsubsistenceeconomy.Thiswasthehusbandryandthehousewiferybywhichthefarmlived.Theindustrialprogram,onthecontrary,suggested that itwas “uneconomic” for a farm family to produce its own food; the effort and the landwouldbebetterappliedtocommercialproduction.Theresultisutterlystrangeinhumanexperience:farmfamilieswhobuyeverythingtheyeatatthestore.

ANINTENTIONTOreplacehusbandrywithsciencewasmadeexplicitintherenamingofdisciplinesinthe colleges of agriculture. “Soil husbandry” became “soil science,” and “animal husbandry” became“animalscience.”Thischangeisworthlingeringoverbecauseofwhatittellsusaboutoursusceptibilityto poppycock.When any discipline ismade or is called a science, it is thought by some to bemuchincreasedinpreciseness,complexity,andprestige.When“husbandry”becomes“science,”thelowlyhas

beenexaltedandtherustichasbecomeurbane.Purportingtoincreasethesophisticationofthehumbleartoffarming,thischangeinfactbrutallyoversimplifiesit.

“Soilscience,”aspracticedbysoilscientists,andevenmoreasithasbeenhandeddowntofarmers,hastendedtotreatthesoilasalifelessmatrixinwhich“soilchemistry”takesplaceand“nutrients”are“made available.” And this, in turn, has made farming increasingly shallow—literally so—in itsunderstanding of the soil. The modern farm is understood as a surface on which various mechanicaloperations are performed, and to which various chemicals are applied. The under-surface reality oforganismsandrootsismostlyignored.

“Soilhusbandry”isadifferentkindofstudy,involvingadifferentkindofmind.Soilhusbandryleads,inthewordsofSirAlbertHoward,tounderstanding“healthinsoil,plant,animal,andmanasonegreatsubject.”Weapply theword“health”only to livingcreatures,andtosoilhusbandryahealthysoil isawilderness,mostlyunstudiedandunknown,butteeminglyalive.Thesoilisatoncealivingcommunityofcreaturesandtheirhabitat.Thefarm’shusband,itsfamily,itscropsandanimals,allaremembersofthesoilcommunity;allbelong to thecharacterand identityof theplace.Torate thefarmfamilymerelyas“labor”and itsdomesticplantsandanimalsmerelyas“production” is thusanoversimplification,bothradicalanddestructive.

“Science”istoosimpleawordtonamethecomplexofrelationshipsandconnectionsthatcomposeahealthy farm—a farm that is a fullmembershipof the soil community. Ifweproposenot the reductivesciencewegenerallyhave,butascienceofcomplexity,thattoowillbeinadequate,foranycomplexitythatsciencecancomprehendisgoingtobenecessarilyahumanconstruct,andthereforetoosimple.

Thehusbandryofmerehumansofcoursecannotbecomplexenougheither.Buthusbandryalwayshasunderstoodthatwhatishusbandedisultimatelyamystery.Afarmer,asoneofhisfarmercorrespondentsoncewrotetoLibertyHydeBailey,is“adispenserofthe‘MysteriesofGod.’”Themotheringinstinctofanimals, forexample, isamystery thathusbandrymustuseand trustmostlywithoutunderstanding.Thehusband,unlikethe“manager”or thewould-beobjectivescientist,belongsinherentlytothecomplexityand the mystery that is to be husbanded, and so the husbanding mind is both careful and humble.Husbandry originates precautionary sayings like “Don’t put all your eggs into one basket” and “Don’tcountyourchickensbeforetheyhatch.”Itdoesnotboastoftechnologicalfeatsthatwill“feedtheworld.”

Husbandry,whichisnotreplaceablebyscience,neverthelessusesscience,andcorrectsittoo.Itisthemorecomprehensivediscipline.Toreducehusbandrytoscience,inpractice,istotransformagricultural“wastes” into pollutants, and to subtract perennials and grazing animals from the rotation of crops.Without husbandry, the agriculture of science and industry has served too well the purpose of theindustrialeconomyinreducingthenumberof landownersandtheself-employed.Ithas transformedtheUnitedStatesfromacountryofmanyownerstoacountryofmanyemployees.

WITHOUTHUSBANDRY,“SOILscience”tooeasilyignoresthecommunityofcreaturesthatliveinandfrom,thatmakeandaremadeby,thesoil.Similarly,“animalscience”withouthusbandryforgets,almostasa requirement, the sympathybywhichwe recognizeourselvesas fellowcreaturesof theanimals. Itforgets that animals are so called becausewe once believed them to be endowedwith souls.Animalsciencehasledusawayfromthatbelieforanysuchbeliefinthesanctityofanimals.Ithasledusinsteadtotheanimalfactory,which, liketheconcentrationcamp,isavisionofHell.Animalhusbandry,onthecontrary, comes from and again leads to the psalmist’s vision of good grass, good water, and the

husbandryofGod.

(Itisonlyalittleoffmysubjecttonoticealsothatthehighandessentialartofhousewifery,laterknownas “home economics,” has nowbecome “family and consumer science.”This presumably elevates theintellectual standing of the faculty by removing family life and consumption from the context—and theeconomy—ofahomeorhousehold.)

Agriculturemustmediatebetweennatureandthehumancommunity,with tiesandobligations inbothdirections.Tofarmwellrequiresanelaboratecourtesytowardallcreatures,animateandinanimate.Itissympathythatmostappropriatelyenlargesthecontextofhumanwork.Contextsbecomewrongbybeingtoo small—too small, that is, to contain the scientist or the farmer or the farm family or the localecosystemor the localcommunity—andthis iscrucial.“Outofcontext,”asWesJacksonhassaid,“thebestmindsdotheworstdamage.”

Lookingforawaytogiveanexactsenseofthisnecessarysympathy,thefeelingofhusbandryatwork,Ifoundit inabookentitledFeedMySheepbyTerryCummins.Mr.Cumminsisamanofaboutmyage,whogrewupfarmingwithhisgrandfatherinPendletonCounty,Kentucky,inthe1940sandearly’50s.Inthefollowingsentencesheisrememberinghimselfattheageofthirteen,inabout1947:

Whenyouseethatyou’remakingtheotherthingsfeelgood,itgivesyouagoodfeeling,too.

Thefeelinginsidesortofjusthappens,andyoucan’tsaythisdiditorthatdidit.It’sthemanylittlethings. It doesn’t seem that taking sweat-soakedharnessesoff tired,hothorseswouldbe somethingthat would make you notice. Opening a barn door for the sheep standing out in a cold rain, orthrowingafewgrainsofcorntothechickensaresmallthings,buttheselittlethingsbegintoaddupinyou,andyoucanbegintounderstandthatyou’reimportant.Youmaynotberealimportantlikepeoplewhodogreatthingsthatyoureadaboutinthenewspaper,butyoubegintofeelthatyou’reimportanttoallthelifearoundyou.Nobodyelseknowsorcarestoomuchaboutwhatyoudo,butifyougetagoodfeelinginsideaboutwhatyoudo, thenitdoesn’tmatterifnobodyelseknows.Idothinkaboutmyself a lot when I’m alone way back on the place bringing in the cows or sitting on a mowingmachineallday.ButwhenIstartthinkingabouthowouranimalsandcropsandfieldsandwoodsandgardenssortofall fit together, thenIget thatgoodfeelinginsideanddon’tworrymuchaboutwhatwillhappentome.

ThispassagegoestotheheartofwhatIamtryingtosay,becauseitgoestotheheartoffarmingasIhave known it.Mr. Cummins’s sentences describe an experience regrettably and perhaps dangerouslymissingnowfromthechildhoodofmostchildren.Theyalsodescribethecommunionbetweenthefarmeras husband and the well-husbanded farm. This communion is a cultural force that can exist only bybecomingpersonal.Toseeitsodescribedistounderstandatoncehownecessaryandhowthreateneditnowis.

IHAVETRIEDtosaywhathusbandryis,howitworks,andwhyitisnecessary.NowIwanttospeakoftwo paramount accomplishments of husbandry to which I think we will have to pay more deliberateattention, inourpresentcircumstances, thanweeverhavebefore.Theseare localadaptationand localcoherence of form. It is strange that a science of agriculture foundedon evolutionary biology,with itspracticalemphasisonsurvival,wouldexemptthehumanspeciesfromtheseconcerns.

Truehusbandry,asitsfirststrategyofsurvival,hasalwaysstriventofitthefarmingtothefarmandto

thefield,totheneedsandabilitiesofthefarm’sfamily,andtothelocaleconomy.Everywildcreatureistheproductofsuchanadaptiveprocess.Thesameprocessoncewasadominantinfluenceonagriculture,for the cost of ignoring it was hunger. One striking and well-known example of local adaptation inagricultureisthenumberanddiversityofBritishsheepbreeds,mostofwhicharenamedforthelocalitiesinwhichtheyweredeveloped.Butlocaladaptationmustbeevenmorerefinedthanthisexamplesuggests,foritinvolvesconsiderationoftheindividualityofeveryfarmandeveryfield.

Our recent focus upon productivity, genetic and technological uniformity, and global trade—allsupportedbysupposedlylimitlesssuppliesoffuel,water,andsoil—hasobscuredthenecessityforlocaladaptation.Butourcircumstancesarechangingrapidlynow,andthisrequirementwillbeforceduponusagain by terrorism and other kinds of political violence, by chemical pollution, by increasing energycosts,bydepletedsoils,aquifers,andstreams,andbythespreadofexoticweeds,pests,anddiseases.Wearegoing tohave to return to theoldquestionsabout localnature, localcarryingcapacities, and localneeds.Andwearegoingtohave toresumethebreedingofplantsandanimals tofit theregionandthefarm.

Thesameobsessionsandextravagancesthathavecausedustoignoretheissueoflocaladaptationhaveatthesametimecausedustoignoretheissueofform.Thesetwoissuesaresocloselyrelatedthatitisdifficulttotalkaboutonewithouttalkingabouttheother.Duringthehalfcenturyandmoreofourneglectoflocaladaptation,wehavesubjectedourfarmstoaradicaloversimplificationofform.Thediversifiedandreasonablyself-sufficientfarmsofmyregionandofmanyotherregionshavebeenconglomeratedintolargerfarmswithlargerfields,increasinglyspecialized,andsubjectedincreasinglytothestrict,unnaturallinearityoftheproductionline.

Butthefirstrequirementofaformisthatitmustbecomprehensive;itmustnotleaveoutsomethingthatessentiallybelongswithin it.ThefarmthatTerryCumminsrememberswasremarkablycomprehensive,and itwas not any one of its several enterprises alone thatmade him feel good, but rather “how ouranimalsandcropsandfieldsandwoodsandgardenssortofallfittogether.”

Theformofthefarmmustanswertothefarmer’sfeelingfortheplace,itscreatures,anditswork.Itisanever-ending effort of fitting together many diverse things. It must incorporate the life cycle and thefertilitycyclesofanimals.Itmustbringcropsandlivestockintobalanceandmutualsupport.Itmustbeapatternonthegroundandinthemind.Itmustbeatonceecological,agricultural,economic,familial,andneighborly.Itmustbeinclusiveenough,complexenough,coherent,intelligible,anddurable.Itmusthavewithinitslimitsthecompletenessofanorganismoranecosystem,orofanyothergoodworkofart.

Themakingof a formbegins in the recognition and acceptanceof limits.The farm is limitedby itstopography,itsclimate,itsecosystem,itshumanneighborhoodandlocaleconomy,andofcoursebythelargereconomies,andbythepreferencesandabilitiesofthefarmer.Thetruehusbandmanshapesthefarmwithinanassured senseofwhat it cannotbe andwhat it shouldnotbe.And thus theproblemof formreturnsustothatoflocaladaptation.

THETASKBEFOREus, nowas alwaysbefore, is to renewandhusband themeans, bothnatural andhuman,ofagriculture.Buttotalknowaboutrenewinghusbandryistotalkaboutunsimplifyingwhatisinreality an extremely complex subject.Thiswill requireus to accept again, andmore competently thanbefore, the health of the ecosystem, the farm, and the human community as the ultimate standard ofagriculturalperformance.

Unsimplification isdifficult, I imagine, inanycircumstances;ourpresentcircumstanceswillmake itespeciallyso.Soon themajorityof theworld’speoplewillbe living incities.Wearenowobliged tothinkofsomanypeopledemandingthemeansoflifefromtheland,towhichtheywillnolongerhaveapracticalconnection,andofwhich theywillhave littleknowledge.Weareobligedalso to thinkof theconsequences of any attempt to meet this demand by large-scale, expensive, petroleum-dependenttechnological schemes that will ignore local conditions and local needs. The problem of renewinghusbandry,andtheneedtopromoteageneralawarenessofeverybody’sagriculturalresponsibilities,thusbecomeurgent.

How are we to do this? How can we restore a competent husbandry to the minds of the world’sproducersandconsumers?

Fora startof coursewemust recognize that this effort is already inprogressonmany farmsand inmanyurbanconsumergroupsscatteredacrossourcountryandtheworld.Butwemustrecognizetoothatthis effortneedsanauthorizing focusand force thatwouldgrant it anew legitimacy, intellectual rigor,scientific respectability, and responsible teaching. There are many reasons to hope that this might besupplied by our colleges of agriculture, and there are some reasons to think that this hope is notfantastical.

With that hope in mind, I want to return to the precaution that I mentioned earlier. The effort ofhusbandry is partly scientific, but it is entirely cultural, and a cultural initiative can exist only bybecomingpersonal.Itwillbecomeincreasinglyclear,Ibelieve,thatagriculturalscientists,andtherestofusaswell,aregoingtohavetobelessspecialized,orlessisolatedbyourspecialization.Agriculturalscientists will need to work as indwelling members of agricultural communities or of consumercommunities.Theirscientificworkwillneedtoacceptthelimitsandtheinfluenceofthatmembership.Itisnotirrationaltoproposethatasignificantnumberofthesescientistsshouldbefarmers,andsosubjecttheirscientificwork,andthatoftheircolleagues,totheinfluenceofafarmer’spracticalcircumstances.Alongwiththerestofus,theywillneedtoacceptalltheimperativesofhusbandryasthecontextoftheirwork.Wecannotkeepthingsfromfallingapartinoursocietyiftheydonotcohereinourmindsandinourlives.

PARTII

FARMERS

SevenAmishFarms

(1981)

INTYPICALMIDWESTERNfarmingcountrythedistancesbetweeninhabitedhousesarestretchingoutasbiggerfarmersbuyouttheirsmallerneighborsinorderto“stayin.”Thesignsofthis“movement”anditsconsequentspecializationareeverywhere:goodhousesstandingempty,goingtoruin;goodstockbarnsgoingtoruin;pasturefencesfallendownorgone;machinestoolargeforavailabledoorwaysleftintheweather;windbreaksandwoodlotsgonedownbefore thebulldozers; small schoolhousesandchurchesdesertedorfilledwithgrain.

InthelatterpartofMarchthiscountryshowslittlelife.Fieldafterfieldliesunderthedeadstalksoflastyear’scornandsoybeans,orliesbrokenforthenextcrop;onemaydrivemanymilesbetweenfieldsthatareeither soddedorplanted inwintergrain. If theweather iswet, thecountrywill seemvirtuallydeserted. If the ground is dry enough to support their wheels, there will be tractors at work, hugemachineswithglassedcabs, rolling into thedistancesof fields larger thanwhole farmsused tobe, assolitaryasseaborneships.

Thedifference between such country and theAmish farmlands in northeast Indiana seems almost asgreatasthatbetweenadesertandanoasis.Anditisthesamedifference.IntheAmishcountrythereisagreat dealmore life:more natural life,more agricultural life,more human life.Because the farms aresmall—mostofthemcontainingwellunderahundredacres—theAmishneighborhoodsaremorethicklypopulatedthanmostruralareas,andyouseemorepeopleatwork.AndbecausetheAmisharediversifiedfarmers,theirplowedcroplandsareinterspersedwithpasturesandhayfieldsandoftenwithwoodlots.Itisavaried,interesting,healthy-lookingfarmcountry,pleasanttodrivethrough.Whenwewerethere,onthetwentiethandtwenty-firstoflastMarch,thespringplowinghadjuststarted,andsoyoucouldstillseeeverywheretheannualcoveringofstablemanureonthefields,andtheteamsofBelgiansorPercheronsstillcomingoutfromthebarnswithloadedspreaders.

Ourhost, thosedays,wasWilliam J.Yoder, awidely respectedbreeder ofBelgianhorses, an ablefarmerandcarpenter,andamostgenerousandenjoyablecompanion.Heisavigorousman,strenuouslyinvolvedintheworkofhisfarmandinthelifeofhisfamilyandcommunity.Fromthelookofhimandthelook of his place, you know that he has not just done a lot ofwork in his time, but has done itwell,learnedfromit,masteredthenecessarydisciplines.Hespeakswithheavystressoncertainwords—theemphasisofconviction,butalsoofpleasure,forheenjoysthetalkthatgoesonamongpeopleinterestedinhorsesandinfarming.Butunlikemanypeoplewhoenjoytalking,hespeakswithcare.Billwasborninthiscommunity,haslivedthereallhislife,andhehasgrandchildrenwhowillprobablylivetherealltheirlives.Hebelongs there, then, rootandbranch,andheknows thehistoryand thequalityofmanyof thefarms.Onthetwodays,wevisitedfarmsbelongingtoBillhimself,fourofhissons,andtwoofhissons-in-law.

TheAmishfarmstendtodivideupbetweenestablishedones,whichareprosperous-lookingandwellmaintained,andrun-down,abused,orneglectedones,onwhichyoungfarmersaregettingstarted.YoungAmish farmersare still getting started, in spite of inflation, speculators’ prices, and usurious interestrates.MyimpressionisthattheproportionofyoungfarmersbuyingfarmsissignificantlygreateramongtheAmishthanamongconventionalfarmers.

BillYoder’sowneighty-acrefarmisamongtheestablishedones.Ihadbeenthereinthefallof1975andhadnotforgotten itsaspectofcleannessandgoodorder, itswell-keptwhitebuildings,neat lawns,andgardenplots.Billhasownedtheplacefortwenty-sixyears.Beforeheboughtit,ithadbeenrentedand row cropped, with the usual result: It was nearly played out. “The buildings,” he says, “werenothing,”andtherewerenofences.Thefirstyear,theplaceproducedfiveloads(maybefivetons)ofhay,“andthatwasmostlysorrel.”Theonlyhealthyplantsonitwerethespurtsofgrassandcloverthatgrewoutofthepreviousyear’smanurepiles.Thecorncropthatfirstyear“mighthavebeenthirtybushelsanacre,”allnubbins.Thesandysoilblewineverystrongwind,andwhenheplowedthefieldshishorses’feetsankinto“quicksandpotholes”thattheshareuncovered.

The remedy has been a set of farming practices traditional among the Amish since the seventeenthcentury:diversification,rotationofcrops,useofmanure,seedingoflegumes.ThesepracticesbeganwhentheAnabaptistsectsweredisfranchisedintheirEuropeanhomelandsandforcedtotheuseofpoorsoil.Wesawthemstillworkingtorestorefarmed-outsoils inIndiana.Onethingthesepracticesdoisbuildhumus in the soil, andhumusdoes several things: increases fertility, improves soil structure, improvesbothwater-holdingcapacityanddrainage.“Nohumus,you’reintrouble,”Billsays.

After his rotations were established and the land had begun to be properly manured, the potholesdisappeared, and the soil quit blowing. “There’s something in it now—there’s some substance there.”Nowthefarmproducesabundantcropsofcorn,oats,wheat,andalfalfa.Oatsnowyield90-100bushelsperacre.Thecornaverages100-125bushelsperacre,andtheearsarelong,thick,andwellfilled.

Bill’s rotation begins and endswith alfalfa.Every fall he puts in a new seeding of alfalfawith hiswheat;everyspringheplowsdownanoldstandofalfalfa,“nomatterhowgooditis.”Fromalfalfahegoes tocorn for twoyears,planting thirtyacres, twenty-five forearcornand five for silage.After thesecondyearofcorn,hesowsoatsinthespring,wheatandalfalfainthefall.Inthefourthyearthewheatisharvested;thealfalfathencomesonandremainsthroughthefifthandsixthyears.Twocuttingsofalfalfaaretakeneachyear.Aftercuringinthefield,thehayishauledtothebarn,chopped,andblownintotheloft.Thethirdcuttingispastured.

Unlikecowmanure,whichisheavyandchunky,horsemanureislightandbreaksupwellcomingoutofthespreader;itinterfereslesswiththegrowthofsmallseedlingsandislesslikelytobepickedupbyahayrake.OnBill’splace,horsemanure isusedon thefallseedingsofwheatandalfalfa,on theyoungalfalfaafterthewheatharvest,andbothyearsontheestablishedalfalfastands.Thecowmanuregoesonthecorngroundbothyears.Heusuallyhasabout350eighty-bushelspreaderloadsofmanure,andeachyearhecoversthewholefarm—cropland,hayland,andpasture.

Withsuchanabundanceofmanurethereobviouslyisnodependenceonchemicalfertilizers,butBillusessomeasa“starter”onhiscornandoats.Oncornheapplies125poundsofnitrogenintherow.Onoatsheuses200-250poundsof16-16-16,20-20-20,or24-24-24.Heroutinelyspreadstwotonsoflimetotheacreonthegroundbeingpreparedforwheat.

Hisout-of-pocketcostsperacreofcornlastyearwereasfollows:

Seed(plantedatarateofsevenacresperbushel) $7.00Fertilizer $7.75

Herbicide(customapplied,firstyearonly) $16.40

Thatcomestoatotalof$31.15peracre—or,ifthecornmakesonlyahundredbushelsperacre,alittleover$0.31perbushel.Inthesecondyearhisper-acrecostis$14.75,lessthan$0.15perbushel,bringingthetwo-yearaverageto$22.95peracreorabout$0.23perbushel.

Theherbicideisusedbecause,extrahorsesbeingonthefarmduringthewinter,Billhastobuyeightytoahundredtonsofhay,andinthatwaybringsinweedseed.Hehadnoweedproblemuntilhestartedbuyinghay.Eventhoughheusestheherbicide,hestillcultivateshiscornthreetimes.

His cost per acre of oats came to $33.00 ($12.00 for seed and $21.00 for fertilizer)—or, at ninetybushelsperacre,about$0.37perbushel.

OfBill’seightyacres,sixty-twoaretillable.Hehastenacresofpermanentpasture,andsevenoreightofwoodland,whichproducedthe lumberforall thebuildinghehasdoneontheplace. Inaddition,for$500 a year he rents an adjoining eighty acres of “hill and woods pasture” which provides summergrazingfortwentyheifers;andonanotherneighboringfarmherentsvaryingamountsofcropland.

Allthefieldworkisdonewithhorses,andthis,ofcourse,comesvirtuallyfree—aby-productofthehorse-breedingenterprise.BillhasanancientModelDJohnDeeretractorthatheusesforbeltpower.

At the time of our visit, there were twenty-two head of horses on the place. But that number wasunusually low,forBillaimstokeep“aroundthirtyhead.”Hehasabandofexcellentbroodmaresandthreestallions,plusyoungstockofassortedages.SinceOctober1oflastyear,hehadsoldeighteenheadofregisteredBelgianhorses.Inthewintersheoperatesa“urineline,”collecting“pregnantmareurine,”whichissoldtoapharmaceuticalcompanyfor theextractionofvarioushormones.For thispurposeheboardsagoodmanymaresbelongingtoneighbors;thatiswhyhemustbuytheextrahaythatcauseshisweed problem. (Horses are so numerous on this farm because they are one of its money-makingenterprises.Ifhorseswereusedonlyforworkonthisfarm,fourgoodgeldingswouldbeenough.)

Onebadresultof thedramaticrise indrafthorsepricesover thelasteightor tenyears is that ithastendedtofocusattentiononsuchcharacteristicsassizeandcolortotheneglectoflessobviousqualitiessuch as good feet. Tome, foot quality seems a critical issue.A good horsewith bad feet is good fornothingbutdecoration,andat salesandshows thereare far toomany flawed feetdisguisedbyplasticwoodandblack shoepolish.And so Iwaspleased to see that everyhorseonBillYoder’splacehadsound,strong-walled,correctlyshapedfeet.Theyweregoodhorsesallaround,buttheirotherqualitieswerewell-founded;theystoodongoodfeet,andthisspeaksofthethoroughnessofhisjudgmentandalsoofhishonesty.

Thoughhe isamasterhorseman,and thedrafthorsebusiness ismore lucrativenow thanever in itshistory,Billdoesnotspecializeinhorses,andthatisperhapstheclearestindicationofhisintegrityasafarmer.Whatevermaybethedependabilityofthehorseeconomy,onthisfarmitrestsuponadiversifiedagriculturaleconomythatissound.

HewasmilkingfiveHolsteincows;hehadfifteenHolsteinheifers thathehadraisedtosell;andhehadjustmarketedthirtyfinishedhogs,whichisthenumberthatheusuallyhasonhand.All theanimalshad beenwell wintered—Bill quotes his father approvingly: “Well wintered is half summered”—andwereinexcellentcondition.Anothersayingofhisfather’sthatBilllikestoquote—“Keepthehorsesonthesideofthefencethefeedison”—hasobviouslybeenobeyedhere.Thefeedingiscareful,thefeedis

good,anditisabundant.Thoughitwasalmostspring,therewereamplesurplusesinthehayloftandinthecorncribs.

Othersignsofthefarm’sgoodhealthwerethreesizablegardenplots,andnewlyprunedgrapevinesandraspberrycanes.ThegardenerofthefamilyisMrs.Yoder.Thoughmostofthechildrenarenowgonefromhome,Billsaysthatshestillgrowsasmuchgardenstuffassheeverdid.ALLSEVENOFtheYoders’sonsliveinthecommunity.Floyd,theyoungest,isstillathome.Harleyhasahouseonnearlythreeacres,worksintown,andreturnsintheafternoonstohisownshopwhereheworksasafarrier.Henry,whoalsoworksintown,liveswithHarleyandhiswife.Theotherfoursonsarenowsettledonfarmsthattheyarein theprocessofpaying for.Richardhaseightyacres,Orla eighty,Mel fifty-seven, andWilbur eighty.Two sons-in-law also living in the community are Perry Bontrager, who owns ninety-five acres, andErvinMast,whoownssixty-five.CountingBill’seightyacres,thesevenfamiliesarelivingon537acres.Ofthesevenfarms,onlyMel’s isentirelytillable, theacreagesinwoodsorpermanentpasturevaryingfromfivetotwenty-six.

Theseyoungmenhavealltakenoverrun-downfarms,onwhichtheyareestablishingrotationsandsoilhusbandrypracticesthat,beingtraditional,moreorlessresembleBill’s.Itseemedgenerallyagreedthatafter three years of this treatment the landwould grow corn, as PerryBontrager said, “like anywhereelse.”

Thesearegoodfarmers,capableoftheintelligentplanning,soundjudgment,andhardworkthatgoodfarmingrequires.Abusedlandhealsandflourishesintheircare.Noneofthemexpressedawishtoownmoreland;all,Ibelieve,feelthatwhattheyhavewillbeenough—whenitispaidfor.Thebigproblemsarehighlandpricesandhighinterestrates,thelatterapparentlybeingtheworst.

Theanswer,forBill’ssonssofar,hasbeentownwork.Allofthem,afterleavinghome,haveworkedforRedmanIndustries,amanufacturerofmobilehomesinTopeka.Theydopiecework,startingatsevenin themorningandquittingat two in theafternoon,using therestof thedayfor farmingorotherwork.This,Bill thinks, isnow“theonlyway” toget started farming.Evenso, there is“a lotofdebt” in thecommunity—“morethanever.”

With a start in factorywork,with family help,with government and bank loans,with extraordinaryindustry and perseverance, with highly developed farming skills, it is still possible for young Amishfamiliestoownasmallfarmthatwilleventuallysupportthem.Butthereismorestraininthateffortnowthanthereusedtobe,andmorethanthereshouldbe.Whentheburdenofusuriousinterestbecomestoogreat,theseyoungmenarefindingitnecessarytomaketemporaryreturnstotheirtownjobs.

TheonlyonewhospokeofhisincomewasMel,whoownsfifty-sevenacres,which,hesays,willbeenough.HeandhisfamilymilksixHolsteins.Hehadninemaresontheurinelinelastwinter,sevenofwhichbelongedtohim.Andhehadtwelvebroodsows.Lastyearhisgrossincomewas$43,000.Ofthis,$12,000camefromhogs,$7,000fromhismilkcows,therestfromhishorsesandthesaleofhiswheat.Afterhisproductioncosts,butbeforepaymentof interest,henetted$22,000. Inorder tocopewith theinterestpayments,Melwaspreparingtoreturntoworkintown.

TheselittleAmishfarmsthusbecomethemeasurebothof“conventional”Americanagricultureandoftheculturalmeaningofthenationalindustrialeconomy.

