The Environment, Economics and Social Justice of Farm Industry and Policy:

A Study of the Northfield Region

Emma Glidden-LyonConservation Biology

Final Paper

May 30, 2007Opening

Southern Minnesota is located right in the heart of traditional agricultural land that is

called the breadbasket of America. However there is an ongoing crisis in small American farms

that threatens the farm identity of many rural identities. The rise of agribusiness and

monocropping production has lead to a decrease in the viability of small, locally based farms.

Many communities are becoming aware of their precarious hold on their rural character. As the

Twin Cities slowly expand outward, explicit action must be taken to protect any remaining small

farms in the Northfield region. One of these approaches is sustainable development. In a speech

to the Northfield Just Food Co-op, David Hougen-Eitzman has states that there are three

components to sustainability: ecological or environmental sustainability, economical

sustainability and social justice. For success in the future, Northfield must try to achieve all

three. This will require a great deal of infrastructure change, but more importantly the mindset

of the citizens of Northfield must change in regard to assumptions and values they have long

held regarding farms, especially regarding the perceived necessities of farm subsidies.

Minnesota as a whole must decide what they want the future of their land to be, either suburbs

broken up by large, damaging monocrop farms or smaller communities with a connection to their

land and their food.

Importance to Conservation Biology

The plight of smaller, diverse farms may appear to have a closer relationship with the

study of political science or economics. However, the different methods of farming between a

large, agribusiness farm and smaller, locally oriented farm can have direct impact on the

biodiversity of certain regions. Larger farms tend to be intensive monoculture producers (in

Minnesota this means corn, soybeans or livestock) while smaller farms focus on a diverse range

of products. The focus on monoculture is due to the manner in which the global food network

has developed. As the food network centralized, a few corporations could exert influence over

most of the farms in America. The concern switched from what a community could supply and

what a community needed, to what a corporation could market worldwide. This led to more

intensive agriculture that allowed more control over crops by employing damaging pesticides,

herbicides and fertilizers (Hendricks 2005). These harmful pollutants bioaccumulate through the

food web and harm many more species, including humans. In his study of the Northfield food

system, Jason Hendricks writes that, “Intensive agriculture is characterized as a high yielding

large-scale system with a heavy reliance on fossil fuels, fertilizers, monocropping and

environmental contamination” (Hendricks 2005). Soil erosion, chemically resistant pests, an

inability to sequester carbon and contributions to global warming characterize these negative

aspects (Hendricks 2005). Hendricks writes that intensive “agriculture systems have as much as

double the impact on global warming that do alternative systems” and that “The seven-fold

increase in nitrogen fertilizer and 3.5-fold increase in phosphorus use between 1960 and 1995

has resulted in an accumulation of agricultural inputs in the environment” (Hendricks 2005).

These drastic results, affecting the biodiversity on a regional and global scale, have meant that

the need for smaller, local food is augmented by a need for sustainably raised food. Attina

Diffley who, with her husband, operates the oldest certified organic farm in Minnesota recently

relayed her concern to Mr. Singer over the focus on solely local growers. She said, “I believe it

should be local AND organic. Local is helpful for local economics but if it is chemical

agriculture it becomes local pesticides—local cancer and local ground water pollution.”

Brief Profile of Farms in Minnesota and Northfield

In Rice County, in which Northfield in located, farming remains a staple of cultural life.

According to Untied States Census data, there are 1,296 farms in Rice County with an average

size of 192 acres; this includes wide range of types of farms (US Census). Without more

detailed information it is hard to determine what exactly the make up of these farms are, but

there are some important facts that can be gathered. Most importantly is that Rice County has a

high amount of that land dedicated to soybeans and corn. 1,110 farms out of the 1,296 farms in

Rice County grow some amount of those two harvests (with 158,843 acres in total), both of

which are usually planted as a monoculture, decreasing the biodiversity of the area. Of course,

these numbers have not been analyzed but even the initial glance shows that farming is integral

to the community, but that it is being done in a way that runs counter to many of the current

trends in sustainable development.

Of course, farmers do not make up the entire population of Rice County. As the Twin

Cities expand, Northfield becomes more at threat to becoming a bedroom community. Studies

have found that nationally the number of people commuting outside of their county has increased

from 19 percent in 1970 to 27 percent in 2000, with similar increases in travel time (Tigges &

Fuguitt 2003). While this is true in all area of American life, it appears to be especially prevalent

in rural communities. Here the USDA found that “381 nonmetropolitan counties had at least 40

percent of workers commuting to jobs in other counties in 1990. Nearly all of these ‘commuting

counties’ are in the South (65 percent) and Midwest (28 percent)” (Tigges & Fuguitt 2003).

