Where the Grass Grows Again: Knowledge Exchange in the Sustainable Agriculture Movement
Rural Sociology 60:4 (Winter): 721-740
Neva Hassanein (University of Montana) and Jack Kloppenburg, Jr. (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
I have always had real affection for grass. It seems to stand for quietness and strength. I believe that the quietness and strength of grass should be, must be permanently a part of our agriculture if this nation is to have the strength it will need in the future. A countryside shorn and stripped of thick, green grass, it seems to me, is weakened just as Sampson was. An agriculture without grass loses a primary source of strength.
- Henry A. Wallace in 1940 (quoted in H.A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture 1992:5)
Introduction
More than fifty years ago, as he completed his service as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Henry A. Wallace warned against abandoning a grass-based agriculture. Within the United States' dairy sector, Wallace's warning has gone unheeded. Scientific investigation and technological development, that began in the nineteenth century and accelerated in the 1950s, shifted dairying away from a reliance on the seasonal growth of permanent pastures, to year-round feeding of stored forage to livestock kept in confinement. But, some dairy farmers have recognized that a "countryside shorn and stripped of thick, green grass" has weakened family-based dairying ecologically, socially, and economically. A host of innovative dairy farmers in Wisconsin are committing "dairy heresy" (McNair 1992c) as they utilize the principles of rotational grazing to reinvent an agriculture based on the "quietness and strength" of grass.
These rotational graziers are part of a broader sustainable agriculture movement in the United States. Several authors have recognized sustainable agriculture as a social movement (e.g., Allen & Sachs 1993; Buttel 1993b). There has been little attempt, however, to apply social movement theory to the activities and message of sustainable agriculture. We initiate such an application by examining knowledge exchange in the sustainable agriculture movement and by using the social activity around rotational grazing in Wisconsin as an example.
Knowledge issues have been of considerable importance in the sustainable agriculture movement. Critiques of agricultural science and its role in problems confronting contemporary agriculture are well established. In response, the sustainable agriculture movement has tried to reform agri-scientific institutions. Supporters from within academia have given much attention to this strategy (Buttel 1993b). We argue here, however, that another important strategy is being pursued and deserves attention because of its transformative potential. The sustainable agriculture movement has created an alternative knowledge system that originates outside of existing agricultural research and education institutions, and operates primarily at the local level.
We draw upon recent contributions to social movement theory that examine how movements challenge dominant knowledge claims, as well as generate and disseminate alternative knowledge claims (Eyerman and Jamison 1991; Wainwright 1994). Sustainable agriculturalists have developed an alternative knowledge system that relies, in part, on highly personalized, local knowledge (Kloppenburg 1991). Such knowledge is not the only source, however, and a social movement is also critical to the success of alternative farmers. Consistent with Wainwright's argument (1994), recent social movements extend their personal knowledge and embrace the social production and dissemination of knowledge as a basis for change. To explore such social activity, we utilize the conceptual tools developed by Eyerman and Jamison (1991) to analyze what they call a movement's "cognitive praxis" by identifying its three inter-related dimensions: the technological, ideological, and organizational. When applied to the question of how to bring about a sustainable agriculture, we argue that change is necessary in all three dimensions.
Signs of transformation along the technological, ideological, and organizational dimensions are evident in the collective activity among rotational graziers in Wisconsin. That is, in order to successfully establish grazing systems, graziers are sharing technical knowledge about grazing, as well as the ideological considerations that motivate them to refashion their agricultural systems. Organizationally, this is accomplished through farmer participation in local and regional networks.
Together these dimensions combine to form an alternative knowledge system operating at the local level of the sustainable agriculture movement.
Our analysis is based primarily on our participant observation in farmer networks in Wisconsin. Insufficient attention has been given to the thoughts and actions of farmers themselves who are working collectively and locally to bring about change in agriculture. Thus, our purpose here is to draw upon the words of movement actors, as well as our own observations, to explicate the significance of this social activity.