To begin with, these farms give the lie directly to that false god of “agribusiness”: the so-calledeconomyofscale.Thesmallfarmisnotananachronism,isnotunproductive,isnotunprofitable.AmongtheAmish, it is still thriving,and isstill theeconomic foundationofwhatJohnA.Hostetler (inAmish

Society,thirdedition)rightlycalls“ahealthyculture.”Thoughtheydonotproducethe“record-breakingyields”sotoutedbythe“agribusiness”establishment,thesefarmsareneverthelesshighlyproductive.Andif theyarenot likely tomaketheirownersrich(neveranAmishgoal), theycancertainlybesaid tobesufficientlyprofitable.Theeconomyof scalehashelpedcorporations andbanks,not farmers and farmcommunities. It has been an economy of dispossession and waste—plutocratic, if not in aim, thencertainlyinresult.

What theseAmishfarmssuggest,on thecontrary, is that in farming there is inevitablyascale that issuitablebothtotheproductivecapacityofthelandandtotheabilitiesofthefarmer;andthatagriculturalproblems are to be properly solved, not in expansion, but in management, diversity, balance, order,responsiblemaintenance,goodcharacter,andinthesensiblelimitationofinvestmentandoverhead.(Billmakesacarefuldistinctionbetween“healthy”and“unhealthy”debt,a“healthydebt”being“oneyoucanhopetopayoffinareasonableway.”)

Mostsignificant,perhaps,isthatwhileconventionalagriculture,blindlyfollowingthetendencyofanyindustrytoexhaustitssources,hasmadesoilerosionanationalcatastrophe,theseAmishfarmsconservethelandandimproveitinuse.

Andwhatisonetothinkofanationaleconomythatdrivessuchobviouslyableandvaluablefarmerstofactorywork?Whatvaluedoessuchaneconomyimposeuponthrift,effort,skill,goodhusbandry,familyandcommunityhealth?

INSPITEOFtheunrelentingdestructivenessofthelargereconomy,theAmish—asHostetlerpointsoutwithacknowledgedsurpriseandrespect—havealmostdoubledinpopulationinthelasttwentyyears.Thedoubling of a population is, of course, no significant achievement. What is significant is that theseagricultural communities have doubled their population and yet remained agricultural communitiesduringatimewhenconventionalfarmershavefailedbythemillions.ThisalonewouldseemtocallforacarefullookatAmishwaysoffarming.Thatthosewayshave,duringthesametime,beenignoredbythecollegesandtheagenciesofagriculturemustrankasaprimeintellectualwonder.

Amishfarminghasbeensoignored,Ithink,becauseitinvolvesacomplicatedstructurethatisatoncebiological and cultural, rather than industrial or economic. I suspect that anyonewhomight attempt anaccounting of the economy of an Amish farm would soon find himself dealing with virtuallyunaccountablevalues,expenses,andbenefits.Hewouldbedealingwithbiologicalforcesandprocessesnotalwaysmeasurable,withspiritualandcommunityvaluesnotquantifiable;atcertainpointshewouldbe dealing with mysteries—and he would be finding that these unaccountables and inscrutables haveresults, amongothers, that are economic.Hardly an appropriate study for the “science”of agriculturaleconomics.

The economy of conventional agriculture or “agribusiness” is remarkable for the simplicity of itsarithmetic.Itinvolvesamanipulationofquantitiesthatareallentirelyaccountable.Listyourcosts(land,equipment,fuel,fertilizer,pesticides,herbicides,wages),addthemup,subtractthemfromyourearnings,orsubtractyourearningsfromthem,andyouhavetheresult.

Suppose,ontheotherhand,thatyouhaveaneighty-acrefarmthatisnota“foodfactory”butyourhome,your given portion ofCreationwhich you aremorally and spiritually obliged “to dress and to keep.”Supposeyoufarm,notforwealth,buttomaintaintheintegrityandthepracticalsupportsofyourfamily

and community. Suppose that, the farm being small enough, you farm it with family work and workexchanged with neighbors. Suppose you have six Belgian brood mares that you use for field work.Suppose thatyoualsohavemilkcowsandhogs,and thatyouraiseavarietyofgrainandhaycrops inrotation.Whathappenstoyouraccountingthen?

Tostartwith,severalofthecostsofconventionalfarmingaregreatlydiminishedordoneawaywith.Equipment, fertilizer,chemicalsallcostmuchless.Fuelbecomesfeed,butyouhavethemaresandarefeedingthemanyway;theworkrationforabroodmareisnotalotmorecostlythanamaintenanceration.Andthehorses,liketherestofthelivestock,aremakingmanure.Figurethatin,andfigure,ifyoucan,thevalueofthedifferencebetweenmanureandchemicalfertilizer.Youcanprobablygetanestimateofthevalueofthenitrogenfixedbyyouralfalfa,buthowwillyouquantifythevaluetothesoilofitsresiduesanddeeproots?Trytocomputethevalueofhumusinthesoil—inimproveddrainage,improveddroughtresistance, improved tilth, improvedhealth.Wages, if you pay your children,will still be amongyourcosts.Butcomputethedifferencebetweenpayingyourchildrenandpaying“labor.”Workexchangedwithneighbors can be reduced to “man-hours” and assigned a dollar value. But compute the differencebetweenaneighborand“labor.”Computethevalueofafamilyoracommunitytoanyoneofitsmembers.Wemay,aswemust,grantthatamongthevaluesoffamilyandcommunitythereiseconomicvalue—butwhatisit?

IntheLouisvilleCourier-JournalofApril5,1981, theMobilOilCorporationrananadvertisementwhichwasyetanothercelebrationof“scientificagriculture.”Americanfarming,theMobilepeopleareofcourse happy to say, “requires more petroleum products than almost any other industry. A gallon ofgasoline toproduceasinglebushelofcorn, forexample. . . .”This, theysay,enables“eachAmericanfarmertofeedsixty-sevenpeople.”Andtheysaythatthisis“a-maizing.”

Well, itcertainly is!Andthechancesaregoodthatanagriculture totallydependentonthepetroleumindustryisnotyetasamazingasitisgoingtobe.ButonethingthatisalreadysufficientlyamazingisthatabushelofcornproducedbytheburningofonegallonofgasolinehasalreadycostmorethansixtimesasmuchasabushelofcorngrownbyBillYoder.HowdoesBillYoderescapewhatmayjustlybecalledthepetroleumtaxonagriculture?Hedoessobyaseriesofsubstitutions:ofhorsesfortractors,offeedforfuel,ofmanurefor fertilizer,ofsoundagriculturalmethodsandpatterns for theexploitivemethodsandpatternsofindustry.Buthehasdonemorethanthat—or,rather,heandhispeopleandtheirtraditionhavedonemore.Theyhave substituted themselves, their families, and their communities forpetroleum.TheAmishuselittlepetroleum—andneedlittle—becausetheyhavethoseotherthings.

IdonotthinkthatwecanmakesenseofAmishfarminguntilweseeit,untilwebecomewillingtoseeit,asbelongingessentiallytotheAmishpracticeofChristianity,whichinstructsthatone’sneighborsaretobelovedasoneself.Tofarmerswhogiveprioritytothemaintenanceoftheircommunity,theeconomyofscale(thatis,theeconomyoflargescale,of“growth”)canmakenosense,foritrequirestheruinationanddisplacementofneighbors.A farmcannotbe increasedexceptby thedecreaseof aneighborhood.What the interestof thecommunityproposes is invariablyaneconomyofproper scale.Awholesetofagriculturalproprietiesmustbeobserved:offarmsize,ofmethods,oftools,ofenergysources,ofplantandanimalspecies.Communityinterestalsorequirescharity,neighborliness,thecareandinstructionofthe young, respect for the old; thus it ensures its integrity and survival. Above all, it requires goodstewardshipof the land, for thecommunity,as theAmishhavealwaysunderstood, isnobetter than itsland. “If treated violently or exploited selfishly,” JohnHostetler writes, the land “will yield poorly.”Therecouldbenobetterstatementofthemeaningofthepracticeandthepracticalityofcharity.Exceptto

theinsanenarrow-mindednessofindustrialeconomics,selfishnessdoesnotpay.

The Amish have steadfastly subordinated economic value to the values of religion and community.What is too readilyoverlookedbya secular,exploitivesociety is that theirwaysofdoing thisarenot“emptygestures”andarenot“backward.”Inthefirstplace,thesewayshavekeptthecommunitiesintactthroughmanyvarietiesofhardtimes.Inthesecondplace,theyconservetheland.Inthethirdplace,theyyieldeconomicbenefits.Thecommunity, the religious fellowship,hasmanykindsofvalue,andamongthem is economic value. It is the result of the practice of neighborliness, and of the practice ofstewardship.Whatmovedmemost,what I likedbest, in thosedayswespentwithBillYoderwas thesenseofthecontinuityofthecommunityinhisdealingswithhischildrenandintheirdealingswiththeirchildren.

Billhashelpedhissonsfinanciallysofarashehasbeenable.Hehashelpedthemwithhiswork.Hehashelpedthembysharingwhathehas—lendingastallion,say,atbreedingtime,orlendingateam.Andhehelpsthembybuyinggoodpiecesofequipmentthatcomeupforsale.“Ifheevergetsanymoney,”hesaysofoneoftheboys,forwhomhehasboughtanimplement,“he’llpaymeforit.Ifhedon’t,he’lljustuseit.”Hehasbeentheirteacher,andheremainstheiradvisor.Buthedoesnotstandbeforethemasadomineeringpatriarchor“authorityfigure.”Heseemstospeak,rather,asarepresentativeoffamilyandcommunityexperience.Intheirrespectforhim,hissonsrespecttheirtradition.Theyaregladforhishelp,advice, and example, but there is nothing servile in this. It seems to be given and taken in a kind offamilialfriendship,respectgoingbothways.

Everywherewewent,whenschoolwasnotinsession,thechildrenwereatthebarns,helpingwiththework,watching, listening, learningtofarminthewayit isbest learned.Wilburtoldusthathiseleven-year-oldsonhadcultivatedtwenty-threeacresofcornlastyearwithateamandaridingcultivator.ThatremindedBillofthewayhetaughtWilburtodothesamejob.

Wilburwaslittlethen,andhelovedtositinhisfather’slapanddrivetheteamwhileBillworkedthecultivator.IfWilburcoulddrive,Billthought,hecoulddotherestofit.Sohegotoffandshortenedthestirrupssotheboycouldreachthemwithhisfeet.Wilburstartedtheteam,andwithinafewstepsbeganplowingupthecorn.

“Whoa!”hesaid.

AndBill,whowaswalkingbehindhim,said,“Comeup!”

Anditwentthatwayforalittlebit:

“Whoa!”

“Comeup!”

AndthenWilburstartedtocry,andBillsaid:

“Don’tcry!Goahead!”

AGoodFarmeroftheOldSchool

(1985)

ATTHE1982DraftHorseSaleinColumbus,Ohio,MauryTelleensummonedmeovertothegroupofhorsemenwith whom he was talking: “Come here,” he said, “I want you to hear this.” One of thosehorsemenwasLancieClippinger,andwhatMaurywantedmetohearwasthestoryofLancie’scorncropoftheyearbefore.

Thestory,whichLancieobliginglytoldagain,wasasinterestingtomeasMauryhadexpectedittobe.Lancie, thatyear,hadplantedfortyacresofcorn;hehadalsobredfortygilts thathehadraisedsothattheirpigswouldbereadytofeedwhenthecornwouldberipe.Thegiltsproduced360pigs,anaverageofnineperhead.When thecornwas ready forharvest,Lanciedividedoff a stripof the fieldwithanelectric fence and turned in the 360 shoats.After the shoats had fed on that strip for awhile, Lancieopenedanewstripforthem.Hethenpickedthestripwheretheyhadjustfed.Inthatway,hefattenedhis360shoatsandalsoharvestedallthecornheneededforhisotherstock.

The shoatsbrought$40,000.Lancie’sexpenseshadbeen for seedcorn,275poundsof fertilizerperacre,andonequartperacreofherbicide.Hedidnotsaywhatthetotalcostsamountedto,butitwasclearenoughthathisnetincomefromthefortyacresofcornhadbeenhigh,inayearwhenthecornitselfwouldhavebroughtperhapstwodollarsabushel.

Attheendofthestory,Iremember,LancieandMauryhadaconversationthatwentaboutlikethis:

“Doyoufarrowyoursowsinafarrowinghouse?”

“No.”

“Oh,youdoitinhuts,then?”

“No,IhaveafieldIturnthemoutin.Ithasplentyofshadeandwater.AndIseethemeveryday.”

Herewas an intelligentman, obviously,who knew the value of doing his own thinking and payingattention,whounderstoodclearlythattheprofitisinthedifferencebetweencostsandearnings,andwhoproceeded directly tominimize his costs. In a timewhen hog farmers often spendmany thousands ofdollarsonhighlyspecializedhousingandequipment,Lancie’s“hogoperation”consistedalmostentirelyofhogs.Hisprincipaloutlaysotherwisewereforthefarmitselfandforfencing.Butwhatstruckmemost,I think,was thewayhehademployednature and thehogs themselves tohisownadvantage.Thebredsowsneededplentyofshade,water,androomforexercise;Lancieprovidedthosethings,andnaturedidtherest.Healsosuppliedhisowncareandattention,whichcamefree;theydidnothavetobepurchasedat an inflated cost from an industrial supplier. And then, instead of harvesting his cornmechanically,hauling it, storing it, grinding it, and hauling it to his shoats, he let the shoats harvest and grind it forthemselves.Hehadtheuseofthewholehog,whereasina“confinementoperation,”thehog’sfeet,teeth,

andeyeshavevirtuallynouseandproducenoprofit.

AtthenextColumbusSale,IhuntedLancieup,andagainwespentalongtimetalking.Wetalkedaboutdraft horses, of course, but also about milk cows and dairying. And that part of our conversationinterestedmeaboutasmuchas thehogstoryhad theyearbefore.Whatso impressedmewasLancie’sbelief that there is a limit to the number of cows that a dairy farmer canmanagewell; he thought themaximumnumbertobeabouttwenty-five:“Ifafellowmilkstwenty-fivecows,he’llseethemall.”Ifhemilksmore than that,Lancie said, even though hemay touch them all, hewill not see them all.As inLancie’saccountofhiscorncropandthe360shoats,theemphasisherewasontheimportanceofseeing,ofpayingattention.Thatthisisimportanteconomically,hemadeclearinsomethinghesaidtomelater:“Youcan takecareof twentyor twenty-fivecowsanddo it right.More,you’reoverlooking things thatcostyoumoney.”Itisnecessary,Lanciethinks,tolimitthescaleofoperation,notonlyindairying,butinallotherenterprisesonthefarmbecauseproperscalepermitsacorrectbalancebetweenworkandcare.The distinction he was making, it seemed to me, was between work, as it has been understoodtraditionallyonthefarm,andprocessing,asitisunderstoodinindustry.

Thosetwoconversationsstayedinmymind,provingusefulmanytimesinmyefforttounderstandthetroubles developing in our agricultural economy. I knew that Lancie Clippinger was one of the bestfarmersoftheoldschool,andIpromisedmyselfthatIwouldvisithimathisfarm,whichIwasfinallyabletodoinOctober1985.

Thefarmisonsomewhatrollingland,surroundedbywoodlotsandbrushyfencerows,sothatithasalittleofthefeelingofalargeforestclearing.Thereare175acres,ofwhichabout135arecropped;therestareinpermanentpastureandwoods.Althoughconvenientlyclosetothestateroad,thefarmisattheendofalane,setofftoitself.Itisprettyandquiet,apleasantplacetoliveandtofarm,aswellastovisit.Lancieandhiswife,VernaBell,boughttheplaceandmovedthereinthefallof1971.

Whenmywife and I drove into theyard,Kathy, oneofLancie’sgranddaughters,whohad evidentlybeenwatchingforus,cameoutofthehousetomeetus.Shetookusoutthroughthebarnlottoagranarywhere Lancie, his sonKeith, and Sherri, another granddaughter, were sacking some oats.Wewaited,talkingwithKathy,while they finished the job,and thenwewentwithLancieandKeith to lookat thehorses.

Lanciekeepsonlygeldings,buyingthematsalesasweanlings,raisingandbreakingthem,sellingthem,and then replacing them with new colts. When we were there, he had nine head: a pair of blackPercherons, a handsome crossbred baywith blackmane and tail, and sixBelgians.Though he prefersPercherons,hedoesnotspecialize;atthesales,hisonlyaimistobuy“coltsthatlooklikethey’llgrowintogoodbighorses.”Hewantsthembigbecausethebigonesbringthebestprices,but,likenearlyalldrafthorsepeoplewhousetheirhorses,hewouldratherhavesmallerones—fifteenhundredpoundsorso—ifhewerekeepingthemonlytowork.

Thehorsesheledoutforuswereinprimecondition,andhehadbeenrightaboutthem:Theyhad,sureenough,grownintogoodbigones.Thesehorsesmaybedestinedforpullingcontestsandshowhitches,butwhiletheyareatLancie’stheyputinalotoftimeatfarmwork—theyworktheirwaythroughschool,youmightsay.Likesomanyfarmersofhistime,Lancieoncemadethechangefromhorsestotractors,butwithhimthisdidnotlastlong.Hewaswithouthorses“foralittlewhile”intheseventies,andafterthathebegantousethemagain.Nowheusesthehorsesfor“justabouteverything”exceptcuttingandbalinghishayandpickinghiscorn.Lastspringheusedhisbigtractoronlytwodays.Thelasttimehewentto

useit,itwouldn’tstart,andheleftitsittingintheshed;itwasstillsittingthereatthetimeofourvisit.

Partofthejustificationforthereturntotheuseofhorsesiseconomic.Whenhewasdoingallhisworkwithtractors,Lancie’sfuelbillwas$6,000ayear;nowitisabout$2,000.Sincethehorsesthemselvesareaprofit-makingenterpriseon this farm, the$4,000 they saveon fuel ismoney in thebank.But theeconomicreasonisnottheonlyone:“Pleasure,”Lanciesays,“isabigpartofit.”Attheyear’send,hisbankaccountwill showadifference that thehorseshavemade,butdaybydayhis reasonforworkingthemisthathelikesto.

Hedoesnotneedninehorses inorder todohis farming.Hehas somanybecauseheneeds tokeepreplacementsonhandforthehorseshesells.Heaims,hesays,tosell“twoorthreeorfourhorseseveryyear.”Tofarmhis175acres,heneedsonlyfourgoodgeldings,althoughhewouldprobablyliketokeepfive,incaseheneededaspare.Withfourhorsesonhisgraindrill,hecanplantfifteenortwentyacresinaday.Heusesfourhorsesalsoonaneight-foottandemdiskandaspringtoothharrow,andhecanplanttwelveorfifteenacresofcornaday“andnothalftry.”

Inplowing,hegoesbytheoldruleofthumbthatyoucanplowanacreperhorseperday,providedthehorsesareinhardcondition.“Ifyoustartatseveninthemorningandstaytherethewayyououghtto,”hesays,“youcanplow threeacresadaywith threehorses.”That iswhathedoes,andhedoes itwithawalking plow because, he says, it is easier towalk than to ride. That, of course, is hardly a popularopinion,andLancieisamusedbythesurpriseitsometimescauses.

Onespring,hesays,afterhehadstartedplowing,heorderedsomelime.Whenthetruckerbroughtthefirst load,hestoppedbythehousetoaskwheretospreadit.Mrs.ClippingertoldhimthatLanciewasplowing,andpointedouttothefieldwhereLanciecouldbeseenwalkinginthefurrowbehindhisplowandteam.Thetruckerwasastonished:“EventheAmishride!”

In1936,Lancieremembers,heplowedahundredacres,sixtyoftheminsod,withtwohorses,BobandJoe.Together, that teamweighedabout thirty-fivehundredpounds.Theywereblacks.Lanciehadbeenloggingwiththembeforehestartedplowing,andtheywereingoodshape,readytogo.Theyplowedtwoacresaday,sixdaysaweek,fornearlynineweeks.Itisthesortofthing,oneguesses,thatcouldhavebeendoneonlybecausealltheconditionswereright:astrongyoungman,atoughteam,agoodseason.“Lookedlike,backthen,therewasn’tanybadweather,”Lanciesays,laughing.“Youcouldworkallthetime.”

Thisfarmer’sextensiveuseoflivehorsepowerispossiblebecausehisfarmistherightsizeforitandbecauseasensiblerotationofcropsbothreducestheacreagetobeplowedeachyearanddistributestheotherfieldworksothatnottoomuchneedstobedoneatanyonetime.Ofthefarm’s135arableacres,approximatelyfifty-fivewillbeincorn,fortyinoats,andfortyinalfalfa.Eachofthecropswillbegrownonthesamelandtwoyearsinordertoavoidbuyingalfalfaseedeveryyear.

Thetwo-year-oldalfalfa,turnedunder,suppliesenoughnitrogenforthefirstyearofcorn.Inthesecondyear,thecorncropreceivesalittlecommercialnitrogen.Theroutineapplicationoffertilizeronthecornis275poundsperacreof10-10-20,drilledintotherowwiththeplanter.Theoatsarefertilizedat thesamerateasthecorn,whilethealfalfafield,becauseLanciesellsquiteabitofhay,receives600poundsperacreof3-14-42intwoapplicationseveryyear.Thelandislimedatarateoftwotonsperacreeverytime it is plowed. Otherwise, for fertilization Lancie depends on manure from his cattle and horses.“That’swhatcounts,”hesays.Itcountsbecauseitpaysbutdoesnotcost.Heusuallyhasenoughmanuretocoverhiscorngroundeveryyear.

Thissystemofmanagementhasnotonlymaintainedtheproductivecapacityofthefarmbuthasgreatlyimprovedit.Fourteenyearsago,whenLanciebeganonit,theplacewasfarmedout.Thepreviousfarmerhadploweditallandplanteditallincornyearafteryear.Whenthefarmsoldinthefallof1971,thecorncrop, whichwas still standing, was bought by a neighboring farmer, who found it not worth picking.Lancieploweditunderthenextspring.Inordertohaveacorncropthatfirstyear,heused900poundsoffertilizertotheacre—300poundsofnitrogenand600of“straightanalysis.”Afterthat,whenhisrotationsandotherrestorativepracticeshadbeenestablished,hewenttohispresentrateof275poundsof10-10-20.Theresultingratesofproductionspeakwellforgoodcare:Thecornhasmade150bushelsperacre,Lanciesays,“foralongtime”;thisyearhisoatsmade109bushelsperacre,andhealsoharvested11,000fifty-poundbalesof alfalfahay froma forty-acre field (aper-acreyieldof about seven tons) and sold4,800balesfor$12,000.

Inadditiontoseedandfertilizer,Lanciepurchasessomeinsecticideandherbicide.Thisyearhisalfalfawassprayedonceforweevils,andheusedahalf-pintof2-4-Dperacreonhiscorn.The2-4-D,hesays,wouldnothavebeennecessaryifhehadcultivatedfourtimesinsteadoftwice.Usingthechemicalsavedtwocultivationsthatwouldhaveinterferedwithhayharvest.

WhatismostsignificantaboutLancie’smanagementofhiscropsisthatitgiveshisfarmadegreeofindependence that isunusual in these times.The farm, firstofall, isorderedandusedaccording to itsown nature and carrying capacity, not according to the dictates of farm policy, expert advice, orfluctuationsoftheeconomy.Thepossibilityofsolvingone’seconomicproblemsbyproductionaloneisnot,inLancie’sopinion,agoodpossibility.Ifyouarelosingmoneyonthecornyouproduce,hepointsout,themoreyouproducethemoreyoulose.Thatsomanyfarmerscontinuetocompensateforlowgrainpricesbyincreasingproduction,atgreatcosttotheirfarmsandtothemselves,isasortofwondertohim.“The cheaper it is, themore they plow,” he says. “I don’t knowwhat theymean.”His own farm, bycontrast,growsapproximatelythesameacreagesofthesamecropseveryyear,notbecausethatiswhattheeconomysupposedlydemands,butbecausethatiswhatthelandcanproduceattheleastcostforthelongesttime.

Since the farm itself is somuch the sourceof itsown fertilityandoperatingenergy,Lancie’suseofpurchasedsuppliescanbeminimal,selective,andnonaddictive.Becausehiscroppingpatternandsystemofmanagementaresound,Lanciecanbuythesethingstosuithisconvenience.Histotalexpensefor2-4-Dforhiscornthisyear,forexample,was$56—averysmallpricetopayinordertohavehishandsandhismindfreeathayingtime.Thepoint,Ithink,isthathehadachoice:Hecouldchoosetodowhatmadethemostsense.Afurtherpoint is thathecanquitusingchemicalsandpurchasedfertilizer if itevermakeseconomicsensetodoso.Asafarmer,heisnotaddictedtothesethings.

Theconventionalindustrialfarmer,ontheotherhand,istoooftentheprisonerofhisowntechnologyandmethodsandhasnochoicebuttocontinuetodoashehasdone,whateverthedisadvantages.Afarmerwhohasnofencescannotturnhogsintoharvesthiscornwhenpricesarelow.Afarmerwhohasinvestedheavilyinafarrowinghouseandalltheequipmentthatgoeswithitisstuckwiththatinvestment.If,forsomereason,itceasestobeprofitableforhimtoproducefeederpigs,hestillhasthefarrowinghouse,which is good for little else, and perhaps a debt on it as well. Thus,mental paralysis and economicslaverycanbeinstitutedonafarmbythefarmer’stechnologicalchoices.

One of the main results of Lancie Clippinger’s independence is versatility, enabling him to takeadvantagequicklyofopportunitiesastheyappear.Becausehehasinvestedinnoexpensivespecializedequipment,hecanchangehiswaystosuithiswishesorhiscircumstances.Thathedidwellraisingand

finishingshoatsoneyeardoesnotmean thathemustcontinue to raise them.Lastyear, for instance,hethoughttherewasmoneytobemadeonskinnysows.Heboughtsixty-twoat$100ahead,turnedthemintohiscornfield,and,whiletheyate,hepicked.“Weallworkedtogether,”hesays.Thesowsdidanearlyperfectjobofgleaningthefield,andtheybrought$200aheadwhenhesoldthem.

Thereisadirecteconomicpayoffinthisfreedomofchoice:Itpaystobeabletochoosetosubstituteateamofhorsesforatractor,ormanureforfertilizer,orcultivationforherbicides.Whenyoucultivateafieldofcorn,asLanciesays,“you’resellingyourlabor”;inotherwords,youensurearelationbetweenproductionandconsumptionthatisproperbecauseitmakessoundeconomicsense.Ifthefarmerdoesnotachievethatproperrelationonhisfarm,hewillbeavictim.WhenLancieprepareshisgroundwithplowandharrowandcultivateshiscropinsteadofbuyingchemicals,heisaproducer,notaconsumer;heissellinghislabor,notbuyinganexpensivesubstituteforlabor.Moreover,whenhedoesthiswithateamofhorsesinsteadofbuyingfuel,heissellinghisteam’slabor,notpayingforanexpensivesubstitute.Whenheuseshisowncorn,oats,andhaytoreplacepetroleum,heissellingthosefeedsforafarhigherreturnthanhecouldgetonthemarket.Heandhishorsesarefunctioning,ineffect,assolarconverters,makingusable andprofitable the free sunlight that fallsonto the farm.Theyareproducingathome the energy,weedcontrol,andfertilitythatotherfarmersaregoingbroketryingtopayfor.

Theindustrialfarmerconsumesmorethanheproducesandisacaptiveconsumerofthesupplierswhohaveprosperedbytheruinationofsuchfarmers.Sofarasthenationaleconomyisconcerned,thiskindoffarmerexistsonlytoprovidecheapfoodandtoenrichtheagribusinesscorporations,athisownexpense.

SometimesLancie’s intelligentmethodsandhishabitofpayingattentionyieldunexpecteddividends.Theyearafterhehoggeddownthefortyacresofcornwiththe360shoats,thefieldwascoveredwithanexcellentstandofalsikeclover.“Itwaspretty,”Lanciesays,buthedidn’tknowwhereitcamefrom.Heaskedaroundintheneighborhoodanddiscoveredthatthefieldhadbeeninalsikeseventeenyearsbefore.Theseedhadlaininthegroundallthattime,waitingforconditionstoberight,andsomehowthehogshadmadethemright.Thus,thatyear’sveryprofitablecornharvest,whichhadbeensowellplanned,resultedinavaluablegiftthatnobodyhadplanned—orcouldhaveplanned.Thereisnorecipe,sofarasIknow,for making such a thing happen. Obviously, though, a certain eligibility is required. It happened onLancie’sfarmundoubtedlybecauseheisthekindoffarmerheis.Ifhehadbeenplowingthewholefarmeveryyearandplantingitallincorn,ashispredecessorhad,suchathingwouldnothavehappened.

