|
Friends United Meeting |
 |
Quaker Life
May 2003
Are Agricultural Changes for the Common Good?
By Robert Simkin
I have witnessed and been involved in major agricultural changes in central New York State. Many of these changes are like those in other areas of the country, differing only in the crops produced and the livestock kept. The long-term effects of many of these changes concern me. They are not in the best interests of the people or the good earth. I wish I had more answers, but I do not.
I was 23 in 1941 when my wife, Thelma, and I began operating a 250-acre diversified family farm. We owned the farm until 1974 when it was sold to the adjacent farmer. He now has thousands of acres and milks about 2,500 cows that are kept in large dairy barns now standing on the land we sold him.
In the 1940s, most farms were family-owned and often were in the same family for several generations. People did not move much. The local small businesses that served the community were also often passed from one generation to the next, and depended on the economic health of local farms. The size of most farming operations was usually such that they would support one or two families. Early in the 1940s, most farms had at least one good team of horses who were used for the lighter draft work and especially for frequent stop-and-start jobs. Most farms had one tractor. By the end of the forties, most horses were gone and replaced by another tractor. The livestock consisted of a mixture of cows (mostly dairy), chickens, maybe a few sheep and a pig or two for family consumption.
In the early forties, harvesting was done by stationary harvesters run by belt power from a tractor (hay baling, grain threshing and silo filling). A sizable work crew was required to keep the machine busy, since the crop had to be hauled in wagons to the machine. A group of neighbors would help each other and the machine would move from farm to farm until the whole group finished. By the end of the forties, most of this had changed. Small portable machinery made it possible for farmers to harvest their own crops with combines, field hay balers and corn choppers.
The trend toward more and bigger tractors continued. It meant that one farmer was able to operate more acres with the same help. When farms did come up for sale, a neighbor often bought them. At the same time, the mechanization of livestock care required less and less manual labor. These trends to bigness and mechanization led many of the younger generation to seek employment elsewhere. Diversification decreased. It was found to be more efficient to have fewer enterprises and do more of what you did do. More farmers did not bother with their own chickens and pigs.
There have been many results from these changes, some good, but more bad. Pollution is a major problem that increases with modern agricultural practices, such as concentration of livestock in unnaturally crowded conditions and the use of herbicides. Changes in cropping also increases soil erosion. On a small, diversified farm, land on a fairly steep slope can be held in place by making it permanent pasture grazed by ruminant animals. Steeper slopes can be a woodlot, producing valuable northeastern hardwoods like oak, maple, ash and cherry. These things are not likely to happen when you haul all the food crops to animals that never graze.
But perhaps the most serious change involves the people. Just in terms of numbers, farmers have become so few they have little political influence. The community spirit has been damaged as people move often and are not as involved with their neighbors. This is an immeasurable loss.
At one time, when a barn burned in the middle of the night, the farmer managed to release the cows safely, but it was neighbors who herded them all up and saw they got milked the next morning. On a family farm, the children of necessity learned personal discipline, having to help with chores and fieldwork. Their labor was needed to make the farm pay. They grew up with strong feelings of self-worth and enough hard work to be healthy. The change in the lives and character of the people is pretty clear.
I would like to again see a day when farms are smaller and people share machinery and themselves cooperatively. I have to admit itŐs not likely, but I know it can be done, because in the past, it was done.
Robert Simkin is a member of Poplar Ridge Friends, New York. He has farmed and worked as a science teacher as well as teaching vocational agriculture in Kenya for two years.
Copyright (c) 2003 Friends United Meeting
Return to May 2003 Contents page