researCh aNd ouTreaCh efforTs

There are numerous research and outreach efforts under way in the northern Midwest to assist farmers in their transition toward a more sustainable agricultural produc-tion system. Some examples of these efforts include the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA), the Land Stewardship Project (LSP), the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota, the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, the Practical Farmers of Iowa, the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, the Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, the Wisconsin Women’s Sustainable Farming Network (WWSFN), and the Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society (NPSAS).

There is increased awareness that organic agriculture is growing in importance.

More researchers are conducting research focused on organic agriculture practices, and plant breeders are also taking a closer look at the specific needs of this sector of agriculture. Groups such as the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service (MOSES), the Minnesota Organic Farmers Information Exchange (MOFIE), and increasingly, the Land Grant Extension Service help extend information gained from both farmer-to-farmer networks and land grant agricultural research institutions.

There is awareness that a move toward sustainability is linked in part to establish-ing more perennial vegetation within the agricultural landscape. A multi-institutional project known as Green Lands, Blue Waters (GLBW) is a long-term comprehensive effort whose objective is to support development of and transition to a new gen-eration of agricultural systems in the Mississippi River Basin that integrate more perennial plants and other continuous living cover into the agricultural landscape (GLBW, 2005). The project’s goal is to keep lands working while developing new (and expanding existing) cropping options, such as using alfalfa or perennial native legumes and promoting the use of annual plants to provide ground cover in corn and

soybean fields. The hope is for alternatives that are economically viable and improve the environment.

Nongovernment organizations such as the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) provide avenues for future research. IATP’s Environment and Agriculture program seeks to enhance the quality of life in rural agricultural com-munities by promoting conservation-based economic opportunities (IATP, 2005).

This group provides an Internet-based periodical known as “The Third Crop,” which promotes alternatives to corn-soybean production.

In Minnesota, the Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships (RSDP), funded through the state legislation, offers rural citizens opportunities to engage in sustain-able development. The mission of the RSDP is to support sustainsustain-able development in greater Minnesota through community and university partnerships in outreach, edu-cation, and research. The three bedrock principles of this initiative are: (1) develop and sustain a richer and more vibrant partnership with the citizens of each region and their land grant university; (2) address agriculture, natural resources, and tour-ism issues consistent with sustainable development principles identified as central to RSDP’s work; and (3) promote the concept of active citizenship, which calls on us to think first and foremost as citizens with a commitment to working through issues and exploring opportunities in an integrated and democratic manner (RSDP, 2005).

4.6 TraNsformaTioN aNd susTaiNaBle aGriCulTure

One can characterize the northern Midwest of the United States as possessing unique natural, climatic, and social tensions. As previously noted, the northern Midwest is a place where three major biomes come together (Tester, 1995). It is also where three major air masses from the west, north, and south meet. And it is where several American Indian and postsettlement European cultures came together—and some-times clashed.

We began this chapter focusing on tensions that can often infuse the decisions that contribute to evolution of agricultural systems. The farmers we interviewed expressed a strong sense of urgency as they considered future directions for their farms. Ecological, social, and economic stresses heightened their concerns. A finan-cially strapped farmer in Minnesota graphically expressed this: “Economics is com-ing to determine [crop] rotational plans more than agronomics. Under financial stress you see only to the end of the year, not to the end of the decade. I [have] cheated a little bit. I planted canola and sunflowers on all my acres, kind of breaking away from a sensible rotation because it seemed to be the quickest payback” (Corselius et al., 2003).

But where tensions exist, there is also the possibility for transformation. The concept of transformational learning was proposed by Mezirow in the late 1970s (Merriam and Caffarella, 1999; Percy, 2005) and concerns changes in how one works and lives. According to this learning theory, the process of transformational learn-ing begins with tension—a “disorientlearn-ing dilemma”—that arises from life events or personal experiences that cannot be resolved using previously held perspectives, assumptions, or problem-solving strategies. Such dilemmas can provoke self-exami-nation and deeper questioning about one’s prior assumptions and practices, which in

turn may lead to recognition that such dilemmas and questions are shared within a broader community. The final stage of transformational learning results in formula-tion of new practices that address the original dilemma and are consistent with new assumptions, perspectives, and problem-solving approaches that were constructed during the transformation process (Merriam and Caffarella, 1999; Percy, 2005).

