Skip to main content

An Introduction to Farming

I just finished up Gene Logsdon's book, The Contrary Farmer, and I have to admit how impressed I was by it. One might just as well label this book, Cottage Farming for Dummies, so well did it convey ideas and concepts about small-scale farming to this non-farmer who likes to play at gardening. Logsdon, a small-scale farmer with around thirty acres in Ohio, writes passionately not only about what is wrong with our modern, industrial way of farming, but about what it right with modern farming and how we can do it better. In chapter after chapter, he talks about how he and other "contrary farmers" produce livestock, grains, and other things.

What is the "contrary farmer", to answer a key question? The contrary farmer is one who spurns the supposedly "correct" idea of how a modern farmer should run his lands. The modern farmer is supposed to buy up as much land as they can by taking out loans, loans to buy $100,000 combines and tractors, who is supposed to soak his fields with fertilizer, insecticides and herbicides to control pests, who is supposed to keep animals confined and raise a mass of hay and corn with which to feed them. The modern farmer is, as a result of these practices, merely a "technician" running his machines, not truly a farmer, and a man who is perpetually in debt and dancing at the edge of bankruptcy. Logsdon, and many of his neighbors and others in the book, such as poet-farmer Wendell Berry, see it differently.

The contrary farmer practices sound fiscal discipline, only buying additional land when practical and preferring to use horses and hundred-dollar plows to cultivate their land while pocketing the profit, instead of bankrupting themselves on great machines that eat up fossil fuels and damage the very land they travel upon. He (or she) practices sound crop rotation, pasture grazing of livestock and natural weed and insect control, recognizing that some are actually beneficial to the land, not an enemy to be destroyed. He recognizes the value of a cover crop for erosion control and natural fertilizer, with the motto, "Why do more work when nature will do it for me?" With that in mind, he pastures his livestock to cut down on the amount of hay needed to grow and harvest, recognizing that this is a natural cycle in which animals graze the land and fertilize it at the same time. He realizes that trees are just as important a crop as wheat and have immense value; he understands that some lands are futile to try and cultivate and should instead be used for their intended purpose, cranberry bogs being foremost among them.

The contrary farmer makes more money on a few acres of land through these practices than the industrial farmer makes on hundreds of acres. And that is no joke. The contrary farmer realizes that the modern farmer is largely the waged slave of the big agricultural players, and refuses to play his game. The contrary farmer fights back.

All in all, even if one has no interest in agriculture as a career path, Logsdon's book is an important window into the field (no pun intended). As we advance in time, our specific system of agriculture becomes more and more important, and a time is coming when Americans can no longer afford to ignore the question of where our food comes from as they do now. The Contrary Farmer, though over fifteen years in print, provides a model for a way forward, where a greater number of smaller farms produce more food with fewer inputs than the current model of hundreds, if not thousands, of acres controlled by technicians and their backers.

Comments

  1. IT is my pleasure to report that one may still see some good ole fashioned Amish engaging in just such practices. The teams are out now, if you know where to look.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...