Itiscare,obviously,thatmakesthedifference.Thefarmgivesgiftsbecauseitisgivenachancetodoso;itisnotovercroppedoroverused.OneofLancie’skindnessestohisfarmishisregularrotationofhiscrops; another is his keeping of livestock, which gives him not only the advantages I have alreadydescribedbutalsopermitshimtomakeappropriateuseof landnotsuited to rowcropping.Likemanyfarms in theallegedly flatcornbelt,Lancie’s farm includessome land thatshouldbekeptpermanentlygrassed,andonhisfarm,unlikemany,itiskeptpermanentlygrassed.Hecanaffordthisbecausehecanmakegooduseofitthatway,withoutdamagingit,forthesethirtyorsoacresgivehimfivehundredbalesofbluegrasshayearlyintheyearand,afterthat,monthsofpasture,atthecostonlyofasecondclipping.Thecroponthatlanddoesnotneedtobeplantedorcultivated,anditisharvestedbytheanimals;itisthereforethecheapestfeedontheplace.

LancieClippingerisasmuchinthebusinessofgrowingcropsandmakingmoneyonthemasanyotherfarmer.Butheisalsointhebusinessofmakingsense—makingsense,thatis,forhimself,notfortheoil,chemical,andequipmentcompanies,orforthebanks.Heistakinghisownadvice,andhisadvicecomesfromhisexperienceand theexperienceof farmers likehim,not fromexpertswhoarenot farmers.For

thosereasons,LancieClippingerisdoingallright.Heisfarmingwellandearningalivingbyitinatimewhenmanyfarmersarefarmingpoorlyandmakingmoneyforeverybodybutthemselves.

“Idon’tknowwhattheymean,”hesays.“You’dthinksomeinthebunchwouldusetheirheadsalittlebit.”

CharlieFisher

(1996)

IDON’TIMAGINECHARLIEFishertoldmeeverythinghehasdone,butinthedayandahalfIspentwithhimIdidfindoutthathewasraisedonatruckfarm,thatforawhileherodebullsandexhibitedatrickhorseon therodeocircuit, thatasayoungmanheworkedforadairyman,and that laterhehadadairyfarmofhisown.Hisinterestinloggingandinworkinghorsesbeganwhilehewasahiredhandinthedairy.Inthewinter,betweenmilkings,heandhiselderlyemployerspent their timeinthewoodsatoppositeendsofacrosscutsaw—which,Charliesays,madehimtirederthanitmadetheolddairyman.Theycutsomebigtimberanddraggedoutthelogswithhorses.TheolddairymansawthatCharlielikedworkinghorsesandwasgoodatit.Andsoitwasthathebecamebothateamsterandalogger.

Thoughhe triedotheremployment, those twoearly interestsstayedwithhim,andhehasspentmanyyearsloggingwithhorses.Thereweretimeswhenheworkedalone,cuttingandskiddingoutthelogsbyhimself.Later,hissonDavidbegantoworkwithhim,skiddingoutthelogswhileCharliecut.David,whoisnowtwenty-two,virtuallygrewupinthewoods.Hestartedskiddinglogswitha teamwhenhewasnine,andheisstillworkingwithhisfather,asbothteamsterandlogcutter.

Nine years ago, nearAndover in northeastOhio,Charlie Fisher and JeffGreen formed a company,ValleyVeneer,whichinvolvesbothaloggingoperationandasawmill.Charliebuysthestandingtimber,marksthetreesthataretobecut,andsupervisestheloggingcrews,whileJeffkeepsthingsgoingatthemillandmarketsthelumber.

Themillemployseightorninehands,anditsawsthreemillionboardfeetayear.Itprovidesalocalmarketforlocaltimber.ThisobviouslyisgoodfortheeconomyoftheAndoverneighborhood,butitalsoisgood for the forest.Byestablishing themill,Charlie and Jeffhave invested in theneighborhoodandformed a permanent connection to it, and so they have an inescapable interest in preserving theproductivityof the local forest.Thusa local forest economy, if it is complexenough,will tendalmostnaturallytoactasaconserverofthelocalforestecosystem.ValleyVeneer,accordingtoCharlieandJeff,hasbeenwarmlyreceivedintotheneighborhood.Thecompanydealswiththeonlylocallyownedbankinthearea.Thebankershavebeennotonlycooperativebutalsofriendly,attimesofferingmorehelpthanCharlieandJeffaskedfor.

Themill yard is the neatest I have ever seen.The logs are sorted and ricked according to species.Veneerlogsarelaiddownseparatelywithoneendrestingonapole,sothattheycanbereadilyexaminedbybuyers.Themill crew is skillful in salvaginggood lumber fromdamagedor inferior trees.This isextremely important, as is Jeff ’smarketing of lumber from inferior species such as softmaple, for itmeansthatthecuttinginthewoodsisneverlimitedtothebesttrees.Charliemarksthetrees,knowingthatwhateverthewoodlandcanproperlyyield—softmapleorfinefurniture-qualitycherryortreesdamaged

by disease or wind—can be sawed into boards and sold. The mill seemed to me an extraordinarilyefficientplace,wherenothingofvalueiswasted.Twentypercentoftheslabsaresoldforfirewood;therestgotothechipperandareusedforpulp.Thesawdust issoldtofarmers,whouseitasbeddingforanimals.

Thewoodsoperation—Charlie’sendofthebusiness—consistsofthreeloggingcrews,eachmadeupofone fallerand two teamsters.Eachof the teamstersworks twohorsesona loggingcartor“loggingarch.”AndsoCharlie routinelyemploysninemenand twelvehorses.At times, thecutteralsowilldosomeskidding,andthisincreasesthenumberofteamsinuse.Thethreecrewswillusuallybeatworkatthreedifferentsites.

Mostly they log small, privately owned woodlots within a radius of forty or fifty miles. Charlierecentlycountedupandfoundthathehadlogged366differenttractsoftimberinthelastthreeyears.Andtherearecertainadvantagestoworkingonthisscale.Inahorseloggingoperation,itisbesttolimittheskiddingdistancetofiveorsixhundredfeet,thoughCharliesaystheysometimesincreaseittoathousand,and they can go somewhat farther in winter when snow or freezingweather reduces the friction. Bigtracts,however,involvelongerdistances,andeventuallyitbecomesnecessaryeithertobuildaroadforthe truckor touseabulldozer tomove the logs fromwhere the teamstersyard themin thewoods toasecondyardingplaceaccessiblefromthehighway.Forthispurpose,inadditiontoalogtruckequippedwithahydraulicloadingboom,ValleyVeneerownstwobulldozers,oneequippedwithafork,onewithablade,andbothwithwinches.Evenso,about98percentofthelogsaremovedwithhorses.

The logging crewswork theyear round and in allweather except pouring rain.The teamsters,whofurnish their own teams and equipment, receive forty dollars per thousand board feet. Two of histeamsters,Charliesays,makemorethanthirtythousanddollarsayeareach.

Theloggingarch,incomparisontoamechanicalskidder,isaveryforthrightpieceofequipment.Likethe forecart that iswidelyused for fieldwork, it is simplyaway toprovideadrawbar for a teamofhorses.Thereareanumberofdifferences indesign,but themajordifference is that the loggingarch’sdrawbarisweldedonedge-upandhasslotsinsteadofholes.Theslotsaremadesoastocatchandholdthelinksofalogchain.Eachcartcarriesaneighteen-footchainwithagrabhookateachend.Fourmetalhooks (which Charlie calls “log grabs,” but which are also called “J-hooks” or “logging dogs”) arelinkedtoringsandstrungonthechain,thuspermittingthecarttodrawasmanyasfourlogsatatime.Thechaincanalsobeusedatfulllengthifnecessarytoreachahard-to-get-tolog.Largerlogsrequiretheuseoftongs,whichtheteamstersalsocarrywiththem,ortwograbsdrivenintothelogonoppositesides.Thecartsareequippedalsowithacanthookanda“skipper”withwhichtodrivethegrabsintothelogandknockthemoutagain.

Theslotteddrawbarpermitsthechaintobehandilyreadjustedasthehorsesworkalogintopositionforskidding.Whenthelogisreadytogo,itischainedascloselyaspossibletothedrawbar,sothatwhenthe horses tighten the fore end of the log is raised off the ground. This is themajor efficiency of theloggingarch:Bythusraisingthelog,thearchbothkeepsitfromdiggingandreducesitsfrictionagainstthegroundbymorethanhalf.

Wewatchedateamdragoutatwelve-footlogcontainingabout330boardfeet.Theywerewellloadedbutwerenotstraining.Charliesaysthatateamcanhandleuptofiveorsixhundredboardfeet.Forbiggerlogs,theyuseanadditionalteamorabulldozer.Agoodteamstercanskid3,000to3,500boardfeetadayinsmalllogs.Thetrick,Charliesays,istoknowwhatyourhorsescando,andthenseethattheydothat

muchoneverypull.Overload,andyou’re resting toomuch.Underload,andyou’rewastingenergyandtime.Theimportantthingistokeeploadedandkeepmoving.

Charlie Fisher is a man of long experience in the woods and extensive knowledge of the timberbusinessandofloggingtechnology.Hehasnoprejudiceagainstmechanicalequipmentassuch,butusesitreadily according to need; for a time, during his thirties, he usedmechanical skidders. That thismangreatlyprefershorsesforuseinthewoodsisthereforeofconsiderableinterest.Iaskedhimtoexplain.

His first reason, and themost important, is one I’dheardbefore fromdraft horsemen: “I’ve alwayslikedhorses.”CharlieandDavidareclearlythesortofmenwhocan’tquitelivewithouthorses.Betweenthem, they own six excellent, very large Belgian geldings and two Belgian mares. Charlie, as heexplained,ownsthreeandahalfhorses,andDavidfourandahalf.Thetwohalves,fortunately,belongtothe same horse, which Charlie and David own in partnership. Charlie has long been an enthusiasticparticipant in pulling contests, andDavid has followed in his father’s footsteps in the arena as in thewoods.Lastseason,Davidparticipatedintwenty-threecontestsandCharlieinfive,whichforhimwasmanyfewerthanusual.Charlieandhiswife,Becky,showedusseveralshelvescrowdedwithtrophies,manyofwhichwereDavid’s.Itlookedtomeliketheyaregoingtoneedmoreshelves.CharlieandBeckyare very proud of David, who is an accomplished logger and horseman. David, Charlie says, is anexceptionallyquiethandwithateam—unlikeCharlie,whoconfessed,“Iholler.”Sincetheywouldhavethehorsesanyhow,Charliesaid,theymightaswellputthemtoworkinthewoods,whichkeepsthemfitandallowsthemtoearntheirkeep.

Charlie’ssecondreasonforusinghorsesinthewoods,almostasimportantasthefirst,isthathelikesthewoods, and horses leave thewoods in better condition than a skidder.A team and a logging archrequireamuchnarrowerroadwaythanaskidder;unlikeaskidder,theydon’tbarktrees;andtheyleavetheirskiddingtrailsfarlessdeeplyrutted.“Thehorse,”Charliesays,“willalwaysbetheanswertogoodlogginginawoods.”

A third attractive featureof thehorse economy in thewoods is that thehorse loggerboth earns andspendshismoneyinthelocalcommunity,whereasthemechanicalskiddersiphonsmoneyawayfromthecommunityandintothehandsoflargecorporatesuppliers.Moreover,thehorselogger’skindertreatmentofthewoodswill,inthelongrun,yieldaneconomicbenefit.

And,finally,horsesworkfarmorecheaplyandcostfarlessthanaskidder,thusrequiringfewertreestobecutperacre,andsopermittingthehorseloggertobemoreselectiveandconservative.

(Another issue involved in the use of horses for work is that of energy efficiency. Legs are moreefficientthanwheelsoverroughground—somethingthatwillquicklybeapparenttoyouifyoutryridingabicycleoveraplowedfield.)

Well ahead of the logging crews, Charlie goes into thewoods tomark the trees that are to be cut.Exceptwhenheisworkingfora“developer”whoisgoingtocleartheland,Charlieneverbuysormarkstreeswiththeideaoftakingeveryonethatismarketable.Hispurposeistoselectanumberoftrees,oftenthosethatneedcuttingbecausetheyarediseasedordamagedorotherwiseinferior,whichwillprovideareasonable income to landownerand logger alike,withoutdestroying thewood-makingcapacityof theforest.Thepointcanbestbeunderstoodbyconsideringthedifferencebetweenayear’sgrowthaddedtoatreefourteeninchesindiameterandthataddedtoatreefourinchesindiameter.Clear-cuttingoranyotherkind of cutting that removes all the trees of any appreciable size radically reduces the wood-makingcapacityoftheforest.Aftersuchacutting,inCharlie’spartofthecountry,itwillbesixtytoahundred

yearsbeforeanothercuttingcanbemade.Ofaclear-cutwoodlandthatadjoinedoneofhisowntracts,Charliesaid,“Infiftyyearstherestillwon’tbeadecentloginit.”

Charliedoesnotbelievethatsuchpracticesaregoodfortheforestorthepeople—or,ultimately,forthe timber business. He stated his interest forthrightly in economic terms, but his is the right kind ofeconomics:“Ihopemaybethere’llbe treeshereformysontocut in tenor twentyyears.”Ifyoudon’toverdothecutting,hesays,awoodlandcanyieldacashcropeverytentofifteenyears.Welookedatonetract of twenty acresonwhichCharlie hadmarked about160 trees andwritten theowner a check for$23,000.Charliedescribed thisas“ayoungpieceof timber,”andhe said that it “definitely”couldbeloggedagainintenyears—atwhichtimehecouldbothtakemoreandleavemoregoodtreesthanhewilltakeandleaveatthiscutting.

Owners of wooded land should consider carefully the economics of this twenty-acre tract. If it isselectively and carefully logged every ten years, as Charlie says it can be, then every acrewill earn$1,150 every tenyears, or $115per year.And this comes to the landownerwithout expenseor effort.(These particular figures, of course, apply only to this particularwoodlot. Some tractsmight bemoreproductive,othersless.)

Welookedatmarkedwoodlands,atwoodlandspresentlybeing logged,andfinally,at theendof theseconddayofourvisit,atawoodlandthatoneofCharlie’screwshadloggedthreeyearsago.Thelast,astand predominantly of hard and soft maples, provided convincing evidence of the good sense ofCharlie’skindofforestry.Veryfewof theremainingtreeshadbeendamagedbytreesfelledduringthelogging. I sawnot a single tree thathadbeenbarkedbya skidded log.The skid trailshadcompletelyhealedover;therewasnosignoferosion.And,moststriking,thewoodlandwasstillecologicallyintact.Itwasstilladiverse,uneven-agedstandoftrees,manyofwhichwereoversixteeninchesindiameter.Wemadeaphotographofthreetrees,standingfairlyclosetogether,whichvariedindiameterfromseventeento twenty-one inches.After logging, theforest isstilla forest,and itwillgoonmakingwoodvirtuallywithoutinterruptionordiminishment.Itseemsperfectlyreasonabletothinkthat,ifseveralgenerationsofownersweresoinclined,thissortofforestrycouldeventuallyresultinan“oldgrowth”forestthatwouldhaveproducedasteadyincomefortwohundredyears.

Iwas impressedbyagoodmany thingsduringmyvisitwithCharlieFisher,butwhat impressedmemost is the way that Charlie’s kind of logging achieves a complex fairness or justice to the severalinterests that are involved: thewoods, the landowner, the timber company, thewoods crews and theirhorses.

Charliebuysstandingtrees,andhemarkseverytreehebuys.Withinafairlynarrowmarginoferror,Charlieknowswhathe isbuying, and the landownerknowswhathe isgettingpaid for.WhenCharliegoesintomarkthetrees,heisthinkingnotjustaboutwhathewilltake,butalsoaboutwhathewillleave.Heseestheforestasitis,andheseestheforestasitwillbewhentheloggingjobisfinished.Ithinkheseesittooasitwillbeintenorfifteenortwentyyears,whenDavidoranotherloggerwillreturntoit.Bythislong-termcare,heservestheforestandthelandowneraswellashimself.Ashemarksthetreesheisthinkingalsooftheloggingcrewthatwillsoonbethere.Hemarkseachtreethatistobecutwithaslashofredpaint.Sometimes,wherehehasseenaleaningdeadfalloradeadlimboraflawinthetrunk,hepaintsanarrowabovetheslash,andthismeans“Lookup!”Thehorses,likethemen,arecarefullyborneinmind.Everywhere,theaimistodotheworkinthebestandthesafestway.

Moreover, thesearenot competing interests,but seem rather tomerge intooneanother.Thusoneof

Charlie’seconomicstandards—“Ihopemaybe there’llbe treeshere formyson tocut in tenor twentyyears”—becomes,inapplication,anecologicalstandard.Andtheecologicalstandardbecomes,again,aneconomicstandardasitprovestobegoodforbusiness.

Most landowners, Charlie says, care how their woodlands are logged. Though they may need theincomefromtheirtrees,theydon’twanttosacrificethehealthorbeautyoftheirwoodsinordertogetit.Charlie’swayofloggingrecommendsitselftosuchpeople;hedoesnotneedtoadvertise.Asweweredrivingawayfromhishouseonthemorningofoursecondday,oneoftheneighborswavedustoastop.This man makes his living selling firewood, and he had learned of two people who wanted theirwoodlands loggedby a horse logger.That is thewaybusiness comes to him,Charlie said.Likeotherhorseloggers,hehasalltheworkhecando,andmore.Ithasbeentenyearssincehehashadtohuntforwoodlotstolog.Hesaid,“Everybodyelsehasbuyersoutrunningtheroads,lookingfortimber.”Buthecan’tbuyallthatheisoffered.

Idon’tknowthatIhaveevermetamanwithmoreenthusiasmsthanCharlieFisher.Ihavementionedalreadyhis abounding interest in his family, in forestry, and inworking and pulling horses, but I haveneglectedtosaythatheisalsoacoonhunter.Thisseemstomeamostrevealingdetail.Hereisamanwhomakes his living bywalking the woods all day, andwho then entertains himself by walking thewoodsatnight.

Hetoldmethathehadalistofseveralthingshehadplannedtodowhenheretired,butthatnow,atsixty-six,heisbusierthanever.

“Well,”Isaid,“youseemtobeenjoyingit.”

“Oh,”hesaid,“Iloveit!”

ATalentforNecessity

(1980)

IN THE DAYS when the Southdown ram was king of the sheep pastures and the show ring, HenryBesudenofVinewoodFarminClarkCounty,Kentucky,wasperhapsthepremierbreederandshowmanofCounty, Kentucky, was perhaps the premier breeder and showman of Southdown sheep in the UnitedStates.Thelistofhiswinningsatmajorshowswouldbetoolongtoputdownhere,butthecharacterofhis achievement can be indicated by his success in showing carload lots of fat lambs in the ChicagoInternationalLivestockExposition.Starting in1946, he sent eighteen carloads to the International, andwonthecompetitiontwelvetimes.“Ihad’emfat,”hesays,remembering.“Ihad’emgood.”Suchwastheesteemanddemandforhisstockamongfellowbreedersthatin1954hesoldayearlingramfor$1,200,thenarecordpriceforaSouthdown.

OnewouldimaginethatsuchaccomplishmentsmusthaverestedontheverybestofBluegrassfarmland.But the truth, nearly opposite to that, is much more interesting. “If I’d inherited good land,” HenryBesudensays,“I’dprobablyhavebeenjustanotherBluegrassfarmer.”

What he inherited, in fact, was 632 acres of rolling land, fairly steep in places, thin soiled evenoriginally,andbythetimehegotit,worn-out,“cornedtodeath.”Hisgrandfatherwouldrentthelandouttocorn,twohundredacresatatime,andnotevengetuptoseewhereitwouldbeplanted—eventhough“itwasunderstoodtobetherulethatrentersruinedtheland.”BythetimeHenryBesudenwaseightyearsoldbothhismotherandfatherweredead,andthelandwasfarmedbytenantsunderthetrusteeshipofaCincinnatibank.When the farmcame tohim in1927, itwasheavilyencumberedbydebtandcoveredwithgullies,someofwhichweredeepenoughtohideastandingman.

AndsoMr.Besudenbeganhislifeasafarmerwiththeoddsagainsthim.Buthispredicamentbecamehiseducationand, finally,his triumph.“Iwas lucky,”he toldGrantCannonofTheFarmQuarterly in1951.“IfoundthatIhadsometalentfordoingthethingsIhadtodo.Ihadtoimprovethefarmorstarvetodeath;andIhad togo into the sheepbusinessbecause sheepwere theonlyanimals thatcouldhavelivedoffthefarm.”

Nowseventy-sixyearsoldandnotinthebestofhealth,Mr.Besudenhasnotownedasheepforseveralyears, but he speaks of themwith exact remembrance and exacting intelligence; he is one of the besttalkersIhavehadthelucktolistento.Howdidhegetstartedwithsheep?“Iwastoldthey’deatweedsandbriars,”hesays,lookingsidewaysthroughpipesmoketoseeifIgettheconnection,fortheconnectionbetweensheepandlandisthecriticaloneforhim.Thehistoryofhissheepandthehistoryofhisfarmareonehistory,anditishisown.

Havingonly talentandnecessity—andunusualenergyanddetermination—Mr.Besudensetabout therestorationofhisravagedfields.TherewasnoSoilConservationService then,butayoungmaninhis

predicamentwasboundtogetplentyofadvice.Tocheckerosionhefirsttriedbuildingrockdamsacrossthegullies.Thatwasn’tsatisfactory;thedamsdidcatchsomedirt,butthenthefieldsweremarredbyhalf-buried rockwalls that interferedwithwork.He triedhugewindrowsofweeds andbrush to the samepurpose,butthatwasnotsatisfactoryeither.

Someoftheworstgulliesheeventuallyhadtofillwithabulldozer.Buthismainerosion-stoppingtoolturnedout,strangelyenough,tobetheplow,thetoolthatinthewronghandshadnearlyruinedthefarm,intherighthandshealedit.Startingattheedgeofagulleyhewouldrunabackfurrowuponesideanddowntheother,continuingtoplowuntilhehadcompletedasizableland.Andthenhewouldstartatthegulleyagain, turning the furrows inward as before.He repeated this processuntilwhat hadbeen aditchhadbecomeasaucer, so that the runoff, rather thanconcentrating its force inanabrasive torrent,wouldbeshallowly dispersed over aswide an area as possible. This, as he knew, had been themethod of therenterstopreparethegulliedlandforyetanothercropofcorn.Forthem,ithadbeenatemporaryremedy;hemadeitapermanentone.

NowadaysKentuckyfescue31wouldbethegrasstosowonsuchplaces,butfescuewasnotavailablethen.Mr.Besudenusedsmallgrains,timothy,sweetclover,Koreanlespedeza.Heusedmulches,andhedidnotoverlooktheusefulnessofwhatheknewforcertainwouldgrowonhisland—weeds:“Briarsareagoodthingforalittlehollow.”Inplacesheplantedthicketsofblacklocust—anativeleguminoustreethatwouldservefourpurposes:holdtheland,encouragegrasstogrow,provideshadeforlivestock,andproduceposts.Buthishighestpraiseisgiventothesweetcloverwhichhecalls“thebestlandbuilderI’veeverruninto.It’llopenupclay,andthrowalotofnitrogenintotheground.”Thegrasswouldcomethen,andtherealhealingwouldstart.

Once the landwas ingrass,hispolicygenerallywas to leave it ingrass.Only thebest-laying, leastvulnerable land was broken for tobacco, the region’s major money crop then as now. Even today, Inoticed,hesees thathis fieldsareplowedveryconservatively.Theplowlandsaresmallandcarefullyplaced,leavingoutthinplacesandwaterways.

Thebasicworkofrestorationcontinuedfortwenty-threeyears.By1950thescarsweregrassedover,andthelandwassupportingoneofthegreatSouthdownflocksofthetime.Butitwasnothealed.Whatwasthereisgone,andHenryBesudenknowsthatitwillbealongtimebuildingback.“’Tain’tingoodshape,yet,”hetoldaninterviewerin1978.

And so ifMr.Besuden built a reputation as one of the best of livestock showmen, the focus of hisinterestwasneverthelessnottheshowringbutthefarm.Itwouldbetrue,itseems,tosaythathebecameamaster sheepman and shepherd as one of theways of becoming amaster farmer. For this reason, hisstandards of quality were never frivolous or freakish, as show-ring standards have sometimes beenaccusedofbeing,but insistentlypractical.Henever forgot that thepurposeofa sheep is toproducealivingforthefarmerandtoputgoodmeatonthetable:“Whentheyaskedme,‘Whatdoyouconsideraperfectlamb?’Isaid,‘Oneafarmercanmakemoneyon!’Thefoundationhastobethecommercialflock.”AndhewroteinpraiseoftheSouthdownramthat“hepaidhisrent.”

Butitwasperhapsevenmorecharacteristicofhimtowritein1945that“oneveryimportantthingisthatsheeparelandbuilders,”andtopleadfortheircontinuedinclusioninfarmlivestockprograms.Hehadseenthehandwritingonthewall:thenewemphasisonrowcroppingand“production”whichintheyearsafterWorldWarIIwouldradicallyalterthebalanceofcropsandanimalsonfarms,andwhich,ashefeared,wouldhelptodestroythesheepbusinessinhisownstate.(In1947,Mr.Besuden’scountyof

Clarkhadtwenty-fourbreedingflocksofSouthdowns,and30,000headofgradeewes.ThatismorethanremainnowinthewholestateofKentucky.)Whathecalledforinstead—andeventsarerapidlyprovinghimright—was“a long-timeprogramof landbuilding”bywhichhemeantawayof farmingbasedongrass and forage crops, which would build up and maintain reserves of fertility. And in that kind offarming,hewaspreparedtoinsist,becauseheknew,sheepwouldhaveanimportantplace.

“Ithink,”hewroteinhisseriesofcolumns,“SheepSense,”publishedinTheSheepman in1945and1946,“thefertilizingeffectofsheeponthefarmhasneverreceivedtheattentionitdeserves.Asonewhohashadtofarmpoorlandwheretheleastamountoffertilizershowsupplainly,Ihavenoticedthatonlandoftenthoughttoopoorforcattlethesheepdowellandintimebenefitthecropsandgrasstosuchanextentthatotherstockcanthenbecarried.Ihaveseldomseensheepbeddownforthenightonanythingbuthighland, and their droppings are evenly scattered on the pasture while grazing, so that no vegetation iskilled.”

Whathewantedwas“awayof farmingcompatiblewithnature”; thiswas theconstant themeofhiswork, and he followed it faithfully, both in his pleasure in the lives and events of nature and in hispracticalsolutionstotheproblemsoffarmingandsoilhusbandry.Hewasnevertoobusytoappreciate,andtopraise,thespiritualby-products,ashecalledthem,offarmlife.Norwashetoobusytoattendtothesmallestneedsofhis land.Atonetime,forexample,hebuilt“twosmallhousesonskids,”eachofwhichwould hold twenty-five bales of hay.These could be pulled to placeswhere the soilwas thin,wherethehaywouldbefedout,andthenmovedontoothersuchplaces.(Inthespringtheycouldbeusedtoraisechickens.)

“It’sgoodtohaveNatureworkingforyou,”hesays.“Sheworksforaminimumwage.”Butinreadinghis“SheepSense”columns,onerealizesthathenotonlydidnotseparatethespiritualfromthepractical,butinsistedthattheycannotbeseparated:“Thisthingofsoilconservationinvolvesmorethanlayingoutafewterracesanddiversionditchesandsowingtograssandlegumes,italsoinvolvestheheartofthemanmanagingtheland.Ifheloveshissoilhewillsaveit.”Once,hesays,hethoughtofnumberinghisfields,butdecidedagainstit—“Thatdidn’tseemfairtothem”—foreachhasitsowncharacterandpotential.

Asa rule,hewouldhave400headofewes in two flocks—aflockof registeredSouthdownsandaflockof“Western”commercialewes.Afterlambing,hewouldberunningsomethingintheneighborhoodof 1,000head.To handle somany sheep on a diversified farm required a great deal of care, andMr.Besuden’s system of management, worked out with thorough understanding and attention to detail, isworththeinterestandreflectionofanyraiseroflivestock.

It was a system intended, first of all, to get the maximum use of forage. This rested on what heunderstandstobeasoundprincipleoflivestockfarmingandsoilconservation,butitwasforceduponhimbythepoorqualityofhisland.Hehadtokeeprowcroppingtoaminimum,andifthatmeantbuyinggrain,thenhewouldbuyit.Buthedidnotbuymuch.Heusuallyfed,hetoldme,onepoundofcornpereweperdayforsixtydays.Butin“SheepSense”forDecember1945,hewrote:“One-halfpoundgrainwiththreepoundslegumehayshoulddothejob,startingwiththehayandaddingthegrainlater.”Hecreep-fedhisearlylambs,buttookthemoffgrainassoonaspasturewasavailable.In“SheepSense,”March1946,hestatedflatlythat“creep-feedingaftergoodgrassarrivesdoesnotpay.”