Science and the sustainable agriculture movement
Although it has deep and branching roots in the history of environmental and agrarian thought, a social movement promoting a sustainable agriculture in the United States has gained considerable momentum during the last fifteen years (Esbjornson 1992). Perhaps one thing has remained constant throughout the history of the sustainable agriculture movement and the alternative agricultural tradition from which it emerged -- knowledge issues have figured prominently in agricultural debates (Hamlin 1991; Peters 1979). Historical and contemporary critics have argued that the formal institutions of scientific research, and the technologies generated therein, have been a major contributor to the environmental, economic, and social problems associated with United States' agriculture (Beeman 1993; Berry 1977; Bromfield 1988; Hightower 1976; Peters 1979; Strange 1988). These appraisals have been accompanied by supporting analysis from rural sociology (see review in Buttel, Larson, and Gillespie 1990).
In light of the critiques of existing agricultural science, how will the knowledge necessary for building a more sustainable agriculture be developed and disseminated? The customary epistemic distinction between systematized, specialized knowledge (i.e., science) on the one hand, and uncodified knowledge (i.e., experiential or local knowledge) on the other hand, suggests that there are at least two possible strategies the sustainable agriculture movement might pursue in answering this question. One approach is to redirect existing agricultural research and education structures toward sustainability, and in this way, gain support from science. A second strategy, and the one that is our focus here, is to develop an alternative knowledge system that draws upon the problem-solving, creative capacities of farmers individually and collectively.
Both strategies are being pursued by various actors in the sustainable agriculture movement. Pursuit of the first strategy has been quite visible, and achievements have been notable, particularly at the federal policy level. In the last decade, for example, policy gains have included: federal funding mechanisms for alternative agriculture, requirements that farmers be involved in research projects receiving assistance, and training programs in alternative techniques for extension agents (Youngberg, Schaller, and Merrigan 1993).
Underlying these accomplishments is the assumption that knowledge for agricultural sustainability is most appropriately developed and disseminated in the same ways that conventional practices have been -- that is, through traditional institutional mechanisms for research, education, and technology transfer. This reflects continuance of a principle which has guided public land grant colleges and agricultural policy for over a century now: farmers in the United States have been regarded as recipients, rather than generators, of knowledge (Bennett 1986; Enshayan, Stinner, and Stinner 1992; Gardner 1990; Gerber 1992; Kloppenburg 1991). Moreover, calling upon the special authority granted to science in our society, a "sustainability community," made up of academics and quasi-academics, seeks legitimacy for sustainability as a "scientific knowledge claim," as Frederick Buttel has argued (1993b:24).
Clearly, it is of considerable importance that the sustainable agriculture movement influences agricultural research initiatives and uses science to legitimize sustainability goals. Exclusive focus on this strategy, however, overlooks the very significant, knowledge-related activities of movement actors outside of the academic community, particularly those at the local level. Following the demarcation of science from non-science, then, it is important to consider the second strategy of creating an alternative knowledge system that draws upon the capacities of farmers, and unearths ideas and practices which have been marginalized by agricultural science. Recent contributions to social movement theory provide useful resources for analyzing this alternative knowledge system in the sustainable agriculture movement.
Knowledge and social movement theory
Farmers throughout the country have developed many viable alternative farming methods and systems (NRC 1989). Individual farmers' ability to innovate depends, in part, on "local knowledge" (Kloppenburg 1991). Fundamentally tied to the experience of the labor process, local knowledge is the practical, sensuous, personal skill that develops with careful attention to the timely and particular characteristics of the local environment (Kloppenburg 1991:528; Harper 1987). For farmers "an intuitive understanding of relationships among multiple variables, their confidence in their own observations, and the apparent success of practical solutions produce experiential knowledge that may have more immediate utility than scientific knowledge" (Gerber 1992:119).
