Rick Welsh Professor of Sociology Clarkson University Potsdam, NY

 Social analyses of the industrialization of agriculture, use as a starting point aspects of U.S. agricultural structure largely, but not universally, characteristic of the agricultural industry during the mid-to-late 19 th and early 20 th centuries. The characteristics include the following.  Large numbers of farms of a relatively modest size by today’s standards.  Farms employ on-farm processing or are tied to local and regional processing firms of various types which employ local labor.  A farm labor force composed mostly of family members, with women and children involved significantly in the production process.  Production for household consumption with surplus production sold on open local or regional markets.  Knowledge production dominated by farming experience and emphasizing unique management practices and farm-generated or local resources.  Cooperative ties between farming families and the local community to enable production.

 Farm numbers drop (7 million in the 1935 and about 2 million in #’s increasing now!).  A small minority of these 2 million produce the vast amount of food.  There are a few very large farms and a large number of small to very small farms with a disappearing middle (Lyson, Stevenson and Welsh (2008)- shameless plug ).  Narrow genetic crop and animal base with increase in purchased inputs to enable production.  Separation of crop and animal production.  Spatial separation of stages in livestock production.

 Separation of production work and ownership of the factors of production  coordination, contracts and integration.  Very concentrated processing sectors in all major commodities.  Family members less involved in production.  Larger labor force imported to keep costs low.  Farmers caught in cost-price squeeze whereby the production-marketing-processing system maximizes profit for off-farm firms at the expense of farm families  “ I can’t work hard enough or make enough to pay my bills!” “My children don’t want to farm.”  Focus on bad managers versus good managers and not the structure of the system where it belongs.

 Concentrated production and processing leads to depopulation of rural communities.  Farming and rural residents alienated due to externalities and lack of direct connections.  Health impacts from industrialized farming practices on farmers, laborers and rural residents (see Agriculture Health Study).  Farm household members alienated from production and stressed due to debt and technological treadmills.  Undocumented worker importation into rural communities further alienates communities, farmers and farm workers from each other.  Political reaction to foreign workers deepens predicament of farmers, workers and communities (social justice concerns).  Coordination and integration reduce farm-level managerial control.  Dominant production practices stemming from structure of agriculture alienate consumers.

 Organic Agriculture.  especially when based on ecologically complex approaches  driven in large part by consumer demand  less alienation  can address cost-price squeeze and health impacts  Direct Markets (local), Value Chains (incl. Fair Trade) and Civic Agriculture (KYF2).  addresses cost-price squeeze and reconnects farmers and consumers and communities  increases number of small farms and processing plants (labor source?)  Management Intensive Rotational Grazing  works in sectors where farmers can access markets directly or through traditional spot markets or marketing contracts  lowers input costs (including hired labor?) and reduces stress on animals and potentially people

 Shift to sustainability driven by social concerns about important social problems.  Intent is to alter economic and technological systems to better balance production, ecological, quality of life and social equity/justice goals.  These themes are embedded in the sus ag literature (e.g., Civic Agriculture ); but, not much research on the social aspects of sustainability.  Research on social aspects of sustainability needed to reach next level of sustainability.  What should be done?

1) Include social impacts of proposed research as a requirement  what is potential social impact of new cover crop and its adoption?  There are always social impacts for any change.  May be valuable to force investigators to discern what these might be and implications. 2) Pick a few concrete topics of particular salience and include in RFP. For example,  Competition versus cooperation among farmers in farmers’ markets.  Participatory labor allocation among household members to increase efficiency, reduce stress and increase satisfaction.  Accessing available informational, financial and family support resources: how successful are farmers in doing this?

 Organizing farmers to identify and address collectively persistent social problems.  Effectiveness of local food councils.  Effectiveness of land-link programs.  Promoting socially acceptable technological change in agriculture  engaging scientists and science.  Establishing deliberative communication (talking and listening) mechanisms among consumers, farmers, parts of the supply chain, community members etc.,  beyond price signals and regulations.

3) Fund projects that seek to understand the social origins of technological and ecological issues (a.k.a. full employment for social scientists). For example, how did the research of Justus von Liebeg prevail over Sir Albert Howard’s approach; and, what are the implications for agriculture today? Such research provides insights about our social and economic systems that are useful for making desired social change right now.