For each of the farmers we interviewed during the preparation of this chapter, it is possible to recognize elements of transformational learning. For example, the Minars called attention to the questioning of assumptions that began after they encountered the dilemmas of chemical-based agriculture: “We began questioning the use of chemicals after the [physical] reaction Dave had and adverse effects we could see happening on our farm, such as a lack of bees and many dead birds after planting in the spring.” Similarly, Mary Jo Forbord acknowledged the importance of changes in Luverne’s and her thinking prior to making major changes on their farm when she noted, “Our transition [in approach to farming] first had to occur in our minds.” For Lee and Noreen Thomas, a disorienting dilemma seems to have been the decline in economic return from sugarbeets they experienced in the late 1990s. As they expressed it, sugarbeets were “by far the most profitable crop in our rotation, [but] were beginning to look less certain.” Their conclusion that cane sugar could someday easily replace beet sugar in the United States caused them to have doubts about the future of the sugarbeet industry and called into question their prior assumptions about the dominant cropping system in their area.

Even when not faced with disorienting dilemmas, it appears that Carmen Fernholz has cultivated the habit of routinely asking himself the types of questions that are characteristic of transformational learning. For example, he often asks, “Do I really believe this?” This is a question that can lead to examining one’s prior assumptions and perspectives. Similarly, Fernholz asks, “Why am I doing this?” This question prompts self-examination and deeper thinking about practices.

Carmen Fernholz also has another habit that leads to self-examination and trans-formational learning—record keeping. He recalled that his father urged him to “keep a narrative. If you don’t write it down, it’s gone.” Although Fernholz’s “narrative” is often practical and procedural, it contains elements of a personal journal and helps him to “remember the ‘tuition’ I’ve paid [through my mistakes].”

In conclusion, it is crucial to note that all of the interviewed farmers regarded the process of change—of transformational learning—on their farms as an ongoing one.

A quote by Mary Jo Forbord best describes the overarching conclusions we can draw from the farmers we interviewed regarding future paths toward sustainable agricul-ture in the northern Midwest:

It’s not nearly complete, and we expect that it never will be. It’s a biological system, alive and in need of observation, tending and rebalancing daily…. It takes time and a fair amount of courage and faith. We plan to make it up as we go. Sustainable agri-culture is very site specific and depends so much on our farm ecosystems, resources, and goals … but we are so much more optimistic about the future than we were three years ago.

And we are optimistic as well.

aPPeNdix: QuesTioNs used To Guide The iNTervieWs WiTh farmers

Describe the key elements of your farm (e.g., crops and acreages, livestock,

•

other significant enterprises—income producing or otherwise).

The title of the chapter that we have been asked to write is “Conversion

•

to Sustainable Agriculture.” How does this title resonate with you? Is it descriptive of your own experience in farming over the (period of time that is appropriate for the individual farm situation)? If so, how?

What kinds of factors prompt reconsideration of how you farm? Ecological?

•

Economic? Agricultural? Social and personal? Give a few examples.

As you have looked at the management of your farm, what are the primary

•

limits that have constrained you and placed the greatest stress on your farm?

Give a couple specific examples of significant changes that you have made

•

to your farm’s practices and explain the circumstances that led to those (e.g., input or enterprise changes).

Did you see what you expected in relation to these specific examples? What

•

were the surprises—both positive and negative—that accompanied the changes that you made? Are there any data that you collected in the process of making—or tracking—these changes?

To what extent would you consider the changes you have made in managing

•

your farm a fundamental redesign? Explain.

How have your attitudes and perspectives toward neighbors and your local

•

communities changed as a result of your following the path of change and conversion that you have taken? How have your neighbor’s (or communi-ty’s) attitudes and perspectives changed toward you and your farm since you made the shift in your approach to farming?