Highly personalized, local knowledge is not the only knowledge source that farmers draw upon, however, when operating unconventional farming enterprises. Importantly, support from a broader social movement appears to be vital to the success of alternative farmers. Social movements intend to promote or resist social change through collective activity generally occurring with some degree of organization and continuity outside of existing institutional channels (Snow and Oliver 1993). In addition, social movements often include processes through which challenges to dominant knowledge claims are expressed and competing knowledge claims are generated and diffused (Downey 1986; Eyerman and Jamison 1991; Fals Borda 1988; Tucker 1989; Wainwright 1994).
Since the founding of the Rodale Institute in 1939, the sustainable agriculture movement has created organizations and networks for the specific purpose of generating and exchanging knowledge useful to alternative farmers (Peters 1979). Today a host of rural organizations and farmer networks emphasize farmer-generated knowledge, promote holistic and ecological thinking, and embrace practical research (1) (Enshayan, Stinner, and Stinner 1992; Gardner 1990). Information and ideas about sustainable agriculture, as well as critiques of the dominant agricultural system, are communicated through a variety of means, such as: field days, conferences, books, magazines, and videos.
Significantly, the sustainable agriculture movement has created a knowledge system that draws upon farmers' personal knowledge, but extends that knowledge by developing mechanisms for sharing ideas, innovations, and techniques among a wider community. Hilary Wainwright (1994) has described this same phenomenon with respect to other recent social movements. When social movements seek transformations and develop viable options previously unconsidered, a society's underlying assumptions about the character and organization of knowledge are exposed. As a result, she argues, social movement politics of the new left have included challenges to claims of scientific and technological neutrality, and serious questions about what counts as valid knowledge. A strong sense of the limits of total rationality has led to a rejection of political projects that look to an "all-knowing state" to solve problems (Wainwright 1994:261).
Moreover, the social movements Wainwright describes have asserted the validity of experiential knowledge in both theory and practice. At the same time, however, an intellectual outcome of these social movements has been a recognition that knowledge is a social product, rather than an individual attribute. Wainwright argues that social movements have extended the tacit, personal character of experiential knowledge, because "if knowledge is a social product then it can be socially transformed through people taking action -- co-operating, sharing, combining knowledge -- to overcome the limits on the knowledge that they individually possess" (1994:58). Without negating the value of (personal) experiential knowledge, the social production of knowledge can be the basis for purposeful social change (Wainwright 1994:261).
As we will show in our analysis below, the processes that Wainwright describes also emerge at the local level of the sustainable agriculture movement among rotational graziers in Wisconsin. To better understand and describe this knowledge-related, collective activity, we have found useful the analytic concepts developed by Ron Eyerman and Andrew Jamison (1991). Like Wainwright, these authors argue that movements are not only a challenge to power, but a socially constructive force playing a dynamic role in shaping knowledge and experimenting with new organizational forms and principles.
Eyerman and Jamison (1991) contend that social movements have influenced knowledge, ultimately producing major shifts in consciousness when successful. The making and content of that new consciousness is what they refer to as "cognitive praxis." Closely aligned with the "identity-oriented" paradigm of new social movement theory (Cohen 1985:690), Eyerman and Jamison see cognitive praxis as the movement's identity in society. "It is precisely in the creation, articulation, formulation of new thoughts and ideas -- new knowledge -- that a social movement defines itself in society" (Eyerman & Jamison 1991:55).
In their analysis of the environmental movements in Scandinavia, Eyerman and Jamison transformed Habermas's epistemological categories of "knowledge constituting interests" to operationalize their concept of cognitive praxis (1991:68). Thus, in their analytical framework, they utilize three dimensions of cognitive praxis which roughly parallel the constituents of human knowledge that Habermas identified. The dimensions of cognitive praxis are technological, cosmological, and organizational.