While these are national statistics, the trends can be extrapolated to the Northfield area. In

addition, Al Singer (manager of the Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Protection

Programs states that, “Many family members work off the farm for the majority of their

income.” These twin areas of demographics—monoculture farms and commuting residents—

combine to reduce the availability of land and economic opportunities for smaller farmers.

Agribusiness and the End of the Foodshed

Farming is very different in 2007 than it was in the 1940s. Before World War II, the

technology was not yet available to ship food great distances. In addition, the global economy

that evolved during and after the Cold War had not come about. Countries largely produced

their own food, and food production was centered on where it was consumed. Now food exists

within a global economy. In 2000, countries shipped $417 billion worth of food and agricultural

goods; a threefold increase since 1961 (Halweil 2002). These shipments are not just in fresh

produce or meats. Frozen food allowed foods to be shipped farther and stored longer, increasing

their popularity with manufacturers and further alienating consumers from their food source.

While previously poor communities may have had access to fresh foods now their only options

are what is sold at the cheapest of supermarkets—usually unhealthy, frozen goods. Even in the

new Farm Bill currently under consideration, children are only allocated $6 dollars a month for

produce (Krummer 2007). For the Northfield community, the most obvious effects of

agribusiness consolidation are the potential loss of farm infrastructure and lack of sources of

local food. Scholars point out that “Farm supply dealers also need a ‘critical mass’ of farm

operations to remain viable within an area” (Jackson-Smith 2003). As the economic incentive

for diverse farming decreases due to the centralized control of a few giant businesses, farmers

drop out decreasing the critical mass and speeding the destruction of the farming community.

For small, local farms to succeed, that critical mass and the infrastructure it supports must be

rebuilt. Much of this depends on the economic incentive. However, Mr. Singer says that

“federal farm policy has traditionally favored larger operations (‘family’ and corporate) through

their policies.”

Outdated Policies

Unfortunately, current United States farm policy continues to promote agribusiness while

hurting smaller, sustainable farms everywhere on the globe. United States subsidies were

created with the intention of protecting the small family farms that are a part of American

cultural heritage. Farm subsidies were started during the Great Depression and were used to

maintain the beleaguered farmers affected by the dust bowl. Although the specifics of United

States policy have changed, the principles remain the same. Despite being nearly 90 years old,

there have been few substantial reforms of U.S. policy or approaches to farms. As the agriculture

industry changed and consolidated, the subsidies remained, largely because “Once farmers had

their subsidies, they were viewed as entitlements and were hard to take away, even when the

farm crisis was over” (Folsom 2006). The large agribusinesses moved in and took over the

subsidies and goodwill that should be reserved for small family farms. The United States farm

policy was created in a time of national environmental, economic and social disaster and had

solutions that were specific for that time. To continue abiding by those solutions is outdated and

does a disservice to the American public, the American small farmer and farmers everywhere.

The change in the structure of United States agriculture industry has meant that farm

subsidies go to support giant corporations, rather than the family farms they were intended for.

Today, a few companies that buy produce from smaller farms or have their own massive

productions dominate the agriculture industry. For example, the situation of the potato farmers

in Idaho is created not by the inherent difficulties of farming, but by the total control the buyers

can exercise. Professor Paul Patterson “describes the current market for potatoes as an

‘oligopoly’—a market in which a small number of buyers exert power over a large number of

sellers. . . . Out of every $1.50 spent on a large order of fries at a fast food restaurant, perhaps 2

cents goes to the farmer who grew the potatoes” Schlosser 2002). This is a problem no subsidy

can fix; only structural change can make these farmers independent and successful. However,

even for farmers not caught in this trap, subsidies still are not beneficial. This is due to the type

of farms that receive most of these subsidies. Most of these are in the South and Midwest and

are one-crop giants producing corn, cotton or soybeans (Lochhead 2002). Unfortunately, many

of the farmers struggling to survive run small, traditional, family farms and are hurt by the large-

scale farm competition and the changing dynamics of the rural community. This is the type of

farm that should be helped and protected, but subsidies make no real difference in these

situations.

Social Justice?

Ending or adapting farm subsidies would drastically alter the face of American farming,

but fears of competition from cheaper foreign goods means that even small farmers who are not

helped by the subsidizes continue to support them. The exportation of cheap subsidized goods

produced by agribusinesses floods the world market and cuts out any advantage third world

farmers might have in their own domestic markets. This flooding also comes in the form of

foreign aid. When food is given as foreign aid it prevents any possibility of local farmers from

building up a market for their own product. United States’ farm subsidies and other help is $49

billion and other nations have similar programs (Thurrow 2002). This is contrasted with the

world wide total amount of $50 billion that is given in development aid (Thurrow 2002).