As you look ahead, what are the most pressing needs for further

informa-•

tion, understanding, and knowledge as you look to continuing to change or redesign your farm? From what source(s) do you expect to receive this information, understanding, and knowledge?

refereNCes

Alexander, R.B., R.A. Smith, and G.E. Schwarz. 1995. The regional transport of point and non-point source nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. In Proceedings of the Hypoxia Management Conference, New Orleans, December 5–6, 1995, pp. 127–132.

Cardwell, V.B. 1982. Fifty years of Minnesota corn production: Sources of yield increase.

Agronomy Journal 74:984–90.

Corselius, K.L., S.R. Simmons, and C.B. Flora. 2003. Farmer perspectives on cropping systems diversification in northwestern Minnesota. Agriculture and Human Values 20:371–83.

ERS-USDA (Economic Research Service). 2005. The economics of food, farming, natural resources, and rural America. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/.

Fausey, N.R., L.C. Brown, H.W. Blecher, and R.S. Kanwar. 1995. Drainage and water quality in Great Lakes and corn belt states. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 121:283–88.

GLBW (Green Lands, Blue Waters). 2005. http://greenlandsbluewaters.org/.

Hamilton, N.D. 1990. What farmers need to know about environmental law. Des Moines, IO:

Drake University Agricultural Law Center.

IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy). 2005. http://www.iatp.org/.

LSP (Land Stewardship Project). 2003. Getting a handle on the barriers to financing sustainable agriculture: The gaps between farmers and lenders in Minnesota and Wisconsin. http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/pdf/edsurvey.pdf.

MDA (Minnesota Department of Agriculture). 2001, 2003. The status of organic agriculture in Minnesota, ed. M. Moynihan. St. Paul: MDA. www.mda.state.mn.us.

Merriam, S.B., and R.S. Caffarella. 1999. Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MISA (Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture). 2001. Organic certification of crop pro-duction in Minnesota, ed. Lisa Gulbranson. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, MISA.

MISA (Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture). 2003. Building a sustainable busi-ness, ed. Beth Nelson. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, MISA. www.misa.umn.edu/

publications/bizplan.html.

MOSES (Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service). 2005. The Upper Midwest organic resource directory. 5th ed. Spring Valley, WI: MOSES. www.mosesorganic.org.

Nordquist, D.W., L.L. Westman, and K.D. Olson. 2004. Southeastern Minnesota Farm Business Management Association 2003 annual report. Staff paper P04-5, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

OFRF (Organic Farming Research Foundation). 2003. State of the states, ed. J. Sooby. 2nd ed.

Organic Farming Systems Research at Land Grant Institutions 2001–2003. Santa Cruz, CA: OFRF. www.ofrf.org.

Percy, R. 2005. The contribution of transformative learning theory to the practice of partici-patory research and extension: Theoretical reflections. Agriculture and Human Values 22:127–136.

PSU ESSC (Pennsylvania State University Earth System Science Center). 1998. Soil infor-mation for environmental modeling and ecosystem management. Land resource regions. http://www.essc.psu.edu/soil_info/soil_lrr/.

Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 2001. Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.

Journal of Environmental Quality 30:320–29.

RSDP (Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships). 2005. http://www.regionalpartner-ships.umn.edu/.

Simmons, S.R., N.P. Martin, C.C. Sheaffer, D.D. Stuthman, E.L. Schiefelbein, and T. Haugen.

1992. Companion crop forage establishment: Producer practices and perceptions.

Journal of Production Agriculture 5:67–72.

Skaggs, R.W., M.A. Breve, and J.W. Gilliam. 1994. Hydrologic and water quality impact of agricultural drainage. Critical Reviews in Science and Technology 24:1–32.

Tester, J.R. 1995. Minnesota’s natural heritage. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

USDA-NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2004. Historical data queries by U.S., state, or county for crops, livestock and census. http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/histdata.htm.

USDA-NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2005. State soil geographic (STATSGO) database. http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/statsgo/.

91