The technological dimension refers to the kinds of technologies the movement advocates, and the criticisms it makes against established patterns of scientific or technological development (Eyerman & Jamison 1991:69). The technological dimension is the way a movement puts into practice its cosmological dimension; that is, the "common worldview assumptions that give a social movement its utopian mission" (Eyerman & Jamison 1991:68-69). This includes the ideas, values, and beliefs (i.e., ideology) that lead movement actors to develop certain kinds of technologies and organizations. The organizational dimension lies between the theory of the cosmological dimension and the practice of the technological one. All movements "have both ideals and modes of organizing the production and, even more importantly perhaps, the dissemination of knowledge" (Eyerman & Jamison 1991:69). For Eyerman and Jamison, organizations are vehicles for transporting the movement's meaning, and for providing "a space for new kinds of ideas and relationships to develop" (1991:60; see also Melucci 1985).
Sustainablility and the dimensions of alternative knowledge
The conceptual tools Eyerman and Jamison developed to analyze the environmental movement are also useful in analyzing the alternative knowledge system in the sustainable agriculture movement. Achieving agricultural sustainability will require transformation with respect to all three dimensions (Padgitt and Petrzelka 1994). Technology often receives high priority in agricultural sustainability debates. Such a focus, however, ignores the reality that the development and adoption of technologies requires support from ideological and social systems (Padgitt and Petrzelka 1994:265-266). Change in only one dimension will be insufficient because the technological, the ideological, and the organizational are inter-related and dynamic components of sustainable agriculture.
Agricultural technology is the application of practices or materials necessary to produce food. For the sustainable agriculture movement, the technological dimension is of considerable importance, because technologies mediate relationships between humans, and between humans and the land. The movement has raised serious questions about the nature and consequences of the technologies that characterize conventional production.
Transformation for sustainability will involve more than substituting ecologically-sound techniques for conventional ones. In part, technological transformation must respond to a key concern raised by the movement -- that is, the need to develop technologies that can be molded to fit the unique characteristics of particular places and the people who use them (Berry 1984; Ehrenfeld 1993). As such, technologies for sustainability will be based on flexible principles that can be shared among movement actors, and that encourage the use of local knowledge as those principles are adapted to place.
The ideological dimension is concerned with the ideas, values, and beliefs that guide the movement's development and dissemination of knowledge. Interpretive frameworks influence the development of the questions that are pursued in knowledge-seeking endeavors (Mulkay 1979). The interpretive framework guiding the sustainable agriculture movement is rooted in agrarian idealism which prizes a perceived intrinsic goodness in farming as a way of life, and expresses concern over the ways agricultural industrialization undermines the family farm and rural community (Berry 1977; Esbjornson 1992). Sustainable agriculture is distinguished, however, from other forms of agrarian idealism because of the priority it gives to the ways in which human activity impacts the land (Esbjornson 1992). As part of what Freidmann refers to as a "movement for self-protection," respect for people and the land will need to be an ideological cornerstone of a sustainable agriculture (1993:227-228).
The organizational dimension refers to the ways the movement constitutes and disseminates the technological and the ideological dimensions. For example, a variety of media (e.g., books, magazines) connects movement actors around the nation, and even the world by reporting the experiential knowledge of farmers and describing methods and ideas that are not part of the dominant agricultural paradigm. And at the local level, the sustainable agriculture movement has created social spaces or networks where people share technical or substantive knowledge about topics of mutual concern, as well as discuss the ideas and values motivating their creation of alternative farming systems. Social spaces where local knowledge can be extended beyond the individual and combined with the knowledge of others is critical for the generation and exchange of alternatives (Wainwright 1994). Such social spaces may be a critical source of democratic change (Evans and Boyte 1986; Melucci 1984).
These three dimensions combine to form an alternative knowledge system and are useful in thinking about the some of transformations necessary to achieve sustainability. Our goal here, however, is narrower than Eyerman and Jamison's attempt to specify and contextualize an entire movement's cognitive praxis. Instead, we explore each of the three dimensions by focusing on one local example that is part of the broader process referred to as the sustainable agriculture movement.