Taxpayers pay for both the aid and the subsidies that undo any of the benefits from the aid. It is

estimated that the total of farm subsidies and protection worldwide comes to $350 billion which

is equal to the entire gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa and is still seven times

greater than foreign aid (Lochhead 2002). In terms of the United States, “losses from cotton

subsidies alone exceed the value of U.S. aid programs” (Tupy 2005). Economically, the

taxpayer gains nothing from supporting both the farm subsidies and the foreign aid, because the

farm subsidies completely negate any financial aid. Ending farm subsidies and promoting

sustainable farms would require that existing institutions be either replaced or remolded so that

environmental and social costs can be factored in (Batie 1989). However, without such changes

small farms all over the world will continue to decrease and the communities that they support

will be lost.

The Foodshed in Northfield and Minnesota

Despite these obvious drawbacks to large, monoculture farming, it continues to be an

attractive prospect those trying to make a living farming. The high costs and unpredictable

returns of farms mean that many farmers take second jobs to fully support themselves (Singer

2007). Again, the agribusiness model only adds to this economic crisis. A study done in

Southeastern Minnesota found that “while farmers had sales of $866 million in farm products in

1997, they spent $947 million raising this food, primarily as payments for fertilizers, pesticide,

and land made to distant suppliers, creditors, or absentee landowner” (Halweil 2002). The focus

on control of crop production has meant that money must be invested in these harmful products.

More money leaves the area because of the fact that “Residents of the region spent over $500

million buying food, almost exclusively from producers and companies based outside of the

region. In total . . . the current structure ‘extract[s] about $800 million for the region’s economy

each year’” (Halweil 2002). As corn prices increase, this trend is unlikely to reverse. While a

switch to diverse, organic farming can seem prohibitive to many farmers, Ms. Diffley states that

“established organic farm’s yields tend to be equal in an average year and better in drought and

floods. Generally it doesn’t cost more to produce organically. The price is higher because of

supply and demand and most organic farmers do no receive much subsidy support because their

rotations are not commodity driven but based on soil and plant health.” Smaller, diverse farms

would help both the environmental and economic situations of communities.

The status of the Northfield movement away from a monocrop economy can be seen in

Just Foods. Just Foods Co-op, which opened in December of 2004, demonstrates a community

desire to become more engaged with food production. However, the product selections reflect

the challenges in creating more diverse farms in the area. One-half to two-thirds of the meat sold

at the Co-op comes from within 25 to 50 miles of Northfield, but most of the produce comes

from all over the United States with 30-40% coming from outside the United States (Hendricks

2005). Partially this lack of local food is due to the climate of Minnesota, but it can also be

attributed to the dominance of monoculture farms in the area. The lack of local food means that

the produce sold, no matter how organic, has a potentially high carbon footprint. However, as

Ms. Diffley points out, “Fuel savings are an exciting concept but questionable in cases as many

small growers are not highly efficient.” By balancing local produce and organic imports, Just

Food’s demonstrates the community’s commitment to local farmers and global biodiversity.

Conclusion

Meanwhile, Minnesota is behind many other states in promoting organic or small diverse

farms. Mr. Singer says that, “Unfortunately, there are no state agricultural protection programs

in the state. The Farmland and Natural Areas Program in Dakota County is the only effort taking

place in the state” to protect farmland through conservation easements. Other communities have

chosen to offer tax breaks to farmers making the transition to organic production, but the focus in

Minnesota remains on monocrops such as corn, soybeans and cereals. Without more purposeful

change on the state level, it will be hard to smaller, locally minded farmers to compete with

heavily subsidized monoculture producers. As Mr. Singer says, “Minnesota relies on out of

state, out of country and out of continent sources for the majority of fruits and vegetables. The

energy cost is enormous. Food quality is questionable. If more corn is planted for ethanol, less

will be available for human and animal food and there is plenty of pressure to return marginal

lands now set aside for water quality, erosion and wildlife purposes.” Luckily, the Northfield

region has not yet lost most of its farming infrastructure making a regional food network more

plausible (Singer 2007). However, for the region to rebuild its connection to its food-shed, farm

policy and attitudes must change.

Literature Cited

Batie SS. 1989. Sustainable Development: Challenges to the Profession of Agricultural Economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(5): 1083-1101.

Diffley A. Email to Singer A. 2007.

Folsom B Jr. The Origin of American Farm Subsidies. The Foundation for Economic Education [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2007 May 30]. Available from: http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/0604Folsom.pdf.