Grain, then,heconsiderednotadiet,butasupplement,almostanemergencyration, toensurehealthandgrowthintheflockduringthetimewhenhehadnopasture.Itmustberememberedthathewastalkingaboutakindofsheepbredtomakeefficientuseofpastureandhay,andthatthemarketthenfavoredthat

kind.InthedecadesfollowingWorldWarII,cheapenergyandcheapgrainallowedinteresttoshifttothelargerbreedsofsheepandlargerslaughterlambsthatmustbegrain-fed.Butnowwiththecostofenergyrising, pushing up the cost of grain, and the human consumption of grain rising with the increase ofpopulation,HenryBesuden’ssentenceofagenerationagoresoundswithgoodsense:“Duetotheshortageofgrainthroughouttheworld,thesheepfarmerneedstostudythepossibilitiesofgrassfattening.”

Those, anyhow, were the possibilities that he was studying. And the management of pasture, themanagementofsheeponpasture,washisart.

Inthefallhewouldselectcertainpasturesclosetothebarntobeusedforlategrazing.Thisiswhatisnow called “stockpiling”—which, he points out, is only a new word for old common sense. It wassometimespossible, infavorableyears, tokeeptheewesongrassall throughDecember,feeding“verylittlehay”and“asmallamountofgrain.”Sometimeshesowedryeearlytoprovidelatefallpastureandsoextendthegrazingseason.

His eweswere bred to lamb in January andFebruary.He fed good clover or alfalfa hay, and fromabout themiddleofJanuary toabout themiddleofMarchhegave theewes theirsixtydaily rationsofgrain.Inmid-Marchthegrain-feedingended,andewesandlambswentoutonearlypastureofryewhichhadbeensownasacovercropon the lastyear’s tobaccopatches.“AsackofBalboa ryesown in theearlyfall,”hewrote,“isworthseveralsacksoffeedfedinthespringandismuchcheaper.”Fromtheryetheywent to the clover fieldswhere tobaccohadgrown twoyears before.From the clover theyweremovedontothegrasspastures.Themarketlambsweresoldstraightoffthepastures,ateightytoeighty-fivepounds,startingthefirstofMay.

Afterfescuebecameavailable,Mr.Besudenmadeextensiveuseofitinhispastures.Buthefeelsthatthisgrass,thoughanexcellentlandconserver,isnotnutritiousorpalatableenoughtomakethebestsheeppasture,andsohetookpainstodiversifyhisfescuestandswithtimothyandlegumes.HisfavoritepasturelegumeisKoreanlespedeza,thoughhejoinsinthefairlycommoncomplaintthatitislessvigorousandproductivenowthanitusedtobe.Hehasalsousedredclover,alsike,ladino,andbirdsfoottrefoil.Hesays that he had trouble getting his ewes with lamb in the first heat when they were bred on cloverpastures,butthatheneverhadthistroubleonlespedeza.

Hispastureswereregularlyreseededtolegumes,usuallyinMarch,thesheeptrampingintheseed,andhefoundthismethodof“renovation”tobeasgoodasany.Thepastureswereclippedtwiceduringthegrowingseason,sometimesoftener,tokeepthegrowthvigorousanduniform.

Thekey toefficientmanagementofsheeponpasture ispayingattention,and itwas important toMr.Besudenthatheshouldbeonhorsebackamonghissheepintheearlymornings.Thesheepwouldbeoutoftheshadethen,grazing,andhecouldstudytheirconditionandtheconditionofthefield.Hespeaksofthe“bloom”ofapasture,referringtoacertainfreshnessofappearancemadebynew,tendergrowthspriggingupthroughtheold.Whenthatbloomisgone,hethinks,thesheepshouldbemoved.Themovefromastalepasturetoafreshonecanlengthenthegrazingtimebyasmuchastwohoursaday.Hebelievesalsothatlambsdobestwhentheflockisnottoolarge.Thatisbecausesheeptendtobunchtogetherwhengrazing,theleastvigorouslambscominglastandhavingtofeedongrassmouthedoverandrejectedbytheothers.Hesawtoitthathispastureswereamplyprovidedwithshade,andheknewthattheshadeneededtobewellplaced:“Ithinkthebestlamb-growingpasturesIhavearetheoneswheretheshadeisclosetothewater.IhaveseentimesduringJulyandAugustwhensheepwouldnotleavetheshadeandgotowateriftheshadeandwaterhappenedtobeatoppositeendsofalargefield.”

Thecrisisoftheshepherd’syear,ofcourse,islambingtime.Thatisthetimethattheyear’sworkstandsor falls by. And because it usually takes place in cold weather, the success of lambing is almost asdependent on the shepherd’s facilities as on his knowledge. The lambing barn at Vinewood is aninstructive embodiment ofMr.Besuden’s understanding of hiswork and his gift for order.He gives agooddescriptionofithimselfinoneofhiscolumns:

PracticallyallthelambinghereatVinewoodinrecentyearshasbeeninabarnespeciallymadeforthepurpose,shiplap(tonguegroove)boxingwithalowloftandawindowineachbent.Theeastendofthebarn[awayfromtheprevailingwinds]israrelyeverclosed,agatebeingused.Ofteninextremelycoldweatherthetemperaturecanberaisedfifteenortwentydegreesbytheheatfromthesheep.Somethirty feetout in the frontandextending thewidthof thebarn [is]aheavy layerof rock. . . .Thispreventsthemuddyplacethatoftenappearsatthebarndoorand...pullsatthesheepastheywalkthroughit,causingslippedlambs.Alsoattheentrance...alocustpostishalfembeddedacrossthedoor.Thisservesasaprotectionincaseofdogstryingtodigunderthedoororgateandhelpstoholdthebeddinginthebarnasthesheepgoout.Anykindofasillthatistoohighorcausestheheavy-in-lambewestojumporstraintocrossistoorisky.

Thebarnisadmirablylaidout,withpens,chutes,andgatestopermitthefeeding,handling,sorting,andloadingofalargenumberofsheepwiththeleasttrouble.Therewerelambingpensforfortyewes.Therewasalsoa small roomwithpens thatcouldbeheatedbyastove.Aboveeachpenwasa redwooden“button”thatcouldbeturneddowntoindicatethataewewasneartolambingorforanyotherreasoninneed of close attention. These were used whenMr. Besuden had an experienced helper to share thenighttimedutywithhim.“Theysavedalotofcoldmidnighttalk,”hesays.

Butexperiencedhelpwasnotalwaysavailable,andthenhewouldhavetoworkthroughthedaysandnightsoflambingalone.Stayingawakewouldgettobeaproblem.Sometimes,sittingbesideoneofthepens,waitingforaewetolamb,hewouldtieastringfromoneofherhindlegstohiswrist.Whenherlaborpainscameandshebegantoshiftaround,shewouldtugthestringandhewouldwakeupandtendtoher.

Andsothetalentforwhathe“hadtodo”wasinlargemeasuretheabilitytobearthegoodoutcomeinmind: toenvision, inspiteofrocksandgullies, thegoodhealthof thefields; toforeseein thepregnantewesand the advancing seasons agoodcropof lambs.And itwas the ability to carry inhishead fornearly half a century the ideal character and pattern of the Southdown, and to measure his animalsrelentlesslyagainstit—anability,rareenough,thatmarkedhimasamasterstockman.

Hetoldmeastorythatsuggestsverywell thedistinctionandtheeffectof thatability.OnoneofhistripstotheInternationalhecompetedagainstawesternsheepmanwhohadselectedhiscarloadoffiftyfatlambsoutoftenthousandhead.

AftertheVinewoodcarloadhadwontheclass,thisgentlemancameupandasked:“Howmanydidyoupickyoursfrom,Mr.Besuden?”

“Aboutseventy-five.”

“Well,”thewesternbreedersaid,“Iguessit’sbettertohavetherightseventy-fivethanthewrongtenthousand.”

Buttheabilitytorecognizetherightseventy-fiveisworthlessbyitself.Justasnecessaryistheabilitytodotheworkandtopayattention.Topayattention,aboveall—thatisanotherofthepersistentthemesof

Mr.Besuden’stalkandofhislife.Heisconvincedthatpayingattentionpays,andthissetshimapartfromthemechanized“modern”farmerswhoarepushedtoacceptmoreresponsibility thantheycanproperlymeet,andtoworkatfreewayspeeds.Hewroteinhiscolumnoftheimportanceof“littlethingsdoneontime.”Hesaidthattheypaid,butheknewthatpeopledidthemformorethanpay.

Hetoldmealsoaboutafarmerwhocouldn’tscrapethemanureoffhisshoesuntilhecametoaspotthatwasbareofgrass.“That’swhatImean,”hesaid.“Youhavetokeepitonyourmind.”

ElmerLapp’sPlace

(1979)

THE THIRTY COWS come up from the pasture and go one by one into the barn.Most of them areGuernseys,but therearealsoafewredHolsteinsandacoupleofJerseys.Theygoto theirplacesandwaitwhiletheirneckchainsarefastened.AndthenElmerLapp,hisoldestson,andhisyoungestdaughtergo about thework of feeding, washing, son, and his youngest daughter go about thework of feeding,washing,andmilking.

Inthelow,squareroom,lightedbyarowofbigwindows,aradioisquietlyplayingmusic.Severalwhitecatssitaroundwaitingformilktobepouredoutforthemfromthetestcup.Twocolliedogsrestbythewall,outoftheway.SeveralbuffCochinbantamsarebusilyforagingforwhateverwastegraincanbefoundinthebeddingandinthegutters.Overhead,fastenedtotheceilingjoists,aremanybarnswallownests, theirmud cups empty now at the end ofOctober. Two rusty-barreled .22 rifles are propped inwindowframes,kepthandytoshootEnglishsparrows,andtherearenosparrowstobeseen.Outsidethedoorabredheiferandarathertimewornpetjennyareeatingtheirsuppersoutoffeedboxes.Beyond,onthestreamthatrunsthroughthepasture,wildducksareswimming.Theshadowshavegrownlongunderthelow-slantingamberlight.

This is a farm of eighty-three acres that has been in the Lapp family since 1915, five years beforeElmerLappwasborn,andhehasbeenhereallhislife.ThreeyearsagoanewhousewasbuiltforMr.Lapp’soldestson,whoishisfarmingpartner,fatherandsondoingallthecarpentrythemselves.Exceptforthefourorfivedaysamonththatthesonworksoffthefarm,thetwohouseholdstaketheirlivingfromthisplace,plusfourteenacresofrentedpastureandfortyacresofhayharvestedonthesharesonafarmsomedistanceaway.Theyarefarmingthen,alltold,117acres.

BecausethisfarmisinLancasterCounty,Pennsylvania,inanenclaveofAmishandMennonitefarmsthat has become a “tourist attraction,” the Lapps are able to supplement their agricultural income bysellingfarmtours,chickenbarbecue,andhomemadeicecreamtobusloadsofschoolchildrenandtourists.Butasprofitableasidelineasthisundoubtedlyis,itshouldnotdistractfromtheeconomicandecologicalgoodhealthofthefarmoperationitself.Atatimewhensomanysmallfarmsarestrugglingorfailing,itmaybeeasy to suspect that this farmsurvivesbydependenceon the tourist industry. Idonot thinkso.Here,atleast,theoppositewouldseemtobetrue:Thesidelinesucceedsbecausethemainenterpriseisasuccess.

Standing in the stanchionbarnwhile thecowsarebeingmilked, I am impressedbyhowquietly theworkisdone.Novoiceisraised.Thereisneverasuddenorviolentmotion.Althoughtheworkisquicklydone,noonerushes.Andfinallycomestherealizationthattheroomisquietbecauseitisorderly:Allthecreatures there,peopleandanimalsalike, areat restwithinapatterndeeply familiar to themall.That

evening and the day following, as I extend my acquaintance with the farm and with Elmer Lapp’sunderstandingofit,Iseethatquietchoretimeasanucleusorgatheringpointinapatternthatincludesthewhole farm. The farm is thriving because what I would call its structural problems have beensatisfactorilysolved.Thepatternsnecessarytoitslifehavebeenperceivedandworkedout.

THECOMMERCIALPATTERN

IN ITS COMMERCIAL aspect, this is a livestock farm. Its crops are not grown to sell, but to feedanimals.Themainenterprisesarethethirty-cowdairy,andelevenBelgianbroodmares.

Mr.Lapp’sdairyherdismadeupmainlyofGuernseysbecause,hesays,“Bigcowseattoomuch.”AndtherichermilkoftheGuernseysbringsapremiumprice.HisfewHolsteinsareredones,becausetheirmilkisricherthanthatoftheblacks.Theirmilk“testswiththeGuernseys’,”Mr.Lappsays.

HenowsellsmanufacturingmilktothepeoplewhomakeHersheychocolate.HeusedtoshipGradeA,but quit, he says, because “TheGradeA guys got undermy hide.You could never satisfy them.Theyalways wanted something else.” At several points in our conversationMr. Lapp showed this sort ofindependence.Heisnotamantoputuplongwithanythinghedoesnotlike.Andthis,again,Itakeasanindicationofhissuccessasafarmer.Heisindependentbecausehecanaffordtobe.

Atpresent,inadditiontothethirtymilkingcows,hehastwelveheifers,sixofwhichhehasjuststartedon thebucket.He likes tohaveacoupleofheiferscomingfresheachyear.Hesellshisbullcalvesasbabies.His heifer calves are started onmilk replacer,which he considers better for the purpose thanmilk.Theyaregiventwoquartsatafeeding.

WhenIaskMr.Lappwhatafarmercouldexpecttomakefromafarmofthissize,managedasthisoneis, he replies by saying that he sells $20,000 to $30,000worth ofmilk each year.Last year his dairygrossed$25,000.

Iaskhimhowmuchofthatwasnet.

Hecan’ttellmeexactly,hesays.Hebought$5,000worthofsupplements,butthatincludedextrafeedforhischickens,horses,andcalves.And,ofcourse,someoftheexpensewasoffsetbythesaleofbullcalvesandheifers.Asidefromthisinformation,hedescribeshisincomebysaying“Ipaytaxes.”

Mr.Lappoffersno informationabouthis income fromhishorses.But themarket fordrafthorses isbooming,andonemustsupposethattheLappfarmissharinginthepayoff.LastyearMr.Lappsoldninehead.Thispastseasonhehasbredelevenmares.Healsohasanincomefromhisstallionwhoserves,hesays,“alltheoutsidemaresIcanhandle.”Besidesthebroodmaresandthestallion,hepresentlyhasonhandatwo-year-oldfilly,twoyearlingfillies,twoyearlingstudcolts,andtwofoals.

HeprefersthedraftiertypeofBelgians,butwantsthemlong-leggedenoughtowalkfast,andbecauseheworkshishorsesheisattentivetotheneedforgoodfeet.Alongwiththosepracticalvirtues,helikeshishorsestoshowagooddealofrefinement,andinselectingbreedingstockpaysparticularattentiontoheadsandnecks.Amonghismaresareseveralthatarehalforfullsisters,andthisgiveshishorsesaverynoticeableuniformityofbothcolorandconformation.

Becauseforsomereasonhislandwillnotproduceoatsofsatisfactoryquality,Mr.Lappgrowsbarley

forhishorses.IfbarleywasgoodenoughhorsefeedforKingSolomon,hesays,itisgoodenoughforhim.Hecrimpsorgrindsthebarleyandaddsmolasses.

Unlikemanyhorsemen,Mr.Lapphasnoelaborateloreorprocedureforbreedingmares.Heservesamareonlyonce,onwhateverdayhenoticesthatsheisinheat.Andheseesnosenseinpregnancytestsorexaminations.Evenso,hesays,hehasnotroublegettingmarestoconceive—orcowseither,exceptwithartificialinsemination.

But justbecausehismajor income is fromdairycowsandbroodmares,Mr.Lappdoesnot shuthiseyestootheropportunities.“Youstayawake,”hesays.Heknowswhatwillsell,andsofarashisplaceandtimeallowhehasitforsale.Hefeedsthreehundredguineasatatimeinasmallloft.Heraisesandsells collie pups.He sells his surplus of eggs and honey. Even the barn cats contribute their share ofincome,forwhenhegetstoomanyhesellsthesurplusatthelocalsalebarn.

THEPATTERNOFSUBSISTENCE

THOUGHTHELAPPfarmiscommerciallyprofitableitsbalancesheetwouldfallfarshortofaccountingforthelifeoftheplace,orevenforitseconomy.

ElmerLappiseminentlyatraditionalfarmerinthesensethathisfarmishishome,hislife,andhiswayoflife—notjusthis“workplace”orhis“job.”Forthatreason,thoughhisfarmproducesacashincome,thatisnotallitproduces,andsomeofwhatitproducescannotbevaluedincash.

Inobedience to traditionalprinciple, theLapps take their subsistence from the farm,and theyareasattentivetotheproductionofwhattheyeatastotheproductionofwhattheysell.Thefarmisexpectedtomakeaprofit,butitmustmakesensetoo,andapartofthatsenseisthatitmustfeedthefarmers.Andsoapatternofsubsistencejoins,andatcertainpointsoverlaps,thecommercialpattern.

Forinstance,theLappsdrinktheirownmilk.Iknowthatalotofdairyingfamiliesbuytheirmilkatthegrocerystore,andsoIaskMr.Lappwhyhedoesn’tbuymilkforhisownhousehold.

Heanswersunhesitatingly:“Idon’tlikethatslop.”

Healsogrowsagarden.Hehasanorchardofapple,peach,andplumtreesforfruit,andforblossomsforhisbees.Heisfeedingfourhogs,boughtcheaplybecausetheywererunts,toslaughterforhomeuse.Heslaughtershisownbeef,andproduceshisownpoultry,eggs,andhoney.

Heisalsoawarethatthepatternofsubsistenceisacommunitypattern.Hesays,forinstance,thathedealswiththelittlecountrystoresratherthanthesupermarketsinthecity.Thelittlecountrystoressupportthelifeofthecommunity,whereasthesupermarketssupport“theeconomy”attheexpenseofcommunities.

THEPATTERNSOFSOILHUSBANDRY

UNDERLYINGTHE PATTERNS of the farm’s productivity is a stewardship of the soil at all points

knowledgeable, disciplined, and responsible. And this stewardship, necessarily, has evolved its ownappropriatepatterns.

Inanyyear,Mr.Lappwillhavetwenty-twoacresincorn(twelveforsilage,tentohusk),twenty-fiveacres incloveroralfalfa, tenacres inbarleyorrye,andtherest inpermanentpasture.Therotationis,mainly,asfollows:

Firstyear:Cornforhusking.

Secondyear:Silagecorn.

Third year: Barley, planted in preceding fall, with clover and timothy sowed broadcast onto frozengroundinspring.Afterthebarleyisharvested,thefieldproducesonecuttingofhay.

Fourthyear:Cloverandtimothy(twocuttings).

Fifthyear:Backtocorn.

Thispatternisvariedintwoways.Wherealfalfaissowedinsteadofclover,thefieldisleftinsodforthreeorfouryearsinsteadoftwo.Andwhenryeissowedinsteadofbarley,theryeisflail-choppedinthebloomandbaledforbedding,andthelandisreturnedtosilagecornthesameyear.

Thewholefarmiscoveredwithmanureeachyear,atarate,Mr.Lappfigures,ofabouteighttonsperacre.Andcareistakentogetthemanureonattherighttime.Iaskifthisuseofmanuredidnotreducetheneedforcommercialfertilizer.“Idon’tbuyanyfertilizer,”Mr.Lappsays.(Hedoesuseanherbicideonhiscornfields,butonlybecausethetimewhencornneedscultivationisalsothetimewhenheisbusiestwithtours.)

Thepresentsystemofrotationandfertilizationhasbeeninuseonthisfarm,Mr.Lappsays,“aslongasI remember.”Buthehimself,with thecountyagent’shelp, laid the farmoff in three-acrestrips tohelpcontrolrunoffanderosion.Yeteventhoughsoilconservationcantoaconsiderableextentbeformalizedinsetpatternsoflayoutandrotation,thereisstillaneedforvigilanceandintelligentimprovisation.Thisfall,for instance, thebarleyiscomingontoolatetoprovidegoodwinterprotection.Asaremedy,Mr.Lappsays,hewillcoverthebarleyfieldswithstrawymanureonthefirstmorningthegroundisfrozen.Thatwillprotectthefieldsthroughthewinterwithoutsmotheringthebarley.

Oneofthebestwaystomeasurethequalityofsoilhusbandryandtherichnessofsoilonafarmistolookatitsfirst-yearhayfields.Howquicklywillcloverandgrassmakeasodafterthelandhasbeenrowcropped?Howhealthyandproductive is it?Theheight,density, color, anduniformityof theplantsallhaveataletotell.Mr.Lappleadsthewayuppasthisgardentoafour-acrehayfieldthatisgoodinallrespects.Itwassowedinthespringtoredclover,timothy,andalittlealsikeforthebees.ThebarleywastakenoffinJuly.AndtheninearlyOctoberthefieldwasmowedforhay,yielding400bales.Nextyear,itmayreasonablybeexpectedtoyield800-1,000balesonthefirstcutting,and500-600onthesecond.

TWOKINDSOFHORSEPOWER

WHENELMERLAPPwas still just a boy, his father, recognizing a gift in him, gave him the colts towork.

“Madeyoualittleproud?”Isay.

Hegrinsandnods.“Iguessitdidalittlebit.”

Because he is a capable horseman and likes horses, he has never quit using them—although he hascertain uses for a tractor aswell. “I’d rather drive horses than a tractor,” he says. “I have themhere,they’reeating,soImightaswellusethem.I’mdoingmyworkwhileI’mhavingpleasure.IfIdidn’tenjoyitIwouldn’tdoit.”

Heusesatractorforwhatatractordoesbest,andhorsesforwhattheydobest,keepinginmindalwaysthescaleofhisoperation.“Ona small farm,”hesays,“youdon’tneedexpensiveequipment.”Andheseemsimmunetothehorsepowerintoxicationthatleadssomanysmallfarmerstobuylargertractorsthentheyneed.Hepaid$2,000foraJohnDeere60twentyyearsago,andisstillusingit.Itwillpullathree-bottomplow.Whenheneedsatractorforanoccasionalheavierjob,suchassilofilling,hehiresalargerone.Hedoes all his plowing andhaybalingwith his tractor, anduses it to loadmanure.Heuses hishorses tospreadmanure,plantcorn,clippasture, rakeandhaulhay. Ifhe is“notpushed toohard,”heusesthemalsoinseedbedpreparation.Heissurethathegets thisworkdonecheaperwithhorsesthanwithatractor—evensettingasidethevalueoftheircolts.

Hesaysthatrubber-tiredequipmentisfareasieronhorsesthanthesteel-tired,becausethetiresabsorbmuchoftheshockwhenworkingoverroughground.Andhedislikeswidehitcheslargelybecausetheytooarehardonhorses.Onaneight-foottandemdiskhewillhitchtwoinfrontandthreebehind—or,ifthefootingissolidandthegoingrelativelyeasy,hewillworkasmanyasfourabreast.Hesaysthatheseesfartoomuchmistreatmentofhorsesthroughignoranceandindifference—somethingheresentsandtries,sofarashecan,tocorrect.

Theuseof thehorses,whose feed is grownon the farm,greatly extendsMr.Lapp’sdependenceonsolarenergy,andgreatlyreduceshisdependenceonincreasinglyexpensivefossilfuelenergy.Thetractorisusedtosupplementtheenergyalreadyavailableonthefarm.

Inadditiontothetwovarietiesofhorsepower,thefarmmakesasmalluseofwaterpower.Thestreamis dammed and the impoundedwater used to turn a smallwaterwheelwhich, in turn,works awaterpump.Itisanothermanifestationofthisfarm’sthriftiness.Mr.Lapplooksattheescapingwaterwithsomeregret:“That’sallgoingtowaste.”

AWELL-PLANNEDBARN

THELAPPSAREjustcompletingasmallbarnthatisagoodexampleofthecareandthesenseoforderthathavegoneintothemakingoftheirfarm.

Thisisa“bankbarn”withadrive-inloft,approximatelythirtybyforty-eightfeet.Thelowerstoryisafeedingareathatwillaccommodatefivehundredguineasinthesummerandtwelveheifersandperhapsasmanyyounghorsesinthewinter.Itisdividedacrossthemiddlebyafeedbunkwhichextendsoutintoalot.

Theupperstorywillhaveacorncribacrosseachend,eightfeetwidebyfourteendeep.Theareainthecenterwillbeforstorageofhayandequipment.Thecribsaretobeventilatedbylatticesalongthelower

partoftheoutsidewalls.Outside,theselatticeswillbeshelteredbyawnings,fourfeetwideononeend,butontheotherendtenfeetwidetoprovideyetmoreshelterforequipment.

Allpossibilitiesofsite,shape,andusehavebeenconsidered.

THEECOLOGICALPATTERN

CONCERNED AS HE is that the usable be put to use, that there be no waste, still there is nothingutilitarianormechanistic aboutMr.Lapp’s farm—orhismind.His aim, it seems, is not that theplaceshouldbeputtothefullestuse,butthatitshouldhavethemostabundantlife.Thebestfarmers,SirAlbertHowardsaid,imitatenature,notleastintheloveofvariety.ElmerLappanswerstothatdefinitionasfullyasanyfarmerIhaveencountered.Likenatureherself,heandhisfamilyseempreoccupiedwiththefillingofniches.

Drivingintotheplace,oneisawarebeforeanythingelsethatwhereverflowerscanbegrownflowersaregrowing;bedsandbordersareeverywhere.Thebarnswallownestsinthemilkingbarnarenottherejustbyhappenstance;littlewoodenstepshavebeennailedtothejoiststoencouragethemtonestthere.Elmer Lapp has defended them against milk inspectors—“If those barn swallows go, I’m goingsomewhereelsewithmymilk”—andagainstthecats,whichhepensupduringthenestingseason,“iftheygetnasty.”

Among the wild creatures, he seems especially partial to birds. Wild waterfowl make themselvespeacefullyathomealonghispasturestream,andhespeaksofhisfailuretoattractmartinswithobviousgrief.Onecanjustifytheexistenceofbirdsby“insectcontrol,”butonecanalsolikethem.ElmerLapplikesthem.Hisoneacknowledgedregretabouthisplaceisthatitdoesn’thaveawoodlot.Hecouldusethe firewood;hewould also like thewild creatures itwould attract.Abovehis rowofbee-hives is aborderofsudangrassthathehasletgotoseedforthebirds.

He likes too the buff Cochin bantams that live in themilking barn and the stable—they scatter themanurepilesandsokeepfliesfromhatching—andthegoldfishwholiveinthedrinkingtroughandkeepthewaterclean.Walkingaroundtheplace,Ikeepbeingsurprisedbysomeothercreaturethathasfoundroomandboardthere,andiscontributingalittlesomething—maybeonlypleasure—inreturn:peafowl,wildturkeys,pigeons,apairofbobwhites.

Foramangiftedlypractical,Mr.Lapp justifieswhathehasanddoes remarkablyoftenbyhis likes.One finally realizes that on theLapp farmone is surroundedby an aboundingvarietyof lives that arethere, and are thriving there, because Elmer Lapp likes them. And from that it is only a step to therealizationthatthecommercialenterprisesofthefarmarelikewisethere,andthriving,becausehelikesthemtoo.TheBelgiansand theGuernseysareprofitable, in largepart,because theywere likedbeforetheywere profitable.Mr. Lapp is as fine a farmer as he is because liking has joined his intelligenceintricatelytohisplace.

And that is why the place makes sense. All the patterns of the farm are finally gathered into anecologicalpattern; it isone“household,”itsvariousparts joinedtoeachotherandthewholejoinedtonature, to theworld,by liking,bydelightedandaffectionateunderstanding.Theecologicalpattern isapatternofpleasure.

ONTheSoilandHealth

(2006)

IN1964MYwifeTanyaandIboughtaroughandneglectedlittlefarmonwhichweintendedtogrowasmuch of our own food as we could.My editor at the timewasDanWickendenwhowas an organicgardenerandwhosefather,LeonardWickenden,hadwrittenapracticaland inspiringbook,GardeningwithNature,whichIboughtandread.TanyaandIwantedtoraiseourownfoodbecausewelikedtheidea of being independent to that extent, and becausewe did not like the toxicity, expensiveness, andwastefulnessof“modern”foodproduction.GardeningwithNaturewaswrittenforpeoplelikeus,andithelpedustoseethatwhatwewantedtodowaspossible.IaskedDanwherehisfather’sideashadcomefrom,andhegavemethenameofSirAlbertHoward.MyreadingofHoward,whichbeganatthattime,hasneverstopped,forIhavereturnedagainandagaintohisworkandhisthought.IhavebeenawareofhisinfluenceinvirtuallyeverythingIhavedone,andIdon’texpecttograduatefromit.Thatisbecausehiswayof dealingwith the subject of agriculture is also awayof dealingwith the subject of life in thisworld.Histhoughtissystematic,coherent,andinexhaustible.