Our focus is narrowed for two reasons. First, we recognize that a social movement is not homogeneous in practice, ideology, and organizational form (Scott 1990). Rather, a social movement is a dynamic, multidimensional process involving various actors situated in particular places, who create and implement assorted strategies, participate in diverse forms of action, and encounter a variety of obstacles and opportunities. Secondly, in considering how agriculture will move toward sustainability, we attribute considerable importance to social agency at the local level (Barlett 1993; Friedmann 1993; Whatmore 1994). That is, while acknowledging that there are significant extralocal trends and structures that define the parameters within which farmers operate, change in rural areas is also the result of individual and family producer decisions. In turn, these actors rely upon the technical, ideological, and social support the sustainable agriculture movement provides.
The interesting social activity around rotational grazing in Wisconsin is the particular terrain for our exploration of these dimensions. Face-to-face interaction among farmers participating in local sustainable agriculture networks provides an engaging opportunity to observe how the technological, ideological, and organizational dimensions come together to create a socially constructive force influencing knowledge. Our analysis of this collective activity is derived from participant observation at farmer network meetings, conferences, and visits to grass farms. (2) Field work, underway since the Fall of 1992, has included attendance at twenty-three events sponsored by nine different farmer networks (which usually occur at farms). Visits have been made to ten other grass-based farms (ranging from five one-hour visits in a day to stays for one to three days). In addition, we have attended the 1993 and 1994 Wisconsin Grazing Conferences, and the 1993 and 1994 Upper Midwest Organic Farming Conferences, as well as six other meetings or conferences where graziers have participated and made presentations.
Extensive field notes have been kept on all of these activities. As is the custom with ethnographic data, information from field notes will be used here to illustrate specific points and is indented to distinguish it from other text. Only what can be attributed positively to a speaker is set off with quotation marks. Articles in the popular and alternative agricultural press, and books frequently mentioned by graziers supplement our participant observation. Unless material has been taken from a publication, we have avoided using real names here to respect participants' anonymity.
Graziers hold a diversity of viewpoints and practice grazing in a variety of ways. We have sought, however, to identify and describe some common and often-repeated themes that emerge during our observations and discussions. We have classified our observations into the three dimensions. Although this was sometimes easy, it was also difficult because the three dimensions are so closely intertwined.
Our approach in this qualitative study has been influenced by scholars from a variety of disciplinary perspectives engaged in critical conversations about the ways in which researchers construct the narratives we call social science (e.g., Borland 1991; Burawoy 1991; Fine and Vanderslice 1992; Geertz 1983; Lather 1991; Smith 1987). Therefore, although we have identified what we consider to be prominent themes, we recognize that what follows is our interpretation of the social activity around rotational grazing here. Nonetheless, we do hope that those involved in this activity will find much in our descriptions that reflects their own experiences.
The technological dimension
As a result of a hundred-year process of scientific investigation and technological invention, conventional dairying in Wisconsin focuses on maximizing milk production by confining cows to the barn and its immediate environs. Cows are fed year-round on concentrated rations grown, harvested, transported, and stored by humans and machines. The confinement system requires housing of animals, removing wasted feed and manure, storing manure, and spreading manure on the land. Confinement feeding, also called "zero grazing," relies upon a wide array of technologies and resources purchased from off-farm (Murphy and Kunkel 1993:116). But, for a wide variety of reasons, there appears to be a growing number of dairy farm families making major changes in their operations by developing low-capital, management-intensive systems that rely on the principles of rotational grazing. (3)
These grazing management principles were developed in the 1950's by the French scientist and farmer Andre Voisin (Murphy 1991; Savory 1988; Voisin 1988). To ensure nutritious and plentiful forage, there are two key elements of rotational grazing. First, employing short grazing periods with high stocking density on small pastures or "paddocks" prevents animals from harvesting a plant for a second time within one rotation before the plant has had adequate time to recover. Second, it is important to provide sufficient time for plant recovery (i.e., rest) before animals return to a paddock in a subsequent rotation. Repeated defoliation without time for recovery kills the roots of the plant and eventually the plant itself; therefore, the amount of time plants are exposed and re-exposed to the grazing animals is critical. In short, the grazier must attend to the needs of both the grass and the animals.