Halweil B. 2002. Home Grown: The Case for Local Food in a Global Market. Prugh T, editor. Washington (DC): Worldwatch Institute.

Hendricks J. From Farmer to Freezer. St Olaf College [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2007 May 30]. Available from: http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/environmental-studies/courses/es-399%20home/es-399-05/Projects/Northfield%20Food%20System/index.htm.

Jackson-Smith DB. 2003. Transforming Rural America: The challenges of Land Use Change in the Twenty-first Century. In: Brown DL, Swanson LE, editors. Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-first Century. 1st ed. University Park (PA): Pennsylvania State University Press. p 305-316.

Krummer C. 2007 Less Green at the Farmers’ Market. The New York Times. May 10 Late Edition: A33.

Lochhead C. Experts Warn Aid Bill Will Lower Income of World’s Poor Peasants. Common Dreams News Center [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2007 May 30]. Available from: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0509-04.htm.

Schlosser E. 2002. Fast Food Nation. New York (NY): Perennial.

Singer A. Email interview with Glidden-Lyon E. 2007.

Tigges LM, Fuguitt GV. 2003. Communting: A good Job Nearby? In: Brown DL, Swanson LE, editors. Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-first Century. 1st ed. University Park (PA): Pennsylvania State University Press. p 166-176.

Thurow R, Winestock G. 2002. A Global Journal Report --- Bittersweet: How an Addiction to Sugar Subsidies Hurts Development --- Politically Vital Farm Support, Especially in EU, Throttles Exports From Poor Nations --- Negating $50 Billion in Aid. Wall Street Journal. 16 September Eastern edition: A 1.

Tupy M, Preble C. Trade Not Aid. Reason Online [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2007 May 30]. Available from: http://www.reason.com/news/show/32936.html.

Interview Appendixes

Al Singer; manager of Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Program

1. What is the most common type of farm in the Northfield area? I would imagine the most common is a combination of corn and soybeans

Do you have any idea how many are family owned? No. This is very difficult and complicated to determine because there are many legal entities with which families can operate a farm, e.g. trust, limited partnership, corporation. Many family members work off the farm for the majority of their income.

2. How does a smaller farm carve out a marketing niche for itself? I am not qualified at all to speak to that question.

3. What programs exist to financially help farmers? There are lots of programs/funding available though they tend to be biased toward subsidizing production of commodities like corn and soybeans. Probably need to talk with the Farm Security Administration (FSA) located in Farmington and MN Dept of Ag.

In many states there are bond-financed programs that offer to buy conservation easements that ensure the continuation of farm land, does anything like this exist in Minnesota? Unfortunately, there are no state agricultural protection programs in the state. The Farmland and Natural Areas Program in Dakota County is the only effort taking place in the state.

4. Do state conservation plans take in to account preservation of the family farm? Not sure.By providing the funds for acquiring easements, it can certainly aid the family’s financial situation which allows them or the next generation to continue farming.

5. How hospitable is the state government to family farms? Again, not qualified to speak to that. You would have to talk with MN Dept. of Ag staff. I think federal farm policy has traditionally favored larger operations (“family” and corporate) through their policies.

6. How important are farmers markets, CSA and other local markets for Minnesota farms?I would guess that a very small proportion of farms are providing products for farmers markets since the majority of farms are for livestock, corn, soybeans, sugar beets, and hay/alfalfa,

How easy is it for farmers to distribute their goods? MN has an extensive highway network but it will largely depend upon the distance between the farm and nearby markets. Is family farming viable in Minnesota? I don’t know. It depends upon how you define a “family” farm and what happens with federal farm policy.

7. What are the challenges facing farms and those who shape farm policy? Globalization; energy costs, pressure to convert corn and soybeans into bio-fuels, lobbying

interests; expectations for cheap, readily available food, water availability, and climate change. I’m sure there are many more.

8. Are there concerns about the impact of out of state goods, or international goods?Minnesota relies on out of state, out of country and out of continent sources of the majority of fruits and vegetables. The energy cost is enormous. Food quality is questionable. If more corn is planted for ethanol, less will be available for human and animal food and there is plenty of pressure to return marginal lands now set aside for water quality, erosion and wildlife purposes.

9. How heavily subsidized are Minnesota farms? I think that will be a very difficult question for FSA and Dept. of Ag to answer. I sure can’t.

10. As sprawl spreads out from Minnesota’s major cities, farmland is being lost to developments. Are there any measures being taken to counter act this? Local zoning can assist by maintaining low-density zoning, right-to-farm ordinances and other measures. However, these regulations can be easily changed if new town board members are elected who have different interests. Our program in Dakota County is specifically designed to protect agricultural land in strategic areas. One difficult aspect is working on land next to cities where the land prices become very expensive and projects are fraught with political conflicts.