SirAlbertHowardpublishedseveralbooksandalsomanyarticlesinjournalsofagriculturalscience.The two of his books that are best knownwere addressed both to general readers and to his fellowscientists:AnAgriculturalTestamentandTheSoilandHealth.Hewasbornin1873toafarmingfamilyinShropshire,andhediedin1947.

An Agricultural Testament and The Soil and Health are products of Howard’s many years as agovernmentscientistinIndia,duringwhichheconceived,andsetuponasoundscientificfooting,thekindofagriculturetowhichhisfollowershaveappliedtheterm“organic.”Butby1940,whenthefirstofthesebookswaspublished,theindustrializationofagriculturehadalreadybegun.By1947,whenTheSoilandHealth was published, World War II had proved the effectiveness of the mechanical and chemicaltechnology that in the coming decades would radically alter both the practice of agriculture and itsunderlyingassumptions.

This “revolution”marginalizedHoward’swork and the kind of agriculture he advocated. So-calledorganic agriculture survived only on the margin. It was practiced by some farmers of admirableindependenceandgoodsenseandalsobysomeauthenticnuts.Inthehandsofthebetterpractitioners,itwas proven to be a healthful, productive, and economicalwayof farming.Butwhilemillions of theirclientsspentthemselvesintobankruptcyonindustrialsupplies,theevangelistsofindustrialagricultureingovernment and the universities ignored the example of the successful organic farmers, just as theyignoredtheequallysuccessfulexampleofAmishfarming.

Meanwhile, Howard’s thought, as manifested by the “organic movement,” was seriouslyoversimplified.Asitwasunderstoodandprescribed,organicagricultureimprovedthehealthofcropsby

buildinghumusinthesoil,anditabstainedfromtheuseoftoxicchemicals.Thereisnothingobjectionableaboutthiskindofagriculture,sofarasitgoes,butitdoesnotgofarenough.Itdoesnotconceiveoffarmsin terms of their biological and economic structure, because it does not connect farming with itsecological and social contexts. Under the current and now official definition of organic farming, it ispossibletohaveahuge“organic”farmthatgrowsonlyoneortwocrops,hasnoanimalsorpastures,isentirelydependentonindustrialtechnologyandeconomics,andimportsallitsfertilityandenergy.Itwasprecisely this sort of specialization and oversimplification that SirAlbertHowardworked andwroteagainstallhislife.

At present this movement (if we can still apply that term to an effort that is many-branched,multicentered,andalwaysinflux)inatleastsomeofitsmanifestationsappearstobeworkingdecisivelyagainst such oversimplification and the industrial gigantism that oversimplification allows. Some foodcompaniesaswellassomeconsumersnowunderstandthatonlythesmallerfamilyfarms,suchasthoseoftheAmish,permitthediversityandthecarefulattentionthatHoward’sstandardsrequire.

HOWARD’S FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION was that the processes of agriculture, if they are toendure,havetobeanalogoustotheprocessesofnature.Ifoneisfarminginaplacepreviouslyforested,thenthefarmmustbeasystematicanalogueoftheforest,andthefarmermustbeastudentoftheforest.Howardstatedhispremiseasalittleallegory:

ThemaincharacteristicofNature’sfarmingcan…besummedupinafewwords.Motherearthneverattemptstofarmwithoutlivestock;shealwaysraisesmixedcrops;greatpainsaretakentopreservethe soil and to prevent erosion; themixed vegetable and animal wastes are converted into humus;there is nowaste; the processes of growth and the processes of decay balance one another; ampleprovisionismadetomaintainlargereservesoffertility;thegreatestcareistakentostoretherainfall;bothplantsandanimalsarelefttoprotectthemselvesagainstdisease.1

Nature is the ultimate value of the practical or economicworld.We cannot escape either it or ourdependenceonit.Itis,sotospeak,itsowncontext,whereasthecontextofagricultureis,first,natureandthen the human economy. Harmony between agriculture and its natural and human contexts would behealth,andhealthwastheinvariablestandardofHoward’swork.Hisaimalwayswastotreat“thewholeproblemofhealthinsoil,plant,animal,andmanasonegreatsubject.”2AndLouiseHowardspellsthisoutinSirAlbertHowardinIndia:

A fertile soil, that is, a soil teeming with healthy life in the shape of abundant microflora andmicrofauna, will bear healthy plants, and these, when consumed by animals and man, will conferhealthonanimalsandman.Butaninfertilesoil,thatis,onelackingsufficientmicrobial,fungous,andotherlife,willpassonsomeformofdeficiencytotheplant,andsuchplant,inturn,willpassonsomeformofdeficiencytoanimalandman.3

This was Howard’s “master idea” and he understood that it implied a long-term research agenda,callingfor“aboldlyrevisedpointofviewandentirelyfreshinvestigations.”4

Hispremise,then,wasthatthehumaneconomy,whichisinescapablyaland-usingeconomy,mustbeconstructedasananalogueof theorganicworld,which is inescapably itspracticalcontext.Andsohewas fundamentally at odds with the industrial economy, which sees creatures, including humans, asmachines, and agriculture, like ultimately the entire human economy, as an analogue of an industrial

system.Thiswas,andis,theinevitableandcharacteristicproductofthedead-endmaterialismthatisthepremiseofbothindustrialismandthesciencethatsupportsit.

Howardunderstoodthatsuchreductionismcouldnotworkforagriculture:

Butthegrowingofcropsandtheraisingoflivestockbelongtobiology,adomainwhereeverythingisaliveandwhich ispolesasunder fromchemistryandphysics.Manyof the things thatmatteron theland, such as soil fertility, tilth, soilmanagement, the quality of produce, the bloom and health ofanimals, the generalmanagement of live stock, theworking relations betweenmaster andman, theespritdecorpsofthefarmasawhole,cannotbeweighedormeasured.Neverthelesstheirpresenceiseverything:theirabsencespellsfailure.5

Thisunderstandinghasascientificbasis,asitshouldhave,forHowardwasanableandconscientiousscientist.ButIthinkitcomesalsofromintuition,andprobablycouldnothavecomeotherwise.Howard’sintuitionwasthatofamanwhowasafarmerbybirthandheritageandwhowasasympatheticaswellasascientificobserverofthelivesofplants,animals,andfarmers.

IFTHEFARMistolast—ifitistobe“sustainable,”aswenowsay—thenitmustwastenothing.ItmustobeyinallitsprocesseswhatHowardcalled“thelawofreturn.”Underthislaw,agricultureproducesnowaste;whatistakenfromthesoilisreturnedtoit.Growthmustbebalancedbydecay:“Inthisbreakingdownoforganicmatterweseeinoperationthereverseofthebuilding-upprocesswhichtakesplaceintheleaf.”6

Thebalancebetweengrowthanddecay is thesoleprincipleofstability innatureand inagriculture.Andthisbalanceisneverstatic,neverfinallyachieved,foritisdependentuponacycle,whichinnature,andwithin the limitsofnature, is self-sustaining,butwhich inagriculturemustbemadecontinuousbypurpose and by correct methods. “This cycle,” Howard wrote, “is constituted of the successive andrepeatedprocessesofbirth,growth,maturity,death,anddecay.”7

Theinteraction,theinterdependence,oflifeanddeath,whichinnatureisthesourceofaninexhaustiblefecundity,isthebasisofasetofanalogies,towhichagricultureandtherestofthehumaneconomymustconform in order to endure, andwhich is ultimately religious, asHoward knew: “An eastern religioncallsthiscycletheWheelofLife. . .Deathsupersedeslifeandliferisesagainfromwhatisdeadanddecayed.”8

Themaintenanceofthiscycleisthepracticalbasisofgoodfarminganditsmoralbasisaswell:

[T]hecorrectrelationbetweentheprocessesofgrowthandtheprocessesofdecayisthefirstprincipleofsuccessfulfarming.Agriculturemustalwaysbebalanced.Ifwespeedupgrowthwemustacceleratedecay. If, on the other hand, the soil’s reserves are squandered, crop production ceases to be goodfarming:itbecomessomethingverydifferent.Thefarmeristransformedintoabandit.9

ITSEEMSTOmethatHoward’soriginatingforce,innateinhischaracterandrefinedinhiswork,washissenseofcontext.Thismadehimeminentandeffectiveinhisownday,anditmakeshisworkurgentlyrelevanttoourown.Helackedcompletelythespecialistimpulse,soprominentamongthescientistsandintellectualsofthepresent-dayuniversity,toseethingsinisolation.

He himself began as a specialist, a mycologist, but he soon saw that this made him “a laboratory

hermit,”andhefeltthatthiswasfundamentallywrong:

Iwasaninvestigatorofplantdiseases,butIhadmyselfnocropsonwhichIcouldtryouttheremediesIadvocated:Icouldnottakemyownadvicebeforeofferingittootherpeople.Itwasborneinonmethattherewasawidechasmbetweenscienceinthelaboratoryandpracticeinthefield,andIbegantosuspectthatunlessthisgapcouldbebridgednorealprogresscouldbemadeinthecontrolofplantdiseases:researchandpracticewouldremainapart:mycologicalworkthreatenedtodegenerateintolittlemorethanaconvenientagencybywhich—providedIissuedasufficientsupplyoflearnedreportsfortifiedbyajudiciousmixtureofscientificjargon—practicaldifficultiescouldbeside-tracked.10

Thethemeofhislife’sworkwashisefforttobridgethisgap.Thewaytodoitwassimplytorefusetosee anything in isolation. Everything, as he saw it, existed within a context, outside of which it wasunintelligible.Moreover, every problem existedwithin a context, outside ofwhich itwas unsolvable.Agriculture, thus, cannot be understood or its problems solved without respect to context. The sameappliedeven toan individualplantorcrop.And this respect forcontextproperly set the standardanddeterminedthemethodologyofagriculturalscience:

Thebasisofresearchwasobviouslytobeinvestigationdirectedtothewholeexistenceofaselectedcrop, namely, “the plant itself in relation to the soil inwhich it grows, to the conditions of villageagricultureunderwhichit iscultivated,andwithreferencetotheeconomicusesof theproduct”;inotherwordsresearchwastobeintegral,neverfragmented.11

If nothing exists in isolation, then all problems are circumstantial; no problem resides, or can besolved, in anybody’s department.A diseasewas, thus, a symptomof a larger disorder. The followingpassageshowsaswellasanythewayhismindworked:

IfoundwhenItookuplandinIndiaandlearnedwhatthepeopleofthecountryknow,thatthediseasesofplantsandanimalswereveryusefulagentsforkeepingmeinorder,andforteachingmeagriculture.I have learnt more from the diseases of plants and animals than I have from all the professors ofCambridge,Rothamstedandotherplaceswhogavememypreliminarytraining.Iarguedthematterinthisway.Ifdiseasesattackedmycrops,itwasbecauseIwasdoingsomethingwrong.Ithereforeuseddiseasestoteachme.InthiswayIreallylearntagriculture—frommyfatherandfrommyrelativesandfrom the professors I only obtained a mass of preliminary information. Diseases taught me tounderstandagriculture.I thinkifweuseddiseasesmoreinsteadofrunningtospraysandkillingoffpests,and ifwe letdiseasesripand then foundoutwhat iswrongand then tried toput it right,weshouldgetmuchdeeperintoagriculturalproblemsthanweshalldobycallinginall theseartificialaids.Afterall,thedestructionofapestistheevasionof,ratherthanthesolutionof,allagriculturalproblems.12

Theimpliedapproachtotheproblemofdiseaseis illustratedbythewayHowardandhisfirstwife,Gabrielle,dealtwiththeproblemofindigowilt:

In fifteen years £54,207 had been spent on research, at that time a large sum. Yet the ImperialEntomologistcouldfindnoinsect,theImperialMycologistnofungus,andtheImperialBacteriologistnovirustoaccountfortheplague.

TheHowardsproceededdifferently.Theirstartwastogrowthecroponafieldscaleandinthebestpossibleway,takingnoteoflocalmethods.Theirobservationwasdirectedtothewholeplant,aboveand below ground; they followed the crop throughout its life history; they looked at all the

surroundingcircumstances,soil,moisture, temperature.But they lookedfornovirus,nofungus,andnoinsect.13

And it was the Howards who solved the problem. The plants were wilting, they found, primarilybecause the soils were becomingwater-logged during themonsoon, killing the roots; the plants werewilting and dying from starvation. Itwas a problem ofmanagement, and itwas solved by changes inmanagement.Butitcouldnothavebeensolvedexceptbystudyingthewholeplantinitswholecontext.

Becausehe refused to accept the academic fragmentation that hadbecomeconventional byhis time,Howard,ofcourse,was“accusedofinvadingfieldsnothisown,”14andthishehaddoneintentionallyandin accordance with “the guiding principle of the closest contact between research and those to beserved.”15

AGRICULTURE IS PRACTICED inescapably in a context, and its contextmust not be specialized orsimplified. Its context, first of all, is thenatureof theplace inwhich it is practiced, but it is also thesocietyandtheeconomyofthosewhopracticeit.Andjustastherearepenaltiesforignoringthenaturalcontext, so there are penalties for ignoring the human one. As Howard saw it, the agriculturalindustrialists’ apparent belief that food production could be harmlessly divorced from the economicinterestoffarmersneedlesslyrepeatsahistoricalfailure:

JudgedbytheordinarystandardsofachievementtheagriculturalhistoryoftheRomanEmpireendedin failure due to inability to realize the fundamental principle that themaintenanceof soil fertilitycoupledwiththelegitimateclaimsoftheagriculturalpopulationshouldneverhavebeenallowedtocomeinconflictwiththeoperationsofthecapitalist.Themostimportantpossessionofacountryisitspopulation.Ifthisismaintainedinhealthandvigoureverythingelsewillfollow;ifthisisallowedtodeclinenothing,notevengreatriches,cansavethecountryfromeventualruin.16

The obligation of a country’s agriculture, then, is tomaintain its people in health, and this appliesequallytothepeoplewhoeatandtothepeoplewhoproducethefood.

Howardacceptedthisobligationunconditionallyastheobligationalsoofhisownwork.Herealized,moreover,thatthisobligationimposedstrictlimitsbothupontheworkoffarmersanduponhisworkasascientist:First,neitherfarmingnorexperimentationshouldusurpthetolerancesorviolatethenatureoftheplacewhere thework is done; and second, theworkmust respect and preserve the livelihoods of thelocalcommunity.Beforegoingtowork,agriculturalscientistsareobligedtoknowboththeplacewheretheirworkistobedoneandthepeopleforwhomtheyareworking.ItisremarkablethatHowardcamequietly,bythoughtandwork,totheserealizationsahalfcenturyandmorebeforetheywereforceduponusbytheecologicalandeconomicfailuresofindustrialagriculture.

InIndiaheusedhis trainingasascientistandhisability toobserveandthinkforhimself, justashewouldhavebeenexpectedtodo.Buthealsolearnedfromthepeasantfarmersofthecountry,whomherespectedashis“professors.”Hevaluedthemfortheirknowledgeoftheland,fortheirindustry,andfortheir “accuracy of eye.”17 He accepted also the economic and technological circumstances of thosefarmersasthelimitwithinwhichhehimselfshoulddohiswork.Hesawthatitwouldbepossibletoruinhisclientsbythoughtlessorcarelessinnovation:

Oftenimprovementsarepossiblebuttheyarenoteconomic....InIndiathecultivatorsaremostlyin

debtand theholdingsaresmall.Anycapital required fordevelopmentshas tobeborrowed.A largenumberofpossibleimprovementsarebarredbythefactthattheextrareturnisnotlargeenoughtopaythehighinterestonthecapitalinvolvedandalsotoyieldaprofittothecultivator.18

ThereadermaywishtocontrastthiswayofthinkingwiththatoftheGreenRevolutionorwiththatofthe headlong industrialization of American agriculture sinceWorldWar II, in both of which the onlyrecognized limit was technological, and in neither of which was there any concern for the ability offarmersortheircommunitiestobearthecosts.

Howard’s solution to the problemwas simply to do hisworkwithin the technological limits of thelocalfarmers:

The existing system could not be radically changed, but itmight be developed in usefulways. Thismust never exceedwhat the cultivator could afford, and, in away, alsowhat hewas used to. ThisprincipleSirAlbertkeptinmindtotheveryend...hisstandardseemstohavebeenthepossessionofa yoke of oxen;whenmore powerwas needed, the presumptionwas that the second yoke could beborrowedfromaneighbor.Thusthemaximumdraughtcontemplatedwasfouranimals.19

By the observanceof such limits,Howardwas enfolded consciously and conscientiouslywithin thenaturalandhumancommunitiesthatheendeavoredtoserve.

NOUNIVERSITYTHATIhaveheardof,land-grantorother,hasyetattemptedtoestablishitscurriculumanditsintellectualstructureonSirAlbertHoward’s“onegreatsubject,”oronhisdeterminationtoserverespectfullyandhumblythelocalpopulation.Butauniversitymostcertainlycoulddoso,andindoingsoitcouldbringtobearall itsdisciplinesanddepartments.Indoingso, that is tosay, itcouldbecomeintruthauniversity.

At present our universities are not simply growing and expanding, according to the principle of“growth” universal in industrial societies, but they are at the same time disintegrating. They are ahodgepodgeofunrelatedparts.Thereisnounifyingaimandnocommoncriticalstandardthatcanserveequallywellallthediversepartsordepartments.

Thefashionnowistothinkofuniversitiesasindustriesorbusinesses.Universitypresidents,evidentlythinkingofthemselvesasCEOs,talkof“businessplans”and“returnoninvestment,”asiftheindustrialeconomycouldprovideanaimandacriticalstandardappropriateeithertoeducationortoresearch.

But this is not possible. No economy, industrial or otherwise, can supply an appropriate aim orstandard.Anyeconomymustbeeithertrueorfalsetotheworldandtoourlifeinit.Ifitistobetrue,thenitmustbemadetrue,accordingtoastandardthatisnoteconomic.

Toregardtheeconomyasanendorasthemeasureofsuccessismerelytoreducestudents,teachers,researchers,andalltheyknoworlearntomerchandise.Itreducesknowledgeto“property”andeducationtotrainingforthe“jobmarket.”

If,onthecontrary,Howardwasrightinhisbeliefthathealthisthe“onegreatsubject,”thenaunifyingaimandacommoncriticalstandardareclearlyimplied.Healthisatoncequantitativeandqualitative;itrequiresbothsufficiencyandgoodness.Itiscomprehensive(itissynonymouswith“wholeness”),foritmustleavenothingout.Anditisuncompromisinglylocalandparticular;ithastodowiththesustenanceofparticularplaces,creatures,humanbodies,andhumanminds.

Ifauniversitybegantoassumeresponsibilityforthehealthofitsplaceanditslocalconstituents,thenallofitsdepartmentswouldhaveacommonaim,andtheywouldhavetojudgetheirplaceandthemselvesandoneanotherbyacommonstandard.Theywouldneedoneanother’sknowledge.Theywouldhavetocommunicate with one another; the diversity of specialists would have to speak to one another in acommon language.AndhereagainHoward isexemplary, forhewrote,andpresumablyspoke,aplain,vigorous,forthrightEnglish—nojargon,nocondescension,noostentation,nofoolingaround.

NOTES

1AnAgriculturalTestament(London:OxfordUniversityPress,1956),4.

2SirAlbertHoward,TheSoilandHealth(Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky,2006),11.

3LouiseE.Howard,SirAlbertHowardinIndia(Emmaus,Pa.:RodalePress,1954),162.

4TheSoilandHealth,11.

5AnAgriculturalTestament,196.

6TheSoilandHealth,22.

7Ibid.,18.

8Ibid.

9AnAgriculturalTestament,25.

10TheSoilandHealth,1-2.

11SirAlbertHowardinIndia,42.

12Howard,asquotedinSirAlbertHowardinIndia,190.

13SirAlbertHowardinIndia,170.

14Ibid.,42.

15Ibid.,44.

16AnAgriculturalTestament,9.

17SirAlbertHowardinIndia,222and228.

18Howard,asquotedinSirAlbertHowardinIndia,37-38.

19SirAlbertHowardinIndia,224.

AgriculturefromtheRootsUp

(2004)

HENRYDAVIDTHOREAUwrotesomewhere thathundredsarehackingat thebranchesforeveryonewhoisstrikingattheroot.Hemeantthisasametaphor,butitappliesliterallytomodernagricultureandto the science of modern agriculture. As it has become more and more industrialized, agricultureincreasinglyhasbeenunderstoodasanenterpriseestablisheduponthesurfaceoftheground.Mostpeoplenowadayslackevenasuperficialknowledgeofagriculture,andmostwhodoknowsomethingaboutitarepayinglittleornoattentiontowhatishappeningunderthesurface.

The scientists atTheLand Institute inSalina,Kansas,on thecontrary, are strikingat the root.Theirstudyoftherootandtherootsofouragriculturalproblemshasproducedaradicalcriticism,leadingtoaproposedsolutionthatisradical.

THEIRCRITICISMISmaderadicalbyonecrucialchoice:theadoptionofthenaturalecosystemasthefirststandardofagriculturalperformance,havingpriorityoverthestandardofproductivityandcertainlyover the delusional and dangerous industrial standard of “efficiency.” That single change makes amomentousdifference,onethatishistoricalandculturalaswellasscientific.

Bythestandardofthenaturalorthehealthyecosystem,weseeasifsuddenlytheshortcomings,notonlyof industrial agriculture but of agriculture itself, insofar as agriculture has consisted of annualmonocultures.Tothoseofuswhoaredevotedtoagricultureinanyofitshistoricalforms,suchcriticismisinevitablypainful.Andyetwemayseeitsjusticeandacceptit,understandinghowmuchisatstake.Toothers,whohavefoundedtheircareersortheirbusinessespreciselyupontheshortcomingsofagricultureaswenowhaveit,thiscriticismwillperhapsbeevenmorepainful,andnodoubttheywillresistwithallthegreatpowerweknowtheyhave.

Even so, this is a criticism forwhich the time is ripe.A rational denial of its justice is no longerpossible.Therearemany reasons for this,but themainone, I think, is thevirtualmeltdownof theoldboundaries of specialist thought in agriculture—ameltdown that I hope foretells the same fate for theboundariesofallspecialistthought.

The justifying assumptions of the industrial agriculture that we now have are based on a reductivescienceworkingwithinstrictlyboundedspecializations.Thisagriculture,anagglomerationofspecialties,appearedperfectlyrationalandsalutarysolongasitwasassumablethatefficiencyandproductivitywereadequate standards, that husbandry was safely reducible to science and fertility to chemistry, thatorganisms are merely machines, that agriculture is under no obligation to nature, that it has onlyagriculturalresults,andthatitcanbeconfidentlybasedupon“cheap”fossilfuels.

Theinventorsofthisagricultureassumed,inshort,thatthehumanwillissovereignintheuniverse,thatthe only laws are the laws ofmechanics, and that thematerial world and its “natural resources” arewithout limit. These are the assumptions that, acknowledged or not, underlie the “war” bywhichwehumanshaveundertakento“conquer”nature,andwhichisthedominantmythofmodernintellectuallife.

INTHEDAYSofhumandarknessandignorance,nowsupposedlypast,wefoundwaystoacknowledgethe sanctityofnatureand tohonorheras thecommonmotherofall creatures, includingourselves.Weconducted our relations with her by prayer, propitiation, skilled work, thrift, caution, and care. Ourconcernaboutthatrelationshipproducedtheconceptsofusufructandstewardship.Afewlinesfromthe“TwoCantosofMutabilitie”thatEdmundSpenserplacedattheendofTheFaerieQueenewillsufficetogiveasenseofourancientveneration:

Thenforthissewed(greatgoddesse)greatdameNature,WithgoodlyportandgraciousMajesty;BeingfargreaterandmoretallofstatureThananyofthegodsorPowersonhie...

ThisgreatGrandmotherofallcreaturesbredGreatNature,everyoungyetfullofeld,Stillmoving,yetunmovedfromhersted;Unseenofany,yetofallbeheld...

Thus, though hewas aChristian, Spenser still saw fit at the end of the sixteenth century to presentNature as the genius of the sublunaryworld, a figure of the greatestmajesty,mystery, and power, thesourceofallearthlylife.Headdressedher,inaddition,asthesupremejudgeofallhercreatures,rulingbystandardsthatwewouldnowcallecological:

WhoRighttoalldostdealindifferently,DamningallWrongandtortiousInjurie,Whichanyofthycreaturesdotoother(Oppressingthemwithpower,unequally)Sithofthemallthouarttheequallmother,Andknittesteachtoeach,asbrotheruntobrother.

And then, at aboutSpenser’s timeor a little after,we set forth inour “war againstnature”with thepurposeofconqueringherandwringingherpowerfulandlucrativesecretsfromherbyvariousformsof“tortiousInjurie.”Thiswehavethoughtofasour“enlightenment”andas“progress.”Butintheeventthiswar, likemostwars,has turnedout tobea trickierbusiness thanweexpected.Wemustnowface twoshockingsurprises.Thefirstsurpriseisthatifwesayandbelievethatweareatwarwithnature,thenweare in thefullestsenseatwar:That is,wearebothopposingandbeingopposed,andthecosts tobothsidesareextremelyhigh.

Thesecondsurpriseisthatwearenotwinning.Ontheevidencenowavailable,wehavetoconcludethatwearelosing—and,moreover,thattherewasneverachancethatwecouldwin.Despitetheimmensepowerandviolencethatwehavedeployedagainsther,natureishandingusonedefeatafteranother.Eveninourmostgrievousoffensesagainsther—asinthepresentepidemicofhabitatdestructionandspeciesextinction—wearebeingdefeated,forinthelongrunwecanlessaffordthelossesthannaturecan.And

wehavetolookuponsoilerosionandthespreadofexoticdiseases,weeds,andpestsasnature’sdirectreprisalsforourviolationsofherlaws.Sometimessheseemsterrifyinglysereneinhertriumphsoverus,aswhen,simplybyrefusingtoabsorbourpollutants,sheforcesustoliveinourmess.

Thusshehasforcedus torecognize that thecontextofAmericanagriculture isnotmerelyfieldsandfarmsorthefreemarketortheeconomy,butitisalsothepollutedMississippiRiver,thehypoxiczoneinthe Gulf of Mexico, all the small towns whose drinking water contains pesticides and nitrates, thepumped-downaquifersandtheno-longer-flowingrivers,andallthelandsthatwehavescalped,gouged,poisoned,ordestroyedutterlyfor“cheap”fuelsandrawmaterials.

Thussheisforcingustobelievewhatthegreatteachersandprophetshavealwaystoldusandwhattheecologistsaretellingusagain:Allthingsareconnected;thecontextofeverythingiseverythingelse.Bynow,manyofusknow,andmorearelearning,thatifyouwanttoevaluatetheagricultureofaregion,youmust begin notwith a balance sheet, butwith the localwater.Howcontinuously do the small streamsflow?Howclearisthewater?Howmuchsedimentandhowmanypollutantsarecarriedintherunoff?Arethepondsandcreeksandriversfitforswimming?Canyoueatthefish?

Weknow,orwearelearning,thatfromthequestionsaboutwaterwegonaturallytoquestionsaboutthesoil.Isitstayinginplace?Whatisitswater-holdingcapacity?Doesitdrainwell?Howmuchhumusisinit?Whatofitsbiologicalhealth?Howoftenandforhowlongisitexposedtotheweather?Howdeepinitdotherootsgo?

SUCHARE THE questions that trouble and urge and inspire the scientists at The Land Institute, foreverythingdependsupontheanswers.Theanswers,asthesescientistsknow,willrevealnotonlythestateof the health of the landscape, but also the state of the culture of the peoplewho inhabit and use thelandscape.Isitacultureofrespect,thrift,andseemlyskills,oracultureofindifferenceandmechanicalforce?Acultureoflife,oracultureofdeath?

Andbeyondthosequestionsarequestionsinsistentlypracticalandeconomic,questionsofaccounting.Whatistheworth,toushumanswithournowinsupportablehealthcareindustry,ofecologicalhealth?Isourhealthinanywayseparablefromthehealthofoureconomiclandscapes?Mustnotthehealthofwaterandsoilbeaccountedaneconomicasset?Willnotthisgreaterhealthsupport,sustain,andinthelongruncheapentheproductivityofourfarms?

If our war against nature destroys the health of water and soil, and thus inevitably the health ofagriculture and our own health, and can only lead to our economic ruin, then we need to try anotherpossibility. And there is only one: If we cannot establish an enduring or even a humanly bearableeconomybyourattempttodefeatnature,thenwewillhavetotrylivinginharmonyandcooperationwithher.