These concepts are hardly new. Voisin traced the first written record of these practices to 1760 and expected that an oral tradition was much older (Voisin 1988:189). In this country, scientists experimented with similar management concepts, but without attention to the critical element of time (Voisin 1988). When milk production for wider markets accelerated in the early 1900s, pastures in this country were poorly managed, and pasturing could not compete with the application of scientific knowledge to alfalfa and corn silage production (Liebhardt 1993). By mid-century, Wisconsin trials at the Marshfield Experiment Station in the late 1950s and early 1960s, for example, concluded that it was best to feed cows on stored feed, even during the summer (Larsen and Johannes 1965). The results of the study and "attending publicity played a major role in the evolution of the state's dairy industry away from pasture and toward confinement feeding" (McNair).
Consequently scientific knowledge of producing milk from pastures never developed here. Voisin's ideas did spread to other countries, however, most notably New Zealand where the agricultural system relies almost exclusively on permanent pastures. New Zealand farmers feed about the same number of cattle as there are dairy cows in the entire United States, seven times more sheep, plus one million each of deer and goats. But, they do it on a pasture area the size of Wisconsin and without grain supplements (Murphy 1991:17). An analysis of this interesting scientific history -- how and why rotational grazing developed in New Zealand but not in the United States -- is beyond the scope of this paper. What is important here is that dairy scientists in the U.S. eschewed rotational grazing in favor of the confinement approach that dominates dairying today.
Now, however, instead of viewing pasturing as having only a minor role to play in dairying, some farmers in Wisconsin are asking how animals can sustainably harvest high-quality forage for themselves much of the year. Employing portable electric-fencing technology originally developed in New Zealand, graziers here have established permanent pastures that provide nutritious and palatable forage. Such grass-based systems reduce or eliminate the need to produce resource-intensive crops, such as corn and alfalfa. After adopting rotational grazing, many graziers also find it logical to switch to seasonal grass dairying, the timing of the animal's lactation to the highest quality grass season in the region. While conventional dairying has come to mean nearly year-round lactation of the cow, seasonal milking allows farm families to "dry off the herd," reduce winter confinement-feeding costs, and take vacations during the two to three months when their cows do not need to be milked (Shirley 1993; McNair 1992a).
One journalist declared these changes tantamount to "dairy heresy" (McNair 1992c), because graziers are questioning the central tenets of conventional dairying. For example, one farmer said: "For years, I fought and borrowed to bring feed to the cow. Then I finally figured out that I could bring the cow to the grass." The fighting and borrowing that characterize the confinement system for this farmer make no sense when compared with allowing a cow to walk and eat grass on her own. The new "grass radicals" (McNair 1992b) are clearly challenging prevailing wisdom, and adopting a technique that is fundamentally different than the confinement-feeding approach.
Conventional agricultural practices are sometimes characterized as a set of prescriptions that can be applied anywhere without much understanding of the agroecosystem (Francis 1990; Lockeretz 1989; Suppe 1987). Most technologies required for confinement feeding and year-round milking -- the mower, the chopper, the silo and its unloader, and the manure spreader to name a few -- come with operating instructions and should basically work in the same way wherever used. The concern often expressed in the sustainable agriculture movement is that generalizable technologies, recommended by agricultural research institutions and agribusinesses to farmers who must apply that knowledge in unique environments, fail to meet the demands and expectations of the land (Berry 1984, 1990; Ehrenfeld 1993; Logsdon 1984).
In contrast to conventional technologies, rotational grazing is not implemented as a discrete, generalizable technology, and therefore seems to be a particularly appropriate technique for the sustainable agriculture movement. The over-arching principles of rotational grazing may be the same wherever applied. But these principles are not prescriptions. It is not unusual to hear graziers discuss the need to adapt the principles of rotational grazing to their own farms underscoring that there are no "recipes," "cookbooks," or "pat answers from textbooks." Graziers encourage one another "to not make grazing sound like you flick a switch."
