On October 8^th, 1993 the New York Times reported that the U.S. Bureau of the Census would no longer count the number of people who live on farms as they are statistically insignificant. Less than two percent of America’s population now farms, yet two-fifths of the land of the lower 48 states is dedicated in whole or in part to some form of agricultural use. Such a vast percentage of our population has never before been so far removed from the agriculture, and the land, which sustains us. Indeed, never before have so many been so reliant upon so few for their existence. And never have so few been so unaccountable to the many dependent upon them.

The nature and nurture of our nation’s agricultural landscape is rapidly being given over to industrial processes. The standardized foodstuffs found on our supermarket shelves are the product of standardized processing, which in turn requires standardized raw commodities produced by standardized agricultural production processes. These standardized agricultural processes are imposed upon diverse landscapes, ecosystems, and our struggling farm communities. The needs of the land, its ecosystems, and our farm communities must meet the demands of these industrial agricultural practices or else they are expected to pass away. We are told that this is the price that must be paid for plentiful cheap food, and that the policies that support, regulate, and promote our food system must meet the needs of these practices. But then it is the few multinational corporations which dominate virtually every facet of our nation’s foodsystem—including our own policymakers—that are dependent upon industrial agricultural practices that tell us this must be the way.

Our food and agriculture system is subservient to the industrial processes which make it possible for the ownership and control of land, production, processing, shipping, marketing, and sale to be concentrated in the hands of very few. The result? Farm communities are depopulated as families move off the land because they cannot meet the terms of competition dictated by the few multinational corporations who derive their power through concentration and market consolidation, and whose power is increased as fewer farm families remain on the land and as fewer competitors exist in the marketplace. Ground and surface water resources are threatened by overdrawing for irrigation, nutrient enrichment from synthetic fertilizers, and waste that is released by, or which escapes from, confined animal feeding operations. Wildlife habitat is lost or degraded as more and more acreage is put into production, or as practices pollute or otherwise degrade habitat. Species of plants and animals which are perceived as being at all incompatible with crops or livestock may be targeted for elimination. These are some of the symptoms of our industrialized agriculture.

Then there is the alternative: the family-scale farm which is capable of better stewardship of land and community. Agriculture—the production of food and fiber—is not an option, but the structure of our nation’s system of agriculture is, and that system is determined by the conscious choices of consumers, policymakers, and farmers.

The need to keep farm families on the land and improve their competitive position in the marketplace has nothing to do with nostalgia or other emotional sentiment. Because of their scale, they are better able to tailor specific practices to specific characteristics found in the agricultural ecosystem of the farm. The farmer works with the natural processes of the agricultural ecosystem to sustain its productive capacity now and for future generations. Furthermore, farm families are tied to, and accountable within, their communities—local government, schools, businesses, churches, and all of the traditions thereof . This is what farm stewardship entails—accepting responsibility for the care and nurture of the natural and human communities that underlie a system of agriculture that is capable of meeting the food and fiber needs of today, and which may be sustained through future generations.

Are family-scale farms inherently better stewards and more ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable? No. But when a farmer makes the conscious decision to have intimate knowledge of the land they farm, takes into consideration how the practices on that farm impact the larger natural and human communities, begins to hold him or herself accountable for his or her own actions because ties to those communities are recognized, and the marketplace and foodsystem policy do not create overwhelming disincentives or barriers to proper stewardship, the needs of farm family, farm community, environment, and consumers can be harmoniously met now and for future generations! This can best be done at the scale of the family farm because it operates at a scale which enables it to be responsive to these needs, and is motivated to do so not by shareholders but because it is a part of a larger community and cares about that community.

Agricultural ecosystems are diverse by nature, and farm stewardship practices must be responsive to, take advantage of, and preserve that diversity. Industrial agricultural technologies which require standardization at a large scale in order for these technologies to pay for themselves not only cannot respond to the diversity found within agricultural ecosystems, but also lead to the concentration of farmland into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Stewardship of the land requires practices that work with the specific conditions found on specific parts of the farm. This means land uses on the farm should relate to what specific conditions can best support. For example, highly erodable land may be better suited to grazing or hay production rather than row crop production. Sandy soils should be managed differently than clay soils, nurturing the unique qualities of each to produce outstanding crops which thrive in different soil environments. Rivers and streams should be protected by restricting or preventing activity along their banks, and buffer zones should be created to filter runoff, capture soil, and provide wildlife habitat. Some land is better left in trees or other habitat, making sustainable forestry or grassland management an option. Species of wildlife which have the potential to cause significant damage are not eradicated, but rather the conditions for significant damage are mitigated by management practices based upon an understanding of habitat needs and seasonal behaviors. Diverse conditions within the agricultural ecosystem require diverse practices which do not fit the industrial model, and diverse farm practices produce diverse goods which require diverse markets.

Consumer wants and needs are diverse, and sustainable agriculture and proper farm stewardship is dependent upon a marketplace which can tie these diverse consumer interests to an agriculture which is built upon a foundation of many, rather than fewer, sustainable farms. Foodsystem policy must be supportive of such a marketplace, and supportive of proper farm stewardship practices. Behavior on the farm is, therefore, directly related not only to the behavior of consumers, but also the behavior of those who make farm policy. Over 50 years ago our government made the very conscious decision to support the concentrated, consolidated, industrial model of agriculture over the family-scale farm and sustainable agriculture model. It did so through its regulatory and farm policy, and promotion of this model through our nation’s land grant research institutions and their agricultural extension services.

The fact remains that we live in a democracy and have a capitalist economic system. Our behavior as consumers, and participants in our government, can have a profound impact on what system of agriculture dominates over two-fifths of our nation’s landscape. Certainly the multinational agribusinesses have incredible influence over our nation’s foodsystem policy and market, but the institutions which enabled them to capture this power can also be used to return the power to the people if we have the will to make it so. The farmer as steward is not a choice left to the farmer alone. That farmers may remain on the land and act as stewards is also dependent upon the decision of all of us to value farm stewardship in the choices we make as consumers, and in the choices we make as we participate in the governance of our nation.

Chris Campany is an Organizer with the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture where he coordinates the organization’s national work on the Farm Bill. He also founded a grassroots sustainable agriculture and family farm organization in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and was active in the Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group.