Byitsadoptionofthehealthyecosystemastheappropriatestandardofagriculturalperformance,TheLand Institutehas rejectedcompetitionas the fundamentalprincipleof economics, and thereforeof theappliedsciences,andhasreplaceditwiththeprincipleofharmony.Indoingso, ithasplaceditsworkwithinalineageandtraditionthatpredatebothindustrialismandmodernscience.Thethemeofahumanandevenaneconomicharmonywithnaturegoesbackmanyhundredsofyearsintheliteraryrecord.Itsageintheprehistoricculturescanonlybeconjectured,butwemayconfidentlyassumethatitisancient,probably as old as the human race. In the early twentieth century this themewas applied explicitly to

agriculturebywriterssuchasF.H.King,LibertyHydeBailey,J.RussellSmith,SirAlbertHoward,andAldo Leopold, Howard being the one who gave it the soundest and most elaborate scientificunderpinning.Thismodern lineagewas interruptedby the juggernautof industrialagriculture followingWorldWarII.But,inthe1970s,whenWesJacksonbeganthinkingabouttheKansasprairieasastandardandmodel forKansas farming, he took up the old theme at aboutwhereHoward had left it, doing soremarkablywithoutpreviousknowledgeofHoward.

And so, in espousing the principle and the goal of harmony,TheLand Institute acquired anold andhonorable ancestry. It acquired at the same time, in the same way, a working principle also old andhonorable:thatofartasimitationofnature.Theinitiatingquestionwasthis:If,sotospeak,youplaceaKansaswheatfieldbesideasurvivingpatchofthenativeKansasprairie,whatisthedifference?

Well,theprimarydifference,obvioustoanyobserver,isthat,whereasthewheatfieldisamonocultureof annuals, the plant community of the prairie is highly diverse and perennial. There are manyimplicationsinthatdifference,notallofwhichareagricultural,butfiveofwhichareofimmediateandurgent agricultural interest:Theprairie’s loss of soil to erosion isminimal; it is highly efficient in itsabilitytoabsorb,store,andusewater;itmakesthemaximumuseofeveryyear’ssunlight;itbuildsandpreservesitsownfertility;anditprotectsitselfagainstpestsanddiseases.

The next question, the practical one, follows logically and naturally from the first: Howmight wecontrive,letussay,aKansasfarminimitationofaKansasprairie,acquiringforagriculturetheseveralecologicalservicesoftheprairiealongwiththeeconomicbenefitofasufficientharvestofedibleseeds?AndsowecometothegreatprojectofTheLandInstitute.

Ilackthetechnicalproficiencytocommentatmuchlengthonthiswork.Iwouldliketoendsimplybysaying how I believe the science now in practice at The Land Institute differs from the science ofindustrialagriculture.

WEARELIVINGinanageof technological innovation.Ourpreoccupationwith inventionandnoveltyhasbegun,by this lateday, to lookratherabsurd,especially inourstrictavoidanceofcostaccounting.What invention, after all, has done more net good or given more net pleasure than soap? And whoinventedsoap?Itisalltooeasy,underthecircumstances,toimagineamediapublicistsnatchingatTheLand Institute’sprojectas“innovationonanepic scale”or“thenext revolution inagriculture”or“thenewscientificfrontier.”

Butthesescientistsarecontemplatingnosuchthing.Theirvisionandtheirworkdonotarisefromorleadtoanymechanicalorchemicalbreakthrough;theydonotdependonanynewlydiscoveredfuel.Theinnovationtheyhaveinmindissomethingoldunderthesun:abetteradaptationofthehumanorganismtoitsnaturalhabitat.Theyarenot seeking to implementa technological revolutionora revolutionofanykind.Theyareinterestedmerelyinimprovingourfundamentalrelationshiptotheearth,changingthekindofrootsweputdownanddeepeningthedepthweputthemdownto.Thisisnotrevolutionary,becauseitismerelyapartofalongjobthatwehavenotfinished,thatwehavetriedforalittlewhiletofinishinthewrongway, but one thatwewill never finish ifwe do it the rightway.Harmony between our humaneconomyandthenaturalworld—localadaptation—isaperfectionwewillneverfinallyachievebutmustcontinuouslytryfor.Thereisneverafinalitytoitbecauseitinvolveslivingcreatureswhochange.Thesoilhaslivingcreaturesinit.Ithasliverootsinit,perennialrootsifitislucky.Ifitisthesoiloftherightkindoffarm,ithasafarmfamilygrowingoutofit.Theworkofadaptationmustgoonbecausetheworld

changes;ourplaceschangeandwechange;wechangeourplacesandourplaceschangeus.Thescienceofadaptation,then,isunending.Anybodywhoundertakestoadaptagriculturetoaplace—or,inJ.RussellSmith’swords, to fit the farming to the farm—will never run out of problems orwant for intellectualstimulation.

ThescienceofTheLandInstitutepromptlyexposestheweaknessoftheannualthoughtofagriculturalindustrialismbecauseitmeasuresitsworkbythestandardofthenaturalecosystem,whichgivesprideofplacetoperennials.Itexposesalsotheweaknessofthetop-downthoughtoftechnologicalinnovationbyproceedingfromtherootsup,andbyaimingnotatuniversalityanduniformity,butatlocaladaptation.Itwould deepen the formal limits of agricultural practicemany feet below the roots of the annual graincrops,butitwoulddrawinthelimitsofconcerntothelocalwatershed,ecosystem,farm,andfield.Thisis by definition a science of place, operatingwithin aworld of acknowledged limits—of space, time,energy,soil,water,andhumanintelligence.Itisasciencefacing,inthemostlocalandintimateterms,aworldofdauntingformalcomplexityandofanultimatelyimpenetrablemystery—exactly theworld thatthe reductive sciences of industrial agriculture have sought to oversimplify and thus ignore. This newscience,initsancientquest,demandstheacceptanceofhumanignoranceastheever-presentstartingpointofhumanwork,anditrequirestheuseofalltheintelligencewehave.

PARTIII

FOOD

AUTHOR’SNOTE

PARTIIICALLSforafewwordsofexplanation.Thepublisher’sideawastoshowinthisgatheringofwritingstheconnectionsthatmakeonesubjectoffarming,farms,farmers,andfood.Iagreed,thinkingtheideawasagoodone.Butifwelimitedthecontentsofourbooktoessays,asatfirstwethoughtwewoulddo,weweregoingtocomeupshortonfood.ThoughIhavewrittenmanyessaysonfarming,farms,andfarmers,Ihavewrittenonlyonespecificallyonfood.Iambynomeansachef,andasacookIamlimitedtofryingandscorching.

Andsowedecided to include inPart III, inaddition to the loneessay,“ThePleasuresofEating,”aselectionfrommyfictionofpassages inwhichpeopleeat.This isagoodideaalso, I think,because itunspecializestheideaoffood.Alltheepisodesfrommystoriesandnovelsarenotaboutfoodonly,butaboutmeals.Youcaneatfoodbyyourself.Ameal,accordingtomyunderstandinganyhow,isacommunalevent, bringing together family members, neighbors, even strangers. At its most ordinary, it involveshospitality,giving,receiving,andgratitude.Itpleasesmethatinthesefictionalpassagesfoodisplacedinitscircumstancesofhistory,work,andcompanionship.

I haveprovidednotes to accompany these episodes, to saywhen they tookplace, and togive somesenseofthestoriestheybelongto.

ButIneedtosay,furthermore,somethingaboutthepartofthewomenintheseepisodes.Theeffortofjustice towomen, in addition to the substantial good it hasdone and is doing, has attached a senseofbelittlementto“women’swork.”Iknowthattherearereasonsforthis.Butunderstandableasitmaybe,itisunjustwhenitextendstotraditionalfarmhousewifery.

Peopleandtheirdomesticarrangementsareimperfect,ofcourse.Abusesnodoubtcanbefoundinthecustomsandusagesofanytime,nomatterhowenlightenedorliberated.Butthewomenintheepisodesthatfollow,asIthinkisobvious,arenotthe“littlewomen”oftheliberationiststereotype,andarerelateddistantlyifatalltothehousewivesofthemodernsuburbs.Theyarenotconsumers.Theyarenotopenersofcansorheatersoffrozendinnersorstirrersof“mixes.”

On the contrary, they are, with their menfolk, managers of domestic economies that are complex,practically and culturally. These economies unite household and farm. They are as dependent on oldknowledgeandimmediateintelligenceasontheland.Inaccordancewithtradition,thesewomendothecooking, but this is a cooking that is only a part of an intricate seasonal procedure that includes thecultivationofplantsandthenurturingofanimals,harvestingandbringingin,slaughteringandbutchering,preservingandcanningandstoringforthewinter.Howallthisworkwas(andsometimesstillis)dividedbetweenthesexeswouldvary,accordingtopreferencesandabilities,fromonehouseholdandmarriagetoanother.Butbothmenandwomenparticipatedandwereassociatedinthework.

Justicetothesewomenrequiresrecognitionoftheentirelyadmirableknowledge,intelligence,andskillthattheyappliedtotheir“women’swork.”Moreover,manyofthesewomenwereperfectlycapablealsoof“men’swork.”Thereaderwillnotice,inthepassagefromTheMemoryofOldJack,thatMaryPennishelpingtoprepareaharvestdinner,butalsothatsheiswearingworkclothes.Afterthewomenhaveeaten(withthemenfedandgone,thiswillbealeisurely,quietlysociablemealthatthewomenhave)andafter

theyhavewashedthedishesandsetthekitchentorights,Marywillgotothefieldtoworkwiththemen.Hannahwouldbegoingtooifshewerenotpregnant.

FROMThatDistantLand

Here is a glimpse of an oldway of family life and hospitality before the twentieth century, and itsinvariable resort towarand industrialdestruction, changedeverything.Theseparagraphsare fromtheshortstory“TurnBacktheBed.”

OLDANT’NYWASaprovider,andhedidprovide.Hesawtoitthattwelvehogswereslaughteredforhisownuseeveryfall—andtwenty-fourhamsandtwenty-fourshouldersandtwenty-fourmiddlingswerehunginhissmokehouse.Andhiswife,MawProudfoot,keptaflockofturkeysandaflockofgeeseandaflockofguineas,andherhenhousewasaspopulousasacountyseat.Andlongafterhewas“toooldtofarm,”OldAnt’nygrewagardenasbigassomepeople’scrop.Hepickedanddugandfetched,andMawProudfootcannedandpreservedandpickledandcuredasiftheyhadanarmytofeed—whichtheymoreorlessdid,fortherewerenotonlytheannouncedfamilygatheringsbutalwayssomebodyorsomefewhappeningby,andalwayssomebodytogivesomethingto.

The Proudfoot family gatheringswere famous.As feasts, as collections and concentrations of goodthings,theywereunequaled.Especiallyinsummertherewasnothinglikethem,forthentherewouldbeoldhamandfriedchickenandgravy,andtwoorthreekindsoffish,andhotbiscuitsandthreekindsofcornbread,andpotatoesandbeansandroastingearsandcarrotsandbeetsandonions,andcornpuddingand corn creamed and fried, and cabbage boiled and scalloped, and tomatoes stewed and sliced, andfreshcucumbers soaked invinegar, and threeor fourkindsofpickles, and if itwas late enough in thesummertherewouldbewatermelonsandmuskmelons,andtherewouldbepiesandcakesandcobblersanddumplings,andmilkandcoffeebythegallon.Andtherewouldbe,too,halfadozenorsogallonorhalf-gallonstonejugsmakingtheirwayfromoneadultmaletoanotherassurreptitiousasmoles.ForinthosedaystheProudfoothomeplace,withitsbroadcornfieldsinthecreekbottom,wasfamousalsofortheexcellenceofitswhiskey.

Soofcoursetheseaffairswerenumerouslyattended.Whenthewordwentouttofamilyandin-lawsitwasboundtobeoverheard,andpeoplecameinwhoseveinsProudfootbloodranextremelythin,ifatall.And therewouldbebabble anduproar all day, for everydoor stoodopen, and theoldhousewasnotceiled;theupstairsfloorboardsweresimplynailedtothenakedjoists,leavingcracksthatyoucouldnotonlyhearthroughbutinplacesseethrough.Whateverhappenedanywherecouldbeheardeverywhere.

Thestormof feetandvoiceswouldcontinueunabated fromnot longafter sunupuntilafter sundownwhen thevoiceofOldAnt’nywould rise abruptlyover themultitude: “Well,Maw, turnback thebed.Thesefolkswanttobegettin’onhome.”Andthen,asifatthebiddingofsomeHeavenlysign,thefamilysorted itself into itsbranches.Childrenandshoesandhatswere found, identified,andclaimed;horseswerehitched;andthetribesofthechildrenofOldAnt’nyProudfootsetoutintheirvariousdirectionsin

thetwilight.

The followingpassagealso is fromashort story,“TheSolemnBoy.”GoinghomeatnoonwithaloadofcornonabittercolddaybetweenThanksgivingandChristmas,1934,TolProudfootgivesaride toamanandhisyoungson.Thesearepeopleclearlydisplacedby theDepression.Becauseheunderstandsthis,andhasseenhowpoorlydressedtheyarefortheweatherandhowcold,andbecausekindnessisanyhowhisrule,Tolinsiststhatthetwostrangerscometohishousefordinner—thebigmeal,thatistosay,thatthecountrypeopleateatnoon.Hesendsthemtothehousewhilehedrivesontothebarntocareforhishorses.

TOLSPOKETOhisteamanddroveonintothebarnlot.Hepositionedthewagoninfrontofthecorncrib,sohecouldscooptheloadoffafterdinner,andthenheunhitchedthehorses.Hewateredthem,ledthemtotheirstalls,andfedthem.

“Eat,boys,eat,”hesaid.

Andthenhestartedtothehouse.Ashewalkedalongheopenedhishand,andtheolddogputhisheadunderit.

THEMANANDboyevidentlyhaddoneashehadtoldthem,fortheywerenotinsight.TolalreadyknewhowMissMinniewouldhavegreetedthem.

“Well,comeonin!”shewouldhavesaid,openingthedoorandseeingthelittleboy.“Lookslikewe’rehavingcompanyfordinner!Comeinhere,honey,andgetwarm!”

Heknewhowthesightofthatlittleshiveringboywouldhavecalledtheheartrightoutofher.TolandMissMinniehadmarriedlate,andtimehadgoneby,andnochildoftheirownhadcome.Nowtheywerestrickeninage,andithadlongceasedtobewithMissMinnieafterthemannerofwomen.

Hetoldtheolddogtoliedownontheporch,openedthekitchendoor,andsteppedinside.Theroomwaswarm,welllitfromthetwobigwindowsintheoppositewall,andfilledwiththesmellsofthingscooking.Theyhadkilledhogsonlyaweekorsobefore,andthekitchenwasfullofthesmelloffryingsausage.Tolcouldhearitsizzlingintheskillet.Hestoodjust insidethedoor,unbuttoninghiscoatandlookingaround.Theboywassittingclosetothestove,alittlesleepylookingnowinthewarmth,somecolorcomingintohisface.Themanwasstandingneartheboy,lookingoutthewindow—feelinghimselfastranger,poorfellow,andtryingtopretendhewassomewhereelse.

Toltookoffhisoutdoorclothesandhungthemup.HenoddedtoMissMinnie,whogavehimasmile.Shewasrollingoutthedoughforanextrapanofbiscuits.Asidefromthat,thepreparationslookedaboutasusual.MissMinnieordinarilycookedenoughatdinnersothattherewouldbeleftoverstowarmuporeatcoldforsupper.Therewouldbeplenty.ThepresenceofthetwostrangersmadeTolnewlyawareoftheabundance,fragrance,andwarmthofthatkitchen.

“Coldout,”MissMinniesaid.“Thisboywasnearlyfrozen.”

Tolsawthatshehadhadnoluckeitherinlearningwhotheirguestswere.“Yes,”hesaid.“Prettycold.”

He turned to the littlewashstand beside the door, dippedwater from the bucket into thewash pan,warmeditwithwaterfromthetea-kettleonthestove.Hewashedhishands,splashedhisface,gropedforthetowel.

As soon as Tol quit looking at his guests, they began to look at him. Only now that they saw himstandingupcouldtheyhaveseenhowbighewas.Hewasbroadandwideandtall.Allhismovementshadaboutthemanairofcasualnessorindifferenceasifhewerenotconsciousofhiswholestrength.Heworehisclotheswiththesamecarelessness,evidentlynothavingthoughtofthemsinceheputthemon.Andthoughthelittleboyhadnotsmiled,atleastnotwhereTolorMissMinniecouldseehim,hemustatleasthavewantedtosmileatthewayTol’sstiffgrayhairstuckouthitherandyonafterTolcombedit,asindifferenttothecombasifthecombhadbeenmerelyfingersorastick.ButwhenTolturnedawayfromthewashstand,themanlookedbacktothewindowandtheboylookeddownathisknee.

“It’sready,”MissMinniesaidtoTol,asshetookapanofbiscuitsfromtheovenandslidanotherin.

Tolwenttothechairat theendofthetablefarthestfromthestove.Hegesturedtothetwochairsoneither sideof the table. “Makeyourself athome,now,”he said to themanand theboy. “Sitdown, sitdown.”

Hesatdownhimselfandthetwoguestssatdown.

“We’remightilyobliged,”themansaid.

“Don’twaitonme,”MissMinniesaid.“I’llbethereinjustaminute.”

“Myboy,reachforthatsausage,”Tolsaid.“Taketwoandpass’em.

“Havebiscuits,”hesaidtotheman.“Naw,thatain’tenough.Taketwoorthree.There’splentyof’em.”

There was plenty of everything: a platter of sausage, andmore already in the skillet on the stove;biscuitsbrownandlight,andmoreintheoven;abigbowlofnavybeans,andmoreinthekettleonthestove, a big bowlof applesauce andoneofmashedpotatoes.Therewas a pitcher ofmilk andoneofbuttermilk.

Tolheapedhisplate,andsawtoitthathisguestsheapedtheirs.“Eattillit’sgone,”hesaid,“anddon’taskfornothingyoudon’tsee.”

MissMinniesatdownpresently,andtheyallate.NowandagainTolandMissMinnieglancedateachother,eachwantingtobesuretheothersawhowtheirguestsappliedthemselvestothefood.Forthemanandtheboyatehungrilywithoutlookingup,asthoughtoavoidacknowledgingthatotherssawhowhungrytheywere.AndTolthought,“Nobreakfast.”Inhisconcernforthelittleboy,heforgothiscuriosityaboutwherethetwohadcomefromandwheretheyweregoing.

MissMinniehelpedtheboytomoresausageandmorebeans,andshebutteredtwomorebiscuitsandputthemonhisplate.Tolsawhowherhandhoveredabovetheboy’sshoulder,wantingtotouchhim.Hewasanice-lookinglittleboy,butheneversmiled.Tolpassedtheboythepotatoesandrefilledhisglasswithmilk.

“Why,heeatssomuchitmakeshimpoortocarryit,”Tolsaid.“Thatboycanputitaway!”

Theboylookedup,buthedidnotsmileorsayanything.NeitherTolnorMissMinniehadheardonepeepoutofhim.Tolpassedeverythingtotheman,whohelpedhimselfanddidnotlookup.

“Wesurelyareobliged,”hesaid.

Tolsaid,“Why,Iwishyouwouldlook.Everytimethatboy’selbowbends,hismouthfliesopen.”

Buttheboydidnotsmile.Hewasasolemnboy,fartoosolemnforhisage.

“Well,weknowsomebodyelsewhosemouth’sconnectedtohiselbow,don’twe?”MissMinniesaidtotheboy,whodidnotlookupanddidnotsmile.“Honey,don’tyouwantanotherbiscuit?”

Themen appeared to be finishing up now. She rose and brought to the table a pitcher of sorghummolasses,andshebroughtthesecondpanofbiscuits,hotfromtheoven.

Thetwomenbutteredbiscuits,andthen,whenthebutterhadmelted,laidthemopenontheirplatesandcoveredthemwithmolasses.AndMissMinniedidthesamefortheboy.Shelongedtoseehimsmile,andsodidTol.

“Now,MissMinnie,”Tolsaid,“thatboywillwanttogoeasyonthembiscuitsfromhereon,forweain’tgotbutthreeorfourhundredof’emleft.”

Buttheboyonlyatehisbiscuitsandmolassesanddidnotlookatanybody.

Andnowthemealwasending,andwhatweretheygoingtodo?TolandMissMinnieyearnedtowardthatnice,skinny, reallypretty littleboy,and theoldkitchenfilledwith theiryearning,andmaybe therewastobenoanswer.Maybethatmanandthislittleboywouldjustgetupintheirsilenceandsay,“Muchobliged,”andgoaway,andleavenothingofthemselvesatall.

“Myboy,”Tolsaid—hehadhisglasshalf-fullofbuttermilkinhishand,andwasholdingitup.“Myboy,whenyoudrinkbuttermilk,alwaysremembertodrinkfromthenearsideoftheglass—likethis.”Toltiltedhisglassandtookasipfromthenearside.“Fordrinkingfromthefarside,asyou’llfindout,don’tworkanythinglikesowell.”Andthen—andperhapstohisownsurprise—heappliedthefarsideoftheglasstohislips,turneditup,andpouredtherestofthebuttermilkrightdownthefrontofhisshirt.AndthenhelookedatMissMinniewithanexpressionofabsoluteastonishment.

For several seconds nobody made a sound. They all were looking at Tol, and Tol, with his hairassertingitselfinalldirectionsandbuttermilkonhischinandhisshirtandalarmandwonderinhiseyes,waslookingatMissMinnie.

AndthenMissMinniesaidquietly,“Mr.Proudfoot,youarethelimit.”

Andthentheyheardtheboy.Atfirstitsoundedlikehehadanobstructioninhisthroatthatheworkedatwithasortofstrangling.Andthenhelaughed.

Helaughedwithafree,stronglaughthatseemedtoopenhisthroataswideasastovepipe.Itwasthelaughofaboywhowascompletelytickled.Ittransformedeverything.MissMinniesmiled.AndthenTollaughedhisbighollering laugh.AndthenMissMinnie laughed.Andthen theboy’sfather laughed.Themanandtheboylookedup,theyalllookedfullintooneanother’seyes,andtheylaughed.

TheylaugheduntilMissMinniehadtowipehereyeswiththehemofherapron.

“Lord,”shesaid,gettingup,“what’snext?”ShewenttogetTolacleanshirt.

“Let’shavesomemorebiscuits,”Tolsaid.Andtheyallbutteredmorebiscuitsandpassedthemolasses

again.

FROMHannahCoulter

Christmas1941,theChristmasafterPearlHarbor,camenotlongafterHannah,whoisspeakinghere,marriedVirgilFeltner. Soonafter thatChristmasVirgilwill be drafted into theArmy, as theyhaveexpected.Becausethewarhassounsettledthefuture,HannahandVirgilarelivingwithhisparents,MargaretandMatFeltner.

ITWASTHEChristmasseason,andwemade themostof it.Virgiland Icutacedar tree that filledacorner of the parlor, reached to the ceiling, and gave its fragrance to the whole room. We hung itsbrancheswith ornaments and lights, andwrapped our presents and put them underneath. One eveningVirgilcalleduptheCatlettchildren,pretendingtobeSantaClaus,andwoundthemupsothatBessandWheelernearlynevergot them tobed.Wecooked for aweek—NettieBanion, theFeltners’ cook, andMrs.FeltnerandI.Wemadecookiesandcandy,someforourselves,sometogiveaway.Wemadeafruitcake,apecancake,andajamcake.Mr.Feltnerwenttothesmokehouseandbroughtinanoldham,whichweboiledandthenbaked.Wemadecriss-crossesinthefatontop,finisheditoffwithaglaze,andthenputonecloveexactlyinthecenterofeachsquare.Wetalkednoend,ofcourse,andjokedandlaughed.And I couldn’t help going often to the pantry to look at what we had done and admire it, for theseChristmasdoingsranfaraheadofanyIhadknownbefore.

Eachofusknewthat theothersweredealingnearlyall the timewith the thoughtof thewar,but thatthoughtwekeptinthesecretquietofourownminds.Maybewewerethinkingtoooftheskyopeningoverthe shepherdswhowere abiding in the field, keepingwatchover their flocks, and the lightofHeavenfallingoverthem,andtheangelannouncingpeace.Iwasthinkingofthat,andalsoofthesufferersintheBethlehemstable,asIneverhadbefore.Therewasanachethatfromtimetotimeseemedtofallentirelythroughme likeamisting rain.Thewarwasabodilypresence. Itwas inallofus,andnobodysaidaword.

VirgilandIbroughtGrandmamoverfromShagbarkonChristmasEve.ShewaswearingherSundayblackandhersilverearringsandbroach.Tokeepfromembarrassingme,asIunderstood,shehadboughta nice winter coat and a little suitcase. She had presents for the Feltners and for Virgil andme in ashoppingbag that she refused to letVirgil carry. I hadworried that shewould feeloutofplaceat theFeltners,butIneednothave.Mr.andMrs.Feltnerwereatthedoortowelcomeher,andshethankedthemwithhonestpleasureandwithgrace.

OnChristmasmorningNettieBanion’smother-in-law,AuntFanny,cameuptothehousewithNettietoresumeforthedayheroldcommandofthekitchen.JoeBanionsoonfollowedthemunderAuntFanny’sorderstobeonhandifneeded.

Andthentheotherscame.BessandWheelerwerefirst.Theirboysflewthroughthefrontdoor,leaving

it open, waving two new pearl-handled cap pistols apiece, followed by their little sisters with theirChristmasdolls,followedbyBessandWheelerwiththeirarmsfullofwrappedpresents.Weallgatheredaround,smilingandtalkingandhuggingandlaughing.TheboyswerenoisyasacrowduntilVirgilsaid,“Now,AndyandHenry,yourememberour rule—Igethalfofwhatyouget,andyougethalfofwhat Iget.”Andthentheygotnoisier,HenryofferingVirgiloneofhispistols,Andybackinguptokeepbothofhis.AndthenallthreeofthemwenttothekitchentosmellthecookingandshowtheirpistolstoNettieandAuntFanny.

Hearingthecommotion,ErnestFinleycamedownfromhisroom.ErnesthadbeenwoundedintheFirstWorldWarandwalkedoncrutches.Hewasawoodworkerandacarpenter,athoughtful,quiet-speakingmanwhousuallyworkedalone.TheCatlettboyslovedhimbecauseofhisworkandhistoolsandhisneatshopandthelongbedtimestorieshetoldthemwhentheycametovisit.

MissOracame,stillalerttoseethatIcalledher“Auntie,”withAuntLizzieandUncleHomerLord,whohadcomedowntoHargravethedaybeforefromIndianapolis.TheLordsweren’tkintotheFeltnersatall,exceptthatAuntLizzieandMrs.Feltnerhadbeenbestfriendswhentheyweregirls—which,AuntLizziesaid,wasasclosekinasyoucouldget.

AndthenVirgilandIandtheboyswiththeirpistolsdroveouttheBird’sBranchroadtoUncleJackBeechum’splace—wherehehadbeen“batchingit,”ashesaid,sincethedeathofhiswife—andbroughthimtoourhouse.HewasthemuchyoungerbrotherofMr.Feltner’smother,NancyBeechumFeltner.Mr.Feltner’sfather,Ben,hadbeenafatherandafriendtoUncleJack,whonowwasinawaytheheadofthefamily, though he never claimed such authority. Everybody looked up to him and loved him and, assometimeswasnecessary,putupwithhim.

UncleJackdidn’ttrytohavedignity,hejusthadit.Amanofgreatstrengthinhisday,hewalkednowwithacane,bentalittleatthehipsbutstillstraight-backed.Hewasabigman,work-brittle,andtherewasnofoolishnessabouthim.

YouwouldhavethoughtHenrywouldnothavedaredtodoit,butasweweregoingfromthecartothehouseheraninfrontofUncleJackandshotathimwithhispistols.Ididn’tthinkUncleJackwouldseeanythingfunnyinthat,buthedid.Hegaveagreatsnortofdelight.Hesaid,“Thatboy’llputthecatinthechurn.”

Andsoweallwerethere.

Togetthechildrencalmeddownbeforedinnerandsothelittlegirlscouldhaveanapafterwards,weopenedthepresentsrightaway.Theoldparlorwascrowdedwiththetreeandthepeopleandthepresentsandtheprettywrappingpapersflyingabout.NettieBanionandJoeandAuntFannysatinthedoorway,waiting to receive the presents everybody had brought for them.The boys sat besideVirgil,whowasmakingabigto-doovertheirpresents,inwhichhewasstillclaiminghalf-interest.Theboyswerealittleunsureaboutthis,buttheylovedhiscarryingon,andtheysatasclosetohimastheycouldget.

Thereweresixteenofusaroundthelongtableinthediningroom.Thetablewassobeautifulwhenwecameinthat itseemedalmostashamenot to juststandandlookat it.Mrs.Feltnerhadputonherbesttableclothandhergooddishesandsilverwarethatsheneverusedexceptforcompany.Andonthetableatlast,afterourlongpreparations,wereourham,ourturkeyanddressing,andourscallopedoystersundertheirbrowncrust.Therewasacutglassbowlofcranberrysauce.Thereweremashedpotatoesandgravy,greenbeansandbutterbeans, cornpudding, andhot rolls.On the sideboardwereour lovelycakesoncakestandsandabigpitcherofcustardthatwouldbeservedwithwhippedcream.