11. With suburbanization, rural infrastructure, as well as farms, is lost. These include feed and seed providers, butchers and farm equipment repair shops. What is the status of the rural community? At least in Dakota County, it seems to be holding its own. How likely is it to change in the coming years? Farm and trade policies, energy, and residential housing will all impact the rural landscape. My crystal ball says it will change but I don’t now how, how much when and where. The “ball’ is not worth a darn! How do small farms adapt without ready access to these services? Not sure.

12. Rural nature is clearly still important to the Minnesota identity, however it is being threatened. Is there awareness of this threat? The rural landscape is changing for a variety of reasons. People are concerned and I sense a growing awareness but it is not at a high enough level to cause great concern and or dedicated public funding.

13. What are you biggest challenges concerning farms? Large-scale global forces and policies such as climate, energy, and trade. Complexity and costs, and aging demographic. Myths and realities about our food and health will become more important too.

Attina Diffley; Co-owner of the oldest certified organic farm in Minnesota

The benefits of organic agriculture are so HUGE. We are way beyond any kind of doubt as to it's feasibility. Organic researchers aren't asking yield questions any more. We now know and have substantial research to back it up that organic agriculture is an economically viable option even without a premium and that established organic farm's yields tend to be equal in a average year and better in drought and floods. Generally it doesn't cost more to produce organically. The price is higher because of supply and demand and most organic farmers do not receive much subsidy support because their rotations are not commodity driven but based on soil and plant health.http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1103/droughtresearch.shtml

The market for organic product is not being met and it has been growing at around 20% a year since 1990.

Perhaps the largest barriers to transitioning to organic production is the transition period itself. The land literally goes through chemical withdrawal and until the soil biological life and organic matter is built up there usually are serious weed and fertility problems. The farmers generally don't know what they are doing yet and when they are accustomed to farming with chemicals it can be challenging to understand soil building and holistic systems. This is a time where having mentor and educational support is crucial to success. Many in the organic community believe that rather than subsidizing transitional growers it would be more conducive to success to hire experienced organic growers to mentor them.

Once the soil is built up however it is an amazing system to witness. Our fields have very low weed pressure at this point and high fertility from soil building crops and compost. I would be happy to give you and anyone else you'd like to invite from the county a tour and explain for you some of our organic systems.

Weeds are not a major issue in our system. Their management is not difficult for us. However, surveys of beginning organic farmers indicate weeds as their #1 problem. This is an area where education, demonstrations and role models are a huge help and support for success. Conventional growers who are interested in organic often tell me their biggest fear in trying organic is giving up the herbicide.

To provide incentive and help farmers through the transition period Woodbury County, Iowa offers property tax breaks for transitioning to organic farmers. This can be a valuable incentive as the farmer goes through 36 transitional months of organic production before receiving an organic premium. http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/taxbreak071805.cfm

Woodbury County also has an Organic Agriculture as Economic Development Program . Robert Marqusee, economic development director from Woodbury County spoke at the Home Grown Economy Conference this spring. There is a pdf copy of his presentation and a video you can watch at: http://www.mrs.umn.edu/HomeGrownEconomy/

Besides the environmental incentives to promote organic agriculture, economic advantages are significant. With the high prices of Dakota county farm land, organic agriculture and nurseries

are about the only type of agriculture that can actually buy land at these prices and pay for it with farm income. There is a lot of talk about wanting to preserve the rural character, organic ag helps to walk the talk.

Knowledge can be a significant barrier for transitioning. The Midwest organic community has developed strong educational systems and speakers both for farmers and for extension and government employees. I would be very happy to help connect you with any type of educational needs or projects whether it means bringing in speakers, educating county extension or keeping you posted on educational opportunities already existing. We could line up a series of speakers if so desired.

There are also extensive free organic publications and books on line for download. Perhaps you could have links from your agricultural websites. Again I am more than delighted to connect you with these resources.

Some counties are making commitments to buying locally grown organic, food. There has been a great deal of hubbub lately around local and they often insert the word local where organic was. I believe it should be local AND organic. Local is helpful for local economics but if it is chemical agriculture it becomes local pesticides - local cancer and local ground water pollution. (What's so great about bringing those problems local? Whatever happened to the selfish not in my backyard attitude!) Fuel savings are an exciting concept but questionable in cases as many small growers are not highly efficient. A good study is being done on the local fuel savings claim so frequently used. It will be interesting to read when it comes out.