Molding the principles of the technique to fit dynamic farming situations is not easy. Matching the needs of animals to pasture growth rates within variable weather, soil, topographic, and species conditions requires considerable management skill, flexibility, and attention to detail. The following comment from a Wisconsin farmer interviewed in The New Farm exemplifies the positive aspects of this process:
For me, it has meant farming by my wits rather than with big capital investments....To manage the system differently each day, basing decisions on the needs of the pasture plants, animals and weather is a real challenge. It has made getting out of bed in the morning a lot more enjoyable! (McNamara 1990).
Another farmer stressed a similar idea in a workshop:
Graziers "have to get a feel for how your pastures produce...can't say this is the magic formula.... It [grazing] changes your thought process...before I started rotational grazing I thought a pasture just meant green, but you have to look at what is growing...you start to look at it, analyze it...[and] have to decide which pasture to go to next."
Accordingly, important skills that graziers identify include: the ability to think ahead about grass growth, the flexibility to adjust quickly if conditions change (e.g., weather), and the willingness to make decisions daily. The beginning grazier needs persistence to make it through the first few years when learning to graze can be frustrating. Experienced graziers warn beginners that the "learning curve" with grazing is "steep." But with experience -- usually the experience of making mistakes and learning from them -- and with close observation one can develop knowledge about grazing management. If the principles of rotational grazing are simple, the application of those principles to a unique system where a whole host of physical elements and social relations interact at a particular time is complex.
Even Voisin, who set out what he called the "laws" of grazing management, wrote: "One must look for the plots that are ready for grazing and graze them. Figures are only guides: in the end it is the eye of the grazier that decides" (Voisin 1988:178). Developing the "grass eye" is akin to local knowledge. For example, at a network-organized walk through a farmer's pasture, someone asked how often that farmer looks at the pastures. The reply was that:
... you have to look ahead and determine when to graze and that requires "experience" and "observation." He explained that when the grass grows fast, you move the cows fast. There will be plenty of residue left, but it will grow back faster. He said: "You're really just manipulating your grass with cows or machinery. There aren't any rules or regulations. You gotta look at the pasture. You can't look at a calendar and know what to do. This whole thing is observation."
The development of skill through observation and experience gained while applying the principles to a particular place is an important feature of local knowledge. Local knowledge is desired not so much for its universality as for its ability to solve problems at the whole-farm level where farmers must continually evaluate a range of economic, social, and environmental variables as they make decisions (Gerber 1992; Kloppenburg 1991).
Transformation in agriculture involves not only local knowledge, which is by definition personal, but also knowledge that can be shared meaningfully with others similarly situated. As a technique for sustainability, rotational grazing appears to represent the opportunity to realize the importance of both types of knowledge. Scientific facts theoretically hold regardless of spatial or social location (Latour 1986). In contrast, the principles of rotational grazing must be adapted to place and require personal skill derived from experience and observation of the locality. This necessitates the development of local knowledge.
Yet, the principles of rotational grazing can and are being shared, and therefore can be spread more widely than an individual. Certainly, this is an important characteristic when the need for more far-reaching transformation is considered. The principles can be exchanged and changed, articulated and reformulated, as they move from shared principle to local practice. In this way, graziers overcome the limits of their personal knowledge by "co-operating, sharing, combining knowledge" as Wainwright (1994:58) argues occurs in other recent social movements. Consideration of the technological dimension raises the question of what kinds of production practices are propagated by the sustainable agriculture movement. These characteristics of rotational grazing -- as a technique -- may reflect the kind of technological transformation necessary for bringing about sustainability.
The ideological dimension
Substituting conventional agricultural technologies with more sustainable alternatives will not in itself bring about the broader transformations necessary (Allen and Sachs 1993; Kirschenmann 1992; Padgitt and Petrzelka 1994). New knowledge for sustainable agriculture also requires new ways of thinking about farming. The interpretive framework from which knowledge is generated means that "the answers obtained depend on the questions posed and the questioner's presuppositions" (Mulkay 1979:61). In the problem-definition process, new questions need to be posed and new presuppositions established in order to bring about a more sustainable agriculture.