Itlookedtoogoodtotouch,letaloneeat,andyetofcourseweate.GrandmamsatatMr.Feltner’srighthandathisendof the table,andUncleJacksatatMrs.Feltner’srighthandatherend.VirgilandIsatoppositeBessandWheeleratthecenter.Andthechildrenintheirchairsandhighchairswereportionedoutamongthegrownups,notwotogether.

EverymealattheFeltnerswasgood,forMrs.FeltnerandNettieBanionbothwerefinecooks,butthisonewas extragood, and thereweremanycompliments.Of all the complimentsUncle Jack’swere thebest,thoughheonlyincreasedthecomplimentsofotherpeople.Heatewithgreathungerandrelish,anditwas a joy towatch him.When somebodywould say, “That is awonderful ham” or “This dressing isperfect,”Uncle Jackwouldsolemnlyshakehisheadandsay,“AyLord, it is that!”Andhiswords felluponthetablelikeablessing.

Beyondthat,hesaidlittle,andGrandmamtoohadlittletosay,butwhatevertheysaidwasgracious.Tohavethetwoofthemthere,atoppositecornersofthetable,withtheirlongenduranceintheirfaces,andtheirpresentaffectionandpleasure,wasablessingofanotherkind.

FROMAndyCatlett

NowAndyCatlettisspeakingasanagingmanlookingbacktotheChristmastimeof1943whenhefirsttraveledawayfromhisparentsalone.Hewentbybustenmilestovisit,first,hisgrandmaandgrandpaCatlettwholivedontheBird’sBranchroadnearPortWilliam,andthenhisgrannyandgranddaddyFeltnerwholivedononeoftheouteredgesofPortWilliamitself.ThispassageandthetwothatfollowarefromAndyCatlett:EarlyTravels.HerehehasjustarrivedandisvisitingwithGrandmaCatlettinherkitchen.

RURALELECTRIFICATIONWASonitsway,Isuppose,foritwouldsoonarrive,butithadnotarrivedyet.On thebackporch therewasa large icebox that,when icewasavailable,preserved leftoversandcooled the milk in the summer. That and the battery-powered radio and the telephone were the onlymoderndevicesinthehouse.Itsoldeconomyofthefarmhouseholdwasstillintact.Thesupplylinesrantothekitchenfromthehenhouseandgarden,cellarandsmokehouse,croplandandpasture.Onthekitchentableweretwoquartjarsofgreenbeans,aquartjarofapplesauce,andapintjarofwhatIknewtobethewildblackraspberriesthataboundedinthethicketsandwoodsedgesofthattime.Ithought,“Pie!”

“Areyougoingtomakeapie?”Iasked.

“Hmh!”shesaid.“Maybe.Wouldyouliketohaveapie?”

AndIsaid,withmybestmanners,“Yes,mam.”

Shewassoondonewiththepotatoes.Sheshutthedraftonthestove,tamingthefire,changedthewateronthepotatoes,clappedalidontothepot,andsetitonthestovetoboil.Shegotoutanotherpot,emptiedthe beans into it, added salt, some pepper, and a fine piece of fat pork. She was talking at large,commentingonherwork, tellingwhat shehad learned from relatives’ letters andChristmas cards andfrom listening in on the party line. Iwas up and following her around by then, tomake sure I got thebenefitofeverything.

Shewashedherhandsatthewashstandbythebackdooranddriedthem.Ifollowedherintothecoolpantryandwatchedas shemeasuredout flourand lardand theother ingredientsandbeganmaking thedoughforapiecrust.Sherolledoutthedoughtotherightthickness,presseditintoapiepan,and,holdingthepanonthefingertipsofherlefthand,passedaknifearounditsedgetocarveoffthesurplusdough.

As she went about her preparations for dinner, she was commenting to herself, with grunts of

determinationorapproval,onherprogress.Ikneweventhenthatitwasawondertoseeheratherwork,and Iknow itmorecompletelynow.Herkitchenwouldbe countedapoor thingbymodern standards.Therewasofcoursenoelectricalequipmentat all.Thecookingutensils, excepting the invincible ironskillet and griddle, were chipped or dented or patched. The kitchen knives were worn lean withsharpening.Everythingwassignedwiththewearofalifetimeormore.Shewasafinecook.Shedidnotdomuchinthewayofexactmeasurement.Sheseasonedtotaste.Shemixedbyexperienceandtotherightconsistency.Thedoughforapiecrustorbiscuits,forinstance,hadtobeneithertooflabbynortoostiff;itwasrightwhenitfeltright.Shedidnotownacookbookorawrittenrecipe.

Meanwhile, shehadprepared the raspberries,adding flourandsugar to the juiceandheating it inasaucepan.Nowshepouredberriesandjuiceintothedough-linedpan.Sheballedupthesurplusdough,workeditbrisklywithherhandsonthebrokenmarbledressertopthatsheusedforsuchwork,sprinkledflouroverit,rolleditflat,andthenshesliceditrapidlyintostrips,whichshelaidinabeautifullatticeoverthefilling.Asafinaltouchshesprinkledoverthetopathinlayerofsugarthatintheheatoftheovenwouldturncrispandbrown.Andthensheslidthepieintotheoven.

Shewasbeingextravagantwiththesugarformysake,asIwasmoreorlessaware,andasItookforgranted.Butknowledgegrowswithage,andgratitudegrowswithknowledge.NowIamasgratefultoherasIshouldhavebeenthen,andIamtroubledwithloveforher,knowinghowshewaswrungallherlifebetweenhercherishedresentmentsandherfierceaffections.Apeculiarsorrowhoveredabouther,andnotonlyfortheinevitablelossesandgriefsofheryears;itcamealsofromhersettledconvictionofthetendencyofthingstobeunsatisfactory,tofailtoliveuptoexpectation,tofallshort.Shewashaunted,Ithink,bythesuspicionofacomedownalwayslurkingbehindthebestappearances.IwondernowifshehadeverreadParadiseLost.Thatpoem,withitscosmosofHeavenandHellandParadiseandtheFallenWorld, was a presence felt bymost of her generation, if only by way of preachers who had read it.Whetherornotshehadreaditforherself,thelostnessofParadisewastheprimefactofherworld,andshefeltitkeenly.

Oncethepiewasoutoftheway,shewentaheadandmadebiscuitdough,flatteneditwithherrollingpin,cutoutthebiscuits,andlaidthemintothepansreadyfortheovenwhenthetimewouldcome.

Shehadcookedbreakfast,strainedthemorningmilk,madethebeds,setthehousetorights,washedthebreakfastdishes,andcleanedupthekitchenbeforeIgotthere.Nowsheletmehelpher,andwecarriedthecrocksofmorningmilkfromthebackporchdownintothecellar,andbroughtthecrocksoflastnight’smilkupfromthecellartothekitchenforskimming.

Nowitisnoonofthesameday.Andyhasbroughtinthenewspaperfromthemailboxoutattheroad.

IWENTAROUND the house and in at the kitchendoor, pried offmyovershoes, handed the paper toGrandma,tookoffmywraps,andwashedmyhands.

“Trycombingthathairofyours,”Grandmasaid.“Nobodyeversawthelike.It’saregularstrawstack.”

Knowingitwoulddonogood,Itookthecombfromtheshelfwherethewaterbucketsatandpasseditseveraltimesthroughmyhair.

Grandma watched me, and then she laughed. “You are the limit!” Her laugh was affectionate andindulgent,andyetitwasalaughwithahistory,conveyingherperfectedassurancethatsomethingswerehopeless.“Well,giveup,”shefinallysaid.“Comeandeat.”

Shehadmadeasplendiddinner,afeast,littleaffectedbywartimestringencies,which,exceptfortherationingofcoffeeandsugar,werelittlefeltinsuchhouseholds.Ithadn’tbeenlongsincehog-killing,andsotherewasnotonlyaplatteroffreshsausagebutalsoabowlofsousesoakinginvinegar.Therewasabowlofsausagegravy,anotherofmashedpotatoes,anotherofgreenbeans,anotherofapplesauce.Therewasapanofhotbiscuits,tobebutteredorgravied,andanotherintheoven.Therewasahandsomecakeof freshly churned butter, the topmarked in squares neatly carvedwith the edge of the butter paddle.Therewasapitcherofbuttermilkandoneofsweetmilk.Andfinallytherewasthepie,stillwarm,thetopcrustcrispandsugaryandbrown.

Oh,Iateasoneeatswhohasnoteatenfordays,asifmylegswerehollow,asifIwerebiggerinsidethanoutside,andGrandmaurgedmeonasifIwereherchampioninatournamentofeating.

Grandpabeganthemealprotestingthathewasnothungry,butheate,asGrandmasaid,“withacomingappetite,”andwhenitcameitcameinforce.BeforemytimehehadriddenhorsebackthefivemilestoSmallwoodwherehisfriendtheatheistdoctorGibHolstonhadpulledallhisteeth,buthe“gummedit”asfastasIcouldchewwithteeth,andhehadmorecapacity.

We ate and said little, for all of us were hungry. The food, as I see now but did not then, lookedbeautifullaidoutbeforeusonthetable.AndneverthendidIknowthatitwaslaidoutinsuchprofusioninhonorofme.ItwasofferedtomeoutofthelonelinessofGrandma’slife,outofherdisappointments,hercravingforsmallcomfortsandpleasuresbeyondherreach,towhichGrandpawasindifferent.WhenIhadwasheddownthelastbiteofmysecondpieceofpiewithafinalswallowofmilk,mystomachwasastightasatick.IamsureIsaid“Thatwasgood.”Imayevenhavesaid“Thankyou,”forIwaseverconsciousthatIwastravelingaloneandthereforeinneedofmymanners.Buttimehastaughtmegreaterthanks.

AndhereAndyisvisitinghismother’sparents,GrannyandGranddaddyFeltner,inPortWilliam.

GRANDDADDYHADGONEdownintotownafterbreakfast,Ididn’tknowwhatfor.ButIknewhewasonthebankboardandwastrusted,andpeopledependedonhimforthings.Whenhegotbacktothehouse,hecameontothediningroomdoorandlookedin.

“Comeon,son.Timetogotowork.”

Iknewhewantedmetogowithhim,andIsortofwantedto,butIknewtoothatitwasabittermorning

outside,andmostlyIdidn’twanttogo.Theweathermadeitlovelytoimagineawholemorningsnuginthehouse,listeningtothesoundsofhousekeepingandcookingandthewomentalking.

“Well,”Isaid,“IthinkI’dratherjuststayhere.”

Ihave reason tobelieve thathewouldnothaveaccepted that reply frommymotherorUncleVirgilwhentheywereyoung.ButIwasdifferent.Iwashisgrandson,moremyparents’responsibilitythanhis,and,afterall,stillaboy.

Hejustlaughedalittletohimselfandsaid,“Well.Allright.”Iheardhimgothroughthehouseandoutthebackdoor.

ButitwasnotlonguntilGrannycamein.Shesaidinhergentleway,“Andy,yourgranddaddyhassomeworkthatheneedsyoutohelphimwith,”andIknewIhadtogo.

She had a promptitude of goodness that could be just fierce. She knew in an instant when I wasdishonestorthoughtlessorwrong.Muchofmygrowingup,itseemstomenow,wasquietlyrequiredofme by her. Shewould correctme—“Listen toGranny. I expected something better from you”—and itwouldbeasifinmymindapawlhaddroppedintoanotch;therewastobenogoingback.

Iwentandgotmyoutdoorthings,put themon,andwentoutthebackdoor.Itwascold,andtomakethingsworseafewfreezingrain-dropswerecomingdowninaslantalongtherawwind.IwalkedthroughthechickenyardwhereafewofGranddaddy’soldhenswerestandingaroundwiththeirtailsdrooped,lookingmiserable.TheylookedlikeIfelt.Iwasfullofreluctanceandembarrassmentandshrunkeninmyclothesfromthecold.WhereGranddaddywasIhadnoidea,forIhadnotasked.Iwentthroughthegateonthefarendofthechickenyardandintothefieldbehindthebarn,listeningallthetime.

AndthenIheardJoeBanionspeakinthedrivewayofthebarn:“Comeup.”Andhecameout,standingonahaywagondrawnbyhisteamofmules,oldMaryandoldJim.“Whoa-ho!”hesaidwhenhesawme.“Ireckonyoujustaswellgeton.”

“IreckonIjustaswell,”Isaid,andIgoton.

Joedroveuptothetobaccobarnonthehighestpartoftheridge.WhenwecameevenwiththefrontofthebarnJoestoppedtheteamagain.“Theyinside,”hetoldme.Ijumpeddownandhedroveon.

Ididn’tknowwho“they”wouldbe,butwhenIwentthroughthefrontdoor,standingwideopentoletinthelight,IsawthattheywereGranddaddyandBurleyCoulter.

TheCoulters,Burleyandhisbrother,Jarrat,hadhousedtobaccointhatbarn,butnowtheyhademptiedit.WhatGranddaddyandBurleyweredoingthatmorningwaspreparingthebarnforthelambingthatwasdue to begin in just a few days. Because they had used the barn, this was partly the Coulters’responsibility,andBurleyhadcometohelp.Iwasstillfeelingashamedandalittleoddbecauseofmyrefusal,andsowhenIhadsteppedthroughthedoorIjuststopped.

Therewas a large rick of baled alfalfa in one corner of the barn, put there to be handy to feed thelambing ewes.GranddaddyandBurleywerebuilding a lowpartition around it tokeep the ewes fromruining itbefore theycouldeat it.Granddaddywasstarting tonailupaboard,andBurleywassortingthroughastackofoldlumber.

ThefirsttonoticemewasGranddaddy.Hesaid,“Hello,son.”

AndthenBurleyturnedtolookandsaid,“Well!Ifitain’tAndy!”

Itwasamomentnotpossibletoforget.TomCoulter,whonotlongagohadbeenkilledinthefightinginItaly,wasBurley’snephew.Partofthebloodthathadbeenshedinthatbadyearof1943hadbeenTomCoulter’s. I had not seen Burley since the news of Tom’s death had come. I didn’t have grown-upmanners,andIdidn’tknowwhattosay.WhenBurleyspoketome,itwasasifhewasnotjustgreetingorwelcomingme,butreceivingmeintohistendernessforTom.Itputalumpinmythroat.Hecameover,takingoffhisrightglove,andshookmyhand.

Hesaid,“Howyoumakingit,oldboy?”

Ijustnodded,afraidifIsaid“Fine”Iwouldcry.

Granddaddysaid,“Andy,pickuptheotherendofthisboard,honey.”

Ipickeditupandhelditwhilehenailedhisend.Andthenhecameoverandnailedmyend.Wedidthesamewiththenextboard.AndsoIwashelping.Allthroughthemorningtheykeptfindingwaysformetohelp. They letme belong there atworkwith them. They keptme busy.And I experienced a beautifulchange thatwas stillnew tome thenbut isoldand familiarnow. Iwent fromreluctanceanddread tointerestinwhatweweredoing,andthentopleasureinit.Igotwarm.

Wefinished thebarrieraround thehayrick.Wepickedupeverything thatwasoutofplaceor in theway.Wemadethebarnneat.Joereturnedwithaloadofstrawfromthestrawstack.Andthenwebeddedthebarn,carryingforkloadsofstrawfromthewagonandshaking itout levelanddeepover thewholefloor,replacingtheoldfragranceoftobaccowiththenewfragranceofcleanstraw.Granddaddyhadsomelongpanelsthatwouldbeused,assoonasneeded,toportionthebarnbetweentheeweswithlambsandthose still to lamb.We repaired the panels and propped them against thewallswhere theywould behandy.Weunstackedthemangersandlinedthemupinarowdownthecenterofthedriveway.Alongonewallwesetupthefour-by-four-footlambingpenswheretheeweswithnewlambswouldbeconfinedandwatchedoveruntilthelambswerewellstartedandstrong—“thematernityward,”Granddaddycalledit.

The men were letting me help sometimes even when I could see I was slowing them down. Wetransformed thebarn froma tobaccobarn recalling last summer’s crop to a sheepbarn expectingnextyear’slambs.Inourworkwecouldfeelthenewyearcoming,thedayslengthening,thetimeofbirthandgrowth returning, and this seemed tobring ahappiness to everybody, in spite of thewar andpeople’sgriefsandfears.The last thingwedidwascleanup thestrippingroom.Itwouldbeasortofhospital,whereGranddaddy,whenhewouldbewatching in the coldnights, couldbuild a fire andhelpwith adifficultbirth,orpenaewewithweaklambsuntil thelambshadsuckedandwerewelldried,orkeeporphanlambsuntiltheygotagoodstart.

Whenweweredoneatlast,Granddaddylookedathiswatchandthenatme.“Well,”hesaid,“couldyoueatalittlesomething?”

Thewholemorninghadgonebyalready,andIhadnotthoughtofhunger,butnowwhenIthoughtofitIwashungry.Isaid,“Icouldeatalotofsomething.”

Welaughed,andBurleysaid,“Hisbellythinkshisthroat’sbeencut.”

“Burley,”Granddaddysaid,“won’tyoucomehaveabiteofdinnerwithus?”

AndBurleysaid,“Naw,Mat.Thankyou.Ileftsomedinneronthestoveathome.Ibettergoseeaboutit.”

Joetooktheteamandwagonbacktothefeedbarnthen,andIwentwithGranddaddytodriveBurley

outtohishouse.

Bythetimewegotbackandwashed,everybodywasinthekitchen.NettiewasfinishingupatthestoveandGrannyandHannahwereputtingthefoodonthetable.Thesmellofitseemedfairlytohollowmeoutinside.Wehad sausage andgravy andmashedpotatoes, just like atGrandma’s.Granny’s sausagewasseasoneddifferentlybutwasjustasgood.Andwehad,besides,hominyandcreamedbutterbeansand,insteadofbiscuits,hoecake—onealreadyonthetable,sliced,anotheronthegriddle—apitcheroffreshmilk,coffeeforthegrown-ups,andagainalltheChristmasdesserts,andagain,forme,icecream.

“Saveroom,”Grannysaidagain.

AndIsaid,“I’mgoingtohaveplentyofroom.”

IhadmoreroomeventhanIthought.

Hannahsaid,“Doyouthinkhe’llleaveusanythingtoeattomorrow?”

“Idon’tknow,”Granddaddysaid.“Wemayhavetoskipadayortwo.”

FROM“Misery”

HereagainAndyCatlettisspeakinginoldage,againrememberinghisCatlettgrandparents,butthisisfromashortstory.Thetimeis1945.

THEHOUSEHOLDEMBODIEDandwassustainedbyanagriculturalorder, restingupontheorderoftimeandnature,thatwasatoncedemandingandconsoling.Becausethisorderwastheorderofthehouse,achildcouldbehappyinit.

But the timewascoming,wasalreadyarriving,whenthatorderwouldbedisvaluedand takenapartpiecebypiece.Ihadcomealongjustintimetoglimpsetheoldorderwhenitwasstillsomewhatintact.Ihadplayedoridledinblacksmithshopswhilethesmithsshodhorsesormules,andbuiltfromrawironandwoodmanyofthesimplefarmingtoolsstillinuse.Ihadgonealongwiththecrewsofneighborsastheyfollowedthebinderinthegrainfields,gatheringtheboundsheavesintoshocks,stoppingtocatchtheyoungrabbitsthatranfromthestill-standingwheatorbarley.Ihadwatchedastheyfedloadafterloadofsheavesintothethreshingmachineandsackedandhauledawaythegrain.AndIhadbeenonhandwhenthesweatedcrewswashedonthebackporchandsatdowntoharvestmealsequaltoChristmasdinners,eveninwartimewithnosugarfortheicedtea,toeatbigandtellstoriesandlaugh.

And then there came a daywhenGrandma, old and ill andwithout help,was not up to the task ofcookingforathreshingcrew,andmyfathercouldseethatshewasnot.HehadtakentimeofffromhislawofficetospliceoutGrandpa,whoalsowasnotequaltotheday.

“It’sallright,”myfathersaid,comfortingGrandma.“I’lltakecareofit.”

Andhedidtakecareofit,forhewasamanwhorefusedtobeataloss,andhewascapable.Hewentandboughtagreatpileofgroundbeefandsacksfullofpackagedbuns.Hefiredupthekitchenstoveand,overpoweringGrandma’sattempts tohelp, friedhamburgersenough,andmore thanenough, to feed thecrewofhungrymenandtheirretinueofhungryboys.Itwasadequate.Itwasevenadmirable,initsway,Icouldseethat.ButIcouldseealsothatsomethingoldandgoodwasturning,orhadturned,profoundlywrong.Anoldpropriety that Iknewwasnotminehadbeenoffended. Icouldnothavesaid thisat thetime,butIfeltit;Ifeltitentirely.Therewasmyfatherinthekitchen,cooking,notlikeanycookIhadeverseen,butlikehimself,allconcentrationandhaste,goingatabigjobthathadtobedone,nothinglovelyaboutit.Andtherewasthecrewsittingdown,nottoaproperharvestmeal,buttohamburgersthatIknewtheyassociated,asIdid,withtownlife,withhamburgerjoints.

GrandmaandGrandpahadachievedtheirthreescoreyearsandtenandmore;theirstrengthhadbecomelaborandsorrow.Thelifetheyhadlived,theoldseason-governedlifeofthecountry,waspassingawayas theywatched.No threshingmachine or threshing crewwould come to their place again, and there

wouldbenomorebigstrawstacksforaboytoclimbupandslidedown.Thecombineshadarrived,theirservicetobepurchasedbymeremoney.

FROMTheMemoryofOldJack

ItisSeptember1952,duringthetobaccocuttingontheFeltnerplace.Thetraditionofwork-swappinghascontinueduntilnow,as itwillcontinue,slowlyravelingout, foranother thirtyorsoyears.Themenhavegatheredtoharvestthecropandthewomentofeedthemdinner.MargaretFeltnerisgettingoninyearsandHannah—who,afterVirgilFeltner’sdeathinWorldWarII,marriedNathanCoulter—ispregnant.ButMaryPenn,assoonasdinnerisoverandthedishesdone,willgoouttoworktherestof the day with the men. At the start of this passage Hannah has found Old Jack Beechum in thebarbershop,wherehehasbeensleepinganddreaming,andsheisbringinghimtotheFeltnerhousefordinner.

THEYWALKSLOWLYup the street towardMat’s,Hannah holding to the oldman’s arm as if to behelped,but in realityhelpinghim.Andyetsheknows that,by taking thatarmsograciouslybentatherservice,sheisbeinghelped.Sheissturdilyaccompaniedbyhisknowledge,inwhichsheknowsthatsheis whole. In his gaze she feels herself to be not just physically but historically awoman, one amonggenerations,bearingintomysterythedarkseed.Shefeelsherselfcompletedbythatasshecouldnotbecompletedbythedesireofayoungerman.Astheywalk,shetellshimsuchnewsasthereis:howtheyallare,wheretheyareworking,whattheyhavegotdone,whattheyhavelefttodo.Fromtimetotimeshestops,asiftogiveallherattentiontoherstory,toallowhimamomentofrest.Butsheisgladtoprolongthewalk.She ismovedbyhim,pleased tostand inhissight,whosefinalknowledge iswomanly,whoknowsthatallhumanlaborpassesintomystery,whohasbeenfaithfuluntodeathtothelifeofhisfieldstonoendthathewillknowinthisworld.AsforOldJack,helistenstothesoundofhervoice,strongandfullofhope,knowingandneartojoy,thatpleaseshimandtellshimwhathewantstoknow.Henodsandsmiles,encouraginghertogoon.Occasionallyhepraisesher,inthattoneoffinaljudgmentoldagehasgivenhim.“You’reafinewoman.You’reallright,”hesays.Andhistoneimplies:Believeitofyourselfforever.

TheyarecrossingMat’syardnow,andsuddenlyOldJackcansmelldinner.Itisstrong,anditstirshim.It changes his mind. He steps faster. He is leaving the world of his old age and entering a stronger,youngerworld.Heisgoingintotheveryheartofthatworldwherelabor’shungerisfedwithitsincrease.Thatistheorderthatheknows,andknowsonlyandfinally:thatcomplexityofreturnsbetweenworkandhunger.

Theyturnthecornerofthehouseintosightofthebackporch,andthereareallthemenjustcomein.Twowashpansandtwokettlesofhotwaterhavebeenbroughtoutandsetdown.LittleMargaretstandsnearby,holdingatowel.LightningandMat’sgrandson,AndyCatlett,arewashingattheedgeoftheporch,leaningoverthepans.MatissittinginawillowrockingchairontheporchwithMattieonhislap.The

others—Burley,Jarrat,Nathan,Elton—standorsquatintheyardbeyondtheporch,smoking,waitingtheirturns.Theirshirtsarewetwithsweat.Theirhandsandthefrontsoftheirclothesaredarkwithtobaccogum.Theysmellofsweatandtobaccoandtheearthofthefield.Inthestanceofallofthemthereisrelishofthestillnessthatcomesafterheavylabor.Theyhavecometorest,andtheirstillnessnow,becauseofthelongafternoon’sworkyetaheadofthem,ismoreintense,moredeeplyfelt,morecarefullyenjoyed,thanthatwhichwillcomeattheday’send.EvenMat,whoordinarilywouldbecarryingonsomesortofplaywithMattie,issittingstill,hishandsatrestonthechairarms.Mattieisleaningagainsthisshoulder,nearly asleep.OnlyBurley is talking, thoughhekeepsotherwise as carefully still as the others.He isdirectingamixtureofbanterandpraiseatLightning’sback.Itisabillofgoodsdesigned,astherestofthemwellknow,tokeepLightningonhand.Undertheburdenofsuchastretchofhardworkhiscustomarybragginghasgivenwaytoperiodsofsulkiness.

“Why,lookatthearmonhim,”Burleyissaying.“Lookatthemusclethefellow’sgot.Damn,hecanbarelygethissleeverolledupoverit.NowonderIcan’tstaywithhim.”

Theothersgrinandwink.Thefactisthat,lefttohimself,Lightningisslow.ButallweekBurleyhasbeenworkingconstantlyathisheel,braggingonhim,threateningtopasshim,neverquitedoingit—andhassucceededindrivinghimalmostupwithEltonandNathan,whoarethebestofthem.

LightningstraightensfromhiswashinganddrieshandsandfaceonthetowelthatLittleMargaretholdsouttohim.HeisdoinghisbesttostayalooffromBurley’stalk,butitgetstohim,andhetoucheslovinglythemuscleofhisrightarm.

“Heputitonmethismorning,UncleJack,”Burleysays,seeingtheoldmancomingaroundthehouse.“Itriedhim,butIcouldn’tshakehim.”

“Goonandwash,”hesaystoJarrat.“Igottofinishmysmoke.”Hestandsbentforwardalittleatthehips,handonthesmallofhisback.Heseemstobehurtingalittle.Heprobablyis,butheisplayingonittoo,parodyinganagedandabeatenman.Helooksafar,soliloquizingabouthisdefeat.“Nawsir!Couldn’thandlehim!Toofewbiscuitsandtoomanyyearshavedonemadethedifference.”

“AyLord,he’sagoodone!”OldJacksays,seeingthepoint.HeknowswherethatLightningwouldbeifsomebodywasnotcrowdinghimallthetime.Somewhereasleep.ButheshakeshisheadinapprobationofBurley’spraise.“He’sgottherightlookabouthim.”

“You’reright,oldscout,”Burleysays.“He’stheprideofLandingBranch,andnodoubtaboutit.ButIbelieveIsmellabiscuit in thewind,andmaybeaham,and thatmaymakeadifference thisafternoon.WhenIgobackoutthereIaimtobeproperlyfed.Oh,Imaynotgetaheadofhim,butI’llbewherehecanhearmecoming.Hamandbiscuits!”hesays.Andhesings:

Howmanybiscuitscanyoueat?Forty-nineandahamofmeatThismornin’.

Lightning is at work now with a comb, putting the finishing touches to his wave and ducktail, asculpturenotdestinedtosurvivethenextmotionofhishead.Thereisanarroganceinhiseyeandjawandthelineofhismouth,basednotuponanyexcellenceofhisownbutuponhiscontemptforexcellence:Ifheisnotthebestmaninthefield,thenheisneverthelessequaltothebestmanbytheperfectionofhisscorn,for thebestman and for thepossibility that is incarnate inhim.Old Jack studiesLightning’s face—herecognizes it; he has knownothermenwhohaveworn it, toomany—and thenhegrunts, “Hunh!” and

looksaway.

JarratandEltonfinishwashingandBurleyandNathantaketheirplaces.HannahpicksupMattie,whohasfallenasleepinMat’slap,andtakeshimintohisnappingplaceontheparlorfloor.LittleMargarethaswanderedofftoplay.

