Literature Review  

  Research by the Food Routes Network (2002) on communication between farmers and consumers depicts the lack of successful dialogue between these two groups.  The Food Routes Network (FRN) undertook their research with farmers in order to better understand the motivations and practices of these individuals  (FRN p12).  This research framework emphasized the importance of assessing the perspectives of consumer and farmer interests as a means of understanding the sources of disagreement between the two groups.  The FRN used focus groups of consumers and farmers in a variety of locations throughout the US to gain information about the understanding and opinions of these two groups.  By using focus groups as their research method, the FRN presented an example of the value of information obtained through this type of inquiry.  The FRN’s example also provided a framework for analyzing themes and reaching conclusions through focus group research on personal perspectives and understanding.  The FRN concluded that citizens lacked sufficient education about agriculture to link their personal food choices to the farmer practices they supported.  The FRN also found that farmers were skeptical of citizen movements due to the limited and inaccurate information these groups often possess.  FRN research results from farmer focus groups present a base understanding upon which local inquiry could be based.  These findings demonstrate the existence of miscommunication and misunderstanding between farmers and consumers.  In addition, the FRN’s work shows the negative feelings that misunderstanding and miscommunication generate. 
   
    Wondollek and Yaffee (2000) address the importance of clear communication between groups working to address environmental problems.  Wondolleck and Yaffee emphasize the importance of finding the common interests shared by individuals who seem to be on opposite sides of debating an environmental problem.  In accordance with the FRN’s findings, Wondolleck and Yaffee present examples of situations in which miscommunication and misunderstanding generated animosity between groups.  Wondolleck and Yaffee’s work also addresses the reality of existing animosity and stubborn opposition between groups that have traditionally opposed each other.  According to the authors’ findings, dialogue between groups and open-minded listening to alternate perspectives is one of the most important steps to resolve disputes and making progress toward addressing an issue in a satisfactory way for all groups who have an interest in it.  Addressing issues in this way often involves incorporating the opinions and understanding of local groups with research-based scientific understanding from outside experts.

    Fischer (2000) discusses the importance of incorporating local knowledge and taking into account “cultural rationality” when addressing environmental issues.  My interest in how farmers perceive influences is based on the postpositivist framework offered by Fischer.  Fischer argues that objective knowledge is inevitably incorporated within a normative view.  This subjective value-laden perspective is what counts.  Regardless of the objective situation, farmers—as does everyone else—act according to a normative viewpoint to make decisions. This normative viewpoint affects how farmers will operate in respect to policies or contracts.  Accordingly, the farmers’ perceptions determine the change that takes place more directly than the simple existence of policies.

    In order to build upon the framework inspired by the above sources, my research required a background understanding of a variety of agricultural practices as well as the controversial environmental issues relating to these practices.  Norris and Thurlow (1999) provide information about the changes in the structure of the animal agriculture industry.  This information, incorporating statistical tables and charts provided a point of comparison for information gained through conversations with local individuals.  Norris and Thurlow’s work discusses the environmental implications of changes in animal agriculture.  Changes in the size of animal-raising operations have caused both positive and negative environmental impacts.  Norris and Thurlow provide specific data on which changes have exerted negative impacts and which changes have exerted positive environmental impacts.  This detailed understanding of specific environmental problems  and solutions within the larger industry demonstrates the complexity of environmental issues relating to these topics.  By presenting this information, the authors demonstrate the inadequacy of generalized assertions about the environmental impacts of changes in animal production practices. 

    While Norris and Thurlow focus on large-scale trends in animal agriculture, Khanna (1999) presents research on new trends in crop farming.  She discusses Input Unit Efficiency (IUE) and Precision Technology (PT) developments.  Both of these areas of research allow for large-scale farming to reduce its adverse environmental impact through development of new technology.  This research provides an understanding of the perspective numerous farmers maintain on environmental progress in farming.  Khanna presents the idea that large-scale farming and technological developments offer the most productive route to resolving the adverse environmental impacts of farmers.

    Farmers may become aware of the environmental impact of their practices by reading materials such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s brochure, Running your feedlot (1993).  This brochure provides information to farmers about the environmental consequences of improper manure management practices and provides guidelines on how to avoid causing environmental problems.  The brochure also offers information on government programs and agencies that will help farmers improve their manure management practices.  This information provides an understanding of the regulations and programs that are already in place to address environmental problems from feedlot agriculture.  Understanding this information through the means by which it is most readily available to farmers improves my ability as a researcher to understand the basis for the perspectives farmers develop on government regulation and assistance with their agricultural practices.

     The government also influences agricultural practices through farm subsidies.  Hosansky (2002) provides a thorough overview of the role government subsidies play in modern agriculture.  Government funds shape agricultural practices through price-supports for certain crops, conservation payments and cost-share programs for new projects.  Because they play such an important role in the lives of farmers, a general understanding of the structure of subsidies allows for better comprehension of the financial incentives and obstacles that farmers face.  Understanding subsidies also allows for a better understanding of the reasons why farmers farm as they do.

    In addition to the literature from the MPCA, I utitilized information from numerous USDA websites and brochures; the National Pork Producers of America website and local newsletter; and Partners, a bi-weekly publication by the Conservation Technology Information Center in order to acquire a thorough understanding of agricultural practices taking place; and the information about their environmental impacts that is available to farmers,

    My research builds on the understanding of environmental problems articulated within the works of the Food Resource Network, Wondolleck and Yaffee, and Fischer.  Within this framework, I then gain informative contextual information about the contemporary circumstances of American agriculture from Norris and Thurlow, and Khanna.  Publications from the MPCA, USDA, NPPC and CTIC the provided specific background information for understanding specific agricultural practices and acquiring further information about how farmers view the environmental implications of their practices.  Home

Works Cited

Farm Service Agency website www.fsa.usda.gov

Fischer, Frank. Citizens, Experts and the Environment. Durham: Duke University Press, 2000.

Food Resource Network, The. Where Does Your Food Come From? Millheim, PA: Food Routes Network, 2002.

Hosansky, David. "Farm Subsidies." CQ Researcher, May 17 2002, 435-54.

Khanna, Madhu, Katti Millock, and David Zilberman. "Sustainability, Technology and Incentives." In Flexible Incentives for the Adoption of Environmental Technologies in Agriculture, edited by Frank Casey, Andrew Schmitz, Scott Sminton and David Zilberman, 370. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.

Engelking, Patricia.  Running Your Feedlot.  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  1993.

National Pork Producer's Council. www.nppc.org

Norris, Patricia E., and Amy P. Thurlow. "Environmental Policy and Technology Adoption in Animal Agriculture." In Flexible Incentives for the Adoption of Environmental Technologies in Agriculture, edited by Frank Casey, Andrew Schmitz, Scott Sminton and David Zilberman, 370. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.

Werblow, Steve. "Rolling Along in the Northwest." Partners, Sept/Oct 2001, 6-7.

Wondolleck, Julia M., and Steven L. Yaffee. Making Collaboration Work. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2000.
Home