NowMatgetsupandheandOldJackwash.Whentheyhavefinishedwiththetowel,Mathangsitonthebackoftherockingchair.

“Let’sgoeatit,”hesays.Heholdsopenthekitchendoorandtheyfileinpasthim,OldJackfirstandtheothersfollowing.Thereisageneralexchangeofgreetingsbetweenthemenandthethreewomen.

Old Jack takeshis place at theheadof the table. “Sit down,boys,”he says, and theypull out theirchairs and sit down.Mat is at the foot of the table. At the sides, to Old Jack’s right, are Elton andLightningandAndyand,tohisleft,BurleyandNathanandJarrat.Theypassvariousloadedplattersandbowls,fillingtheirplates.

They fall silent now, eating with the concentration of hunger. The women keep the dishes movingaroundthetableasnecessaryandkeeptheglassesfilledwithicedtea.

“Layitaway,boys,”OldJacksays.“It’sfineandthere’splentyofit.”

Following his lead, the others praise the food, the oneswhosewives have cooked being careful topraisethecookingoftheotherwomen.

Inthepresenceofthathungerandthateagerfilling,OldJackeatswellhimself.Buthisthoughtsgotothe othermen, andhewatches them.Hewatches the older ones—Mat and Jarrat andBurley—sensingtheirweariness and theirwill to endure, troublingabout themandadmiring them.Hewatches the fiveprovenmen, whom he loves with the satisfaction of thorough knowledge and long trust, praising andblessingtheminhismind.Hewatchesthemwithpleasuresokeenitisalmostpain.

Andhewatchestheboy,Andy,whomhelovesoutofkinshipandbecauseheisnotafraidofworkandbecauseofhisgood,promisingmind,butwithuneasinessalsobecausehehassolittlemeatonhisbonesandhasalottogothrough,alottomakeuphismindabout.

AndhewatchesLightning,whomhedoesnotlove.Thatone,hethinks,willbehardputtobeworthwhathewilleat.Forheisonewhobelievesinawayout.Aslongashehastwochoices,orthinkshehas,hewillneverdohisbestorthinkofthepossibilityofthebest.

OldJackshakeshishead.“SeethatthatAndygetsplentytoeat,”hetellsMat.

“Don’tyouworry.I’mgoingtotakecareofthisboy,”Matsays.AndhegivesAndyasqueezeandapatontheshoulder.

“WegoingtomissoldAndywhenhe’sgone,”Burleysays.

Theedgeisofftheirhungernow,andtheygiveattentiontoAndy,forwhomthisisthesummer’slastworkday.Tomorrowhewillbeleavingtobeginhisfirstyearofcollege.

“We’ll be looking around here for the old boy,”Burley says, “and he’ll done be gone.They’ll say,‘Where’stheoldlongboythatcouldloadthewagonsogood?Where’sthatonethatusedtohousethetoptiers?’Andwe’llsay,‘OldAndyain’therenomore.He’suptheretotheuniversity,studyinghisbooks.’”

“Studyingthegirls,”Nathansays,grinningandwinkingatHannah.

“He’llbeallrightwiththegirlsifhewantstobe,”Hannahsays.“I’mabetterjudgeofthatthanyou.”

“YoudoallrightwithKirby,don’tyou,Andy,hon?”MaryPennsays.

“Yeah, ifoldKirby’sgoing tohaveanysay-so,hebetterkeephismindonhisbookswhilehe’supthere,”Burleysays.“Hedon’t,she’llkickoverthebeehive,Iexpect.”

“Youkeepyourmindonyourbooksanyhow,Andy,”Jarratsays,lookinggravelyacrossthetableattheboy,hisgazeponderousandstraightunderthickbrows.“Mindyourbooks,andamounttosomething.”

“Andy,”Eltonsays,“you’llgetfullofbooklearningandfinewaysupthere,andyouwon’thaveanymoretimeforushereatall.”

Andy,whohasbeengrinningat this commentaryonhisdeparture,now flusheswith embarrassment.“YesIwill,”hesays,thoughheknowstheinadequacyofsuchanavowal.ThefaiththatEltonhascalledfor,thoughhespokeinjest,willhavetobeproved.

Theyallknowit.Andyhasnotyetchosenamonghischoices.

And thenMat says, “Well, he’s learned some thingsherewithus that he couldn’t have learned in aschool.A lotofhis teachers therewon’tknow them.And ifhe’s theboy I thinkhe is,hewon’t forgetthem.”

“Yessir!”OldJacksays.“ByGod,that’sright!”

Nowalltheplatesareempty.Thewomengatherthemandstackthembythesink.Theyreplacethemwithdishesofblackberrycobbler,stillwarmfromtheoven,coveredwithcoldwhippedcream.

“YouallcanthankAndyforthis,”Hannahsays.“Imadeitforhimbecauseit’shisfavorite.”

“Thankhim!”Nathansays.“I’mmadashellaboutit.Whenareyougoingtofixmesomethingbecauseit’smyfavorite?”

Hannahgrins.“Yourtimeiscoming,”shesays,“junior.”

Theotherslaugh.Theicedteaglassesarefilledagain.Theytaketheirtimeoverthecobbler, talkingidlynowofthepast,ofothercrops.

Theafternoon’sworkisnearthem,nottobeputoffmuchlonger.OldJackcanfeelitaroundhimintheair, that dreadof theheat andheavinessof the afternoon that even the strongest and thebestmanwillsuffer.Butnotforhimanymorethegoingbacktothefield.Nomoreforhimthebreakingsweatunderthesun’sblaze,thedelightofskillandstrength,andthepride.

FROMJayberCrow

Jayber himself is speaking. From 1937 until 1969 hewas the barber inPortWilliam, living in thesingle room over his shop.Health regulations requiring hot runningwater put him out of businessthere.Nowheisliving,andstillbarbering,inaremotecamphouseontheriver.Notmuchissaidhereaboutfood,thoughtheoccasionispartlyameal.ButmaybetherealsubjectisthefreeexchangingofaffectionandhelpthatmakeswhatBurleyCoultercalls“themembership”ofPortWilliam.

TOGETMYownhaircut,IhadcontinuedtogodowntoHargrave.WhenIlivedinPortWilliam,thiswaseasyenoughtoarrange.Iwouldhearthatsomebodywasgoingandwouldspeakforaride.Fromthehouseontheriver,itwasnotsoeasy.Sometimesitwouldcometohitchhiking,whichcouldtakehalfaday.IhappenedtomentionthistoDanny.

Hesaid,“Why,Jayber,youdon’tneedtogotoHargravetogetyourhaircut.Lydacancutit.”

Itwasevening.Hehadfinishedrunninghislinesandwasgoinghome.“Comeon,”hesaid.

SowewentuptohistruckandIrodehomewithhim.

“Lyda,”hesaid,“Jayberhereneedstogethishaircut.”

Shesaid,“Well,he’llhavetoeathissupperfirst.Ican’tstopnow.”

Isaid,“Oh,now,Ihatetoputyoutothetrouble.”

“Onemoremouthwon’tmakeanydifferencehere,”shesaid.

“Naw,Jayber,”Burleycalledfromtheporchswing,“itwon’tbeanytrouble.Comeonup.I’llhavesupperonthetableinafewminutes.”

Lydatookaswipeathisshoulderwiththeragshehadinherhand.“You’llhaveitonthetable!That’llbeafairfinedayinHell!”

“That’swherethey’vegotsomethingcookingallthetime,”Burleysaid.“Comeonup,Jayber.”

Bythenallthechildrenanddogsknewtherewasastrangerontheplace,andtheyhadcometolook.TheyallcrowdedaroundmeasifmaybeIhadmypocketsfullofcandy.

“Getback!Getback!”Dannysaid.“Giveaman roomtowalk!”Hemadeapartingmotionwithhishands.

Childrenanddogs fellback toeachside like thewatersof theRedSea, leavinga sortofaisle thatDannyandIwalkedthroughtothewashstandbytherainbarrelatthecorneroftheporch.Dannypicked

up thewash pan, smote the surface of thewater in the barrelwith the bottom of the pan to drive thewigglers down, dipped the pan half full of water, set it down on the washstand, and stepped aside,gesturingwelcomewithhishand.“There’ssoapandatowelifyou’dliketowashup,”hesaidtome,andthentothechildrenanddogswhohadclusteredaroundagain,“Getback!”

Thechildrenanddogsfellback,neverceasingtowatchme.Iwashedup,threwthewaterout,dippedthe pan for Danny, and made my way amongst the children and dogs up onto the porch. “Sit down,Jayber,”Burleysaid,andIsatdown.

Whenhehadwashed,Dannyrefilledthepanandstoodtherewatchingwhilethechildrenwashed,thebigger ones seeing to the littler ones,whowanted to splashmore thanwash.Danny said, “Keepyourhandsoffofthemdogs,now,tillaftersupper.”

Youmight think thatsomanyyoungchildrenwouldmakeaconsiderableuproaratameal,butwhenLydacalledusintosupperthosechildren(fromWill,whowasfourteen,rightdowntoRosie,whowasfour)wentinandsatdownintheirplacesandnevermadeapeep.IthoughtatfirstthatthatprobablywasbecauseIwasthere,butinfactitwasprettymuchaccordingtorule.Butthiswasn’tspiritlessness:Itwasdiscipline.OutfromunderLyda’sgaze,thechildrenwerenoisyenough.WhenReubenandthetwogirlswerelittle,theytalkedallthetime,allatthesametime,inhighchirps,likeatreefullofsparrows.

Whenthemealwasover,thechildrenscrapedandstackedthedishes,whichBurleythenwashedandWilldriedandputaway.

Therewas a running joke betweenBurley and Lyda aboutBurley’s reluctance and incompetence athousework,butofcourseBurleyhad livedalone fora long timebeforeDannyandLydacame,andhecoulddoallthehouseholdwork,ifnottoLyda’stasteatleastwellenough.Whentheycame,sinceitwashishouse,hemighthavetreatedthemasthebeneficiariesofhishospitality,butinsteadhemadehimselftheirguest.Theyresponded,asmaybetheydidn’thavetodo,bybeinghospitabletohim.Hewas,Ithink,agoodguest, helpingespeciallyLyda in everywayhecould.Shecaughthis trickofdealingwith thisarrangementandtheirlargeaffectionforeachotherasanendlesslybranchingjoke,inwhichtheysaidtheoppositeofwhattheymeant.IfBurleycomplainedthathewasbehindinhishouseworkbecauseshewasalwaysunderfootandin theway,hemeant thatshewasanythingbut in thewayandhewasthankful tohaveherthere.IfLydasaidthatitwouldhavebeenamercyifshehadmarriedonehusbandinsteadoftwobachelors,thatmeantthatshelovedthembothmorethanenoughtoputupwiththem.Andsoon.

WhileBurleyandWilldidthedishesandDannyandRoyalandCoulterandFountwentouttofeedthedogs and do a few last chores (the children havingmilked and fed before supper), Lyda gavememyhaircut. The sight of their mother cutting a stranger’s hair was so shocking that Rachel and Rosiewhispered and giggled throughout the operation, andReuben could bear towatch only fromunder thetable.

FROMHannahCoulter

ThesetwoparagraphsreturnustoHannahCoulter.Itistheyear2000.Hersecondhusband,Nathan,has died.Her grandsonVirgie—sonofMargaret, daughter ofHannahandher first husband,VirgilFeltner—hastakentodisillusionanddrugs,andhasdisappeared.CalebisHannahandNathan’sson.Heisascientist,aprofessorofagricultureinauniversitysomedistanceaway.Aliceishiswife.

EVEN OLD, YOUR husband is the young man you remember now. Even dead, he is the man youremember,notashewasbutasheis,alivestillinyourlove.Deathisasortoflens,thoughIusedtothinkof it as awall or a shut door. It changes things andmakes them clear.Maybe it is the truest way ofknowingthisdream,thisbriefandtimeless life.SometimeswhenI try torememberNathan,Ican’tseehimexactlyenough.Othertimes,whenIhaven’tthoughtofhim,hecomestomeunbidden,andIseehimmoreclearly,Ithink,thaneverIdid.AmIawakethen,orthere,orhere?

Itisthefalloftheyear.WehavehadThanksgiving.CalebandAlicewerehere.AndMargaretcame,reconciledbynowmaybe toVirgie’s absence, but not oneof us spokeofVirgie. I fixed a big dinner,enoughtokeepusallinleftoversforawhile:ayounggobblerthatCoulterBranchshotandgavetome,dressingandgravy,mashedpotatoes,greenbeans,cornpudding,hotrolls,acushawpie.Wesatdowntoit,thefourofus,likestraypiecesofseveralpuzzles.Nathanwouldhaveaskedtheblessing,andIshouldhave, I tried to,but that turnedout tobeasilence Icouldnotspeak in. Ionlysatwithmyheaddown,whiletheotherswaitedformetosaysomethingoutloud.Andthen,tochangethesubject,Isaid,“Caleb,takearollandpass’em.”

ThePleasuresofEating

(1989)

MANYTIMES, AFTER I have finished a lecture on the decline of American farming and rural life,someoneintheaudiencehasasked,“Whatcancitypeopledo?”

“Eatresponsibly,”Ihaveusuallyanswered.Ofcourse,IhavetriedtoexplainwhatImeantbythat,butafterwardsIhaveinvariablyfeltthattherewasmoretobesaidthanIhadbeenabletosay.NowIwouldliketoattemptabetterexplanation.

Ibeginwiththepropositionthateatingisanagriculturalact.Eatingendstheannualdramaofthefoodeconomythatbeginswithplantingandbirth.Mosteaters,however,arenolongerawarethatthisistrue.Theythinkoffoodasanagriculturalproduct,perhaps,buttheydonotthinkofthemselvesas“consumers.”If they thinkbeyondthat, theyrecognize that theyarepassiveconsumers.Theybuywhat theywant—orwhattheyhavebeenpersuadedtowant—withinthelimitsofwhattheycanget.Theypay,mostlywithoutprotest,whattheyarecharged.Andtheymostlyignorecertaincriticalquestionsaboutthequalityandthecostofwhattheyaresold:Howfreshisit?Howpureorcleanisit,howfreeofdangerouschemicals?Howfarwasittransported,andwhatdidtransportationaddtothecost?Howmuchdidmanufacturingorpackagingoradvertisingaddtothecost?Whenthefoodproducthasbeenmanufacturedor“processed”or“precooked,”howhasthataffecteditsqualityorpriceornutritionalvalue?

Mosturbanshopperswouldtellyouthatfoodisproducedonfarms.Butmostofthemdonotknowwhatfarms, or what kinds of farms, or where the farms are, or what knowledge or skills are involved infarming.Theyapparentlyhavelittledoubtthatfarmswillcontinuetoproduce,buttheydonotknowhoworoverwhatobstacles.Forthem,then,foodisprettymuchanabstractidea—somethingtheydonotknoworimagine—untilitappearsonthegroceryshelforonthetable.

The specializationof production induces specializationof consumption.Patronsof the entertainmentindustry, for example, entertain themselves less and less and have become more and more passivelydependentoncommercialsuppliers.Thisiscertainlytruealsoofpatronsofthefoodindustry,whohavetendedmore andmore to bemere consumers—passive, uncritical, and dependent. Indeed, this sort ofconsumptionmaybesaidtobeoneofthechiefgoalsofindustrialproduction.Thefoodindustrialistshavebynowpersuadedmillionsofconsumerstopreferfoodthatisalreadyprepared.Theywillgrow,deliver,andcookyourfoodforyouand(justlikeyourmother)begyoutoeatit.Thattheydonotyetoffertoinsertit,prechewed,intoyourmouthisonlybecausetheyhavefoundnoprofitablewaytodoso.Wemayrestassuredthattheywouldbegladtofindsuchaway.Theidealindustrialfoodconsumerwouldbestrappedtoatablewithatuberunningfromthefoodfactorydirectlyintohisorherstomach.

Perhaps I exaggerate, but not bymuch.The industrial eater is, in fact, onewho does not know thateating is anagricultural act,whono longerknowsor imagines theconnectionsbetweeneatingand the

land,andwhoisthereforenecessarilypassiveanduncritical—inshort,avictim.Whenfood,inthemindsofeaters,isnolongerassociatedwithfarmingandwiththeland,thentheeatersaresufferingakindofculturalamnesiathatismisleadinganddangerous.Thecurrentversionofthe“dreamhome”ofthefutureinvolves “effortless” shopping from a list of available goods on a television monitor and heatingprecooked food by remote control.Of course, this implies and depends on a perfect ignorance of thehistory of the food that is consumed. It requires that the citizenry should give up their hereditary andsensibleaversiontobuyingapiginapoke.Itwishestomakethesellingofpigsinpokesanhonorableandglamorousactivity.Thedreamer in thisdreamhomewillperforceknownothingabout thekindorqualityofthisfood,orwhereitcamefrom,orhowitwasproducedandprepared,orwhatingredients,additives,andresiduesitcontains—unless,thatis,thedreamerundertakesacloseandconstantstudyofthefoodindustry,inwhichcaseheorshemightaswellwakeupandplayanactiveandresponsiblepartintheeconomyoffood.

There is, then, a politics of food that, like anypolitics, involves our freedom.We still (sometimes)rememberthatwecannotbefreeifourmindsandvoicesarecontrolledbysomeoneelse.Butwehaveneglectedtounderstandthatwecannotbefreeifourfoodanditssourcesarecontrolledbysomeoneelse.The condition of the passive consumer of food is not a democratic condition. One reason to eatresponsiblyistolivefree.

But if there is a foodpolitics, there are also a foodesthetics anda foodethics, neitherofwhich isdissociatedfrompolitics.Likeindustrialsex,industrialeatinghasbecomeadegraded,poor,andpaltrything.Ourkitchensandothereatingplacesmoreandmoreresemblefillingstations,asourhomesmoreandmoreresemblemotels.“Lifeisnotveryinteresting,”weseemtohavedecided.“Letitssatisfactionsbeminimal,perfunctory,andfast.”Wehurrythroughourmealstogotoworkandhurrythroughourworkinorderto“recreate”ourselvesintheeveningsandonweekendsandvacations.Andthenwehurry,withthegreatestpossiblespeedandnoiseandviolence,throughourrecreation—forwhat?Toeatthebillionthhamburgeratsomefast-foodjointhellbentonincreasingthe“quality”ofourlife?Andallthisiscarriedoutinaremarkableobliviousnesstothecausesandeffects,thepossibilitiesandthepurposes,ofthelifeofthebodyinthisworld.

Onewillfindthisobliviousnessrepresentedinvirginpurityintheadvertisementsofthefoodindustry,inwhichfoodwearsasmuchmakeupastheactors.Ifonegainedone’swholeknowledgeoffoodfromtheseadvertisements(assomepresumablydo),onewouldnotknowthat thevariousedibleswereeverlivingcreatures,or that theyall come from the soil, or that theywereproducedbywork.ThepassiveAmericanconsumer,sittingdowntoamealofpre-preparedorfastfood,confrontsaplattercoveredwithinert,anonymoussubstances thathavebeenprocessed,dyed,breaded,sauced,gravied,ground,pulped,strained,blended,prettified,andsanitizedbeyondresemblancetoanypartofanycreaturethateverlived.Theproductsofnatureandagriculturehavebeenmade,toallappearances,theproductsofindustry.Botheaterandeatenarethusinexilefrombiologicalreality.Andtheresultisakindofsolitude,unprecedentedin human experience, inwhich the eatermay think of eating as, first, a purely commercial transactionbetweenhimandasupplierandthenasapurelyappetitivetransactionbetweenhimandhisfood.

Andthispeculiarspecializationoftheactofeatingis,again,ofobviousbenefit tothefoodindustry,which has good reasons to obscure the connection between food and farming. Itwould not do for theconsumertoknowthatthehamburgersheiseatingcamefromasteerwhospentmuchofhislifestandingdeepinhisownexcrementinafeedlot,helpingtopollutethelocalstreams,orthatthecalfthatyieldedthevealcutletonherplatespentitslifeinaboxinwhichitdidnothaveroomtoturnaround.And,though

hersympathyfortheslawmightbelesstender,sheshouldnotbeencouragedtomeditateonthehygienicandbiologicalimplicationsofmile-squarefieldsofcabbage,forvegetablesgrowninhugemonoculturesaredependentontoxicchemicals—justasanimalsincloseconfinementaredependentonantibioticsandotherdrugs.

Theconsumer,thatistosay,mustbekeptfromdiscoveringthat,inthefoodindustry—asinanyotherindustry—theoverridingconcernsarenotqualityandhealth,butvolumeandprice.Fordecadesnowtheentireindustrialfoodeconomy,fromthelargefarmsandfeedlotstothechainsofsupermarketsandfast-foodrestaurants,hasbeenobsessedwithvolume.Ithasrelentlesslyincreasedscaleinordertoincreasevolume in order (presumably) to reduce costs. But as scale increases, diversity declines; as diversitydeclines,sodoeshealth;ashealthdeclines,thedependenceondrugsandchemicalsnecessarilyincreases.Ascapitalreplaceslabor, itdoessobysubstitutingmachines,drugs,andchemicalsforhumanworkersandforthenaturalhealthandfertilityofthesoil.Thefoodisproducedbyanymeansoranyshortcutthatwillincreaseprofits.Andthebusinessofthecosmeticiansofadvertisingistopersuadetheconsumerthatfoodsoproducedisgood,tasty,healthful,andaguaranteeofmaritalfidelityandlonglife.

Itispossible,then,tobeliberatedfromthehusbandryandwiferyoftheoldhouseholdfoodeconomy.Butonecanbethusliberatedonlybyenteringatrap(unlessoneseesignoranceandhelplessnessasthesignsofprivilege,asmanypeopleapparentlydo).The trap is the idealof industrialism:awalledcitysurroundedbyvalvesthatletmerchandiseinbutnoconsciousnessout.Howdoesoneescapethistrap?Onlyvoluntarily,thesamewaythatonewentin:byrestoringone’sconsciousnessofwhatisinvolvedineating,by reclaiming responsibility forone’sownpart in the foodeconomy.Onemightbeginwith theilluminatingprincipleofSirAlbertHoward’sTheSoilandHealth,thatweshouldunderstand“thewholeproblemofhealthinsoil,plant,animal,andmanasonegreatsubject.”Eaters,thatis,mustunderstandthateatingtakesplaceinescapablyintheworld,thatitisinescapablyanagriculturalact,andthathowweeatdetermines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used. This is a simple way of describing arelationship that is inexpressiblycomplex.Toeat responsibly is tounderstandandenact, so farasonecan,thiscomplexrelationship.Whatcanonedo?Hereisalist,probablynotdefinitive:

1.Participateinfoodproductiontotheextentthatyoucan.Ifyouhaveayardorevenjustaporchboxorapotinasunnywindow,growsomethingtoeatinit.Makealittlecompostofyourkitchenscraps and use it for fertilizer. Only by growing some food for yourself can you becomeacquaintedwiththebeautifulenergycyclethatrevolvesfromsoiltoseedtoflowertofruittofoodtooffaltodecay,andaroundagain.Youwillbefullyresponsibleforanyfoodthatyougrowforyourself,andyouwillknowallaboutit.Youwillappreciateitfully,havingknownitallitslife.

2.Prepareyourownfood.Thismeans reviving inyourownmindand life theartsofkitchenandhousehold.Thisshouldenableyoutoeatmorecheaply,anditwillgiveyouameasureof“qualitycontrol”:Youwillhavesomereliableknowledgeofwhathasbeenaddedtothefoodyoueat.

3.Learntheoriginsofthefoodyoubuy,andbuythefoodthatisproducedclosesttoyourhome.Theideathateverylocalityshouldbe,asmuchaspossible,thesourceofitsownfoodmakesseveralkindsofsense.Thelocallyproducedfoodsupplyisthemostsecure,thefreshest,andtheeasiestforlocalconsumerstoknowaboutandtoinfluence.

4.Whenever possible, deal directlywith a local farmer, gardener, or orchardist.All the reasonslistedfortheprevioussuggestionapplyhere.Inaddition,bysuchdealingyoueliminatethewholepackofmerchants,transporters,processors,packagers,andadvertiserswhothriveattheexpenseofbothproducersandconsumers.

5. Learn, in self-defense, as much as you can of the economy and technology of industrial food

production.Whatisaddedtofoodthatisnotfood,andwhatdoyoupayfortheseadditions?6.Learnwhatisinvolvedinthebestfarmingandgardening.7.Learnasmuchasyoucan,bydirectobservationandexperienceifpossible,ofthelifehistoriesofthefoodspecies.

Thelastsuggestionseemsparticularlyimportanttome.Manypeoplearenowasmuchestrangedfromthelivesofdomesticplantsandanimals(exceptforflowersanddogsandcats)astheyarefromthelivesofthewildones.Thisisregrettable,forthesedomesticcreaturesareindiversewaysattractive;thereismuchpleasureinknowingthem.Andfarming,animalhusbandry,horticulture,andgardening,attheirbest,arecomplexandcomelyarts;thereismuchpleasureinknowingthem,too.

It follows that there isgreatdispleasure inknowingabouta foodeconomy thatdegradesandabusesthoseartsandthoseplantsandanimalsandthesoilfromwhichtheycome.Foranyonewhodoesknowsomethingofthemodernhistoryoffood,eatingawayfromhomecanbeachore.MyowninclinationistoeatseafoodinsteadofredmeatorpoultrywhenIamtraveling.ThoughIambynomeansavegetarian,Idislike the thought thatsomeanimalhasbeenmademiserable inorder to feedme. If Iamgoing toeatmeat, I want it to be from an animal that has lived a pleasant, uncrowded life outdoors, on bountifulpasture,withgoodwaternearbyandtreesforshade.AndIamgettingalmostasfussyaboutfoodplants.IliketoeatvegetablesandfruitsthatIknowhavelivedhappilyandhealthilyingoodsoil,nottheproductsofthehuge,bechemicaledfactory-fieldsthatIhaveseen,forexample,intheCentralValleyofCalifornia.Theindustrialfarmissaidtohavebeenpatternedonthefactoryproductionline.Inpractice,itlooksmorelikeaconcentrationcamp.

Thepleasureofeatingshouldbeanextensivepleasure,notthatofthemeregourmet.Peoplewhoknowthegardeninwhichtheirvegetableshavegrownandknowthatthegardenishealthywillrememberthebeautyof thegrowingplants,perhaps in thedewyfirst lightofmorningwhengardensareat theirbest.Suchamemoryinvolvesitselfwiththefoodandisoneofthepleasuresofeating.Theknowledgeofthegoodhealthofthegardenrelievesandfreesandcomfortstheeater.Thesamegoesforeatingmeat.Thethoughtofthegoodpastureandofthecalfcontentedlygrazingflavorsthesteak.Some,Iknow,willthinkitblood-thirstyorworsetoeatafellowcreatureyouhaveknownall its life.Onthecontrary,I thinkitmeans thatyoueatwithunderstandingandwithgratitude.Asignificantpartof thepleasureofeating isone’saccurateconsciousnessofthelivesandtheworldfromwhichfoodcomes.Thepleasureofeating,then,maybethebestavailablestandardofourhealth.Andthispleasure,Ithink,isprettyfullyavailabletotheurbanconsumerwhowillmakethenecessaryeffort.

Imentionedearlierthepolitics,esthetics,andethicsoffood.Buttospeakofthepleasureofeatingistogobeyond thosecategories.Eatingwith thefullestpleasure—pleasure, that is, thatdoesnotdependonignorance—isperhaps theprofoundestenactmentofourconnectionwith theworld. In thispleasureweexperience and celebrate our dependence and our gratitude, for we are living from mystery, fromcreatureswedidnotmakeandpowerswecannotcomprehend.When I thinkof themeaningof food, IalwaysremembertheselinesbythepoetWilliamCarlosWilliams,whichseemtomemerelyhonest:

Thereisnothingtoeat,seekitwhereyouwill,butofthebodyoftheLord.Theblessedplantsandthesea,yieldittotheimagination

intact.

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR

AUTHOROFFIFTYbooks of fiction, poetry, and essays,WendellBerry has farmed a hillside in hisnative Henry County, Kentucky, with his wife Tanya for over forty years. He has received numerousawardsforhiswork, including theT.S.EliotAward, theAikenTaylorAwardforpoetry, theJohnHayAwardof theOrionSociety,andrecently theCleanthBrooksMedal forExcellence inSouthernLettersandtheLouisBromfieldSocietyAward.

©GUYMENDES

Copyright©2009byWendellBerry.AllrightsreservedunderInternationalandPan-AmericanCopyrightConventions.

“Misery”firstappearedinShenandoah,Winter2008.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataisavailable.

978-1-58243-543-5

COUNTERPOINT2117FourthStreet

SuiteDBerkeley,CA94710

www.counterpointpress.com

DistributedbyPublishersGroupWest

eISBN:978-1-582-43927-3