Eyerman and Jamison argue that social movements "develop worldviews that restructure cognition, that re-cognize reality itself" (1991:165). Advocates of rotational grazing here are developing new ideas, values, and beliefs about agriculture and are beginning to "re-cognize" the reality of dairying in Wisconsin in ways that hold promise for sustainable agriculture. We explore some of these ideas here, bearing in mind that not all graziers hold them firmly, but with the intention of identifying some of the potentially transformative ideas beginning to emerge. One concern of sustainable agriculture advocates is that the aim of conventional technologies is the maximization of production utilizing the fewest number of producers (Berry 1984; Strange 1988). Indeed, faced with increasing operating costs and lower prices for their products, many conventionally operated dairies in Wisconsin are caught in a cost-price squeeze as profit margins are reduced. One farmer has conjured up the following image -- one that is often repeated and elaborated upon by other graziers -- to illustrate the economically precarious situation dairy farms confront:
"I think that everybody is under stress, specifically in the dairy industry, when we see a thousand farms a year going out of business [in Wisconsin alone]. That also means that there are also 4 or 5 or 6,000 farms that are close to going out of business. I talk about all of us dairy farmers being lined up at the edge of a cliff and we keep dropping off the edge a thousand a year and so we know we are under stress.... But if I can find ways of change, in management or methodology, that allows everyone to step back from that cliff, that's what I'm trying to do. And I think that grass dairying, seasonal milking is one good way of doing that."
Part of the attractiveness of rotational grazing and seasonal milking is that it allows graziers to lower costs by reducing inputs and utilize on-farm resources -- including their own ingenuity -- to the greatest extent possible (Liebhardt 1993). Being able to move back from the edge of the cliff means a different way of thinking about profitability and production than that associated with conventional confinement feeding.
Many graziers say they reject the focus that conventional dairying has placed on maximizing production per cow. The production per cow "mentality leads us to a false sense of prosperity" according to one grazier, because "those of us who have been listening to the swivel chair experts...can't figure out why we can't work hard enough or long enough or invest in enough equipment and fertilizers to make all our dreams come true" (Brown 1991:3). In contrast, a grass-based system lowers the cost of production, particularly feed costs which account for 45-65 percent of the total cost in milk production (Murphy and Kunkel 1993:117). Graziers also report lower veterinary costs, because animals are less susceptible to diseases in pasture. Instead of focusing on producing milk per cow, graziers focus on milk per acre, because profit comes from producing milk from productive and renewable pastures at low cost. That is, milk production and good pastures are essentially interdependent: "I market grass. I sell it in the form of milk, but my raw material is grass" (Brown 1991:4). Correspondingly, they have come to think of themselves as "grass farmers" rather than "dairy farmers."
This new conception of profitability, based not on the amount of milk produced but the cost of producing milk, represents a challenge to the agribusinesses that have profited most from the technologies of the last century. The dominant "productionist ideology" of agriculture research is "the doctrine that increased production is intrinsically socially desirable and that all parties benefit from increased output" (Buttel 1993a:7). Increased production has meant that more and more capital has become necessary to farm, as the industrialization of agriculture has displaced production activities once done on-farm with inputs produced by and purchased from industrial capital off-farm. Technological innovations -- the fruit of agricultural science -- have been an important mechanism through which industrial capitalism has eroded social and biological barriers to the incorporation of family farming into capitalism (Kloppenburg 1988).
Grass farmers repeatedly contrast the development of their grazing skills to the use of capital to purchase technologies from off-farm, a characteristic of conventional farming they reject and often associate with the university (the "swivel chair experts" above). As one farmer explained, "There are a lot of young, talented people who cannot work hard enough to make [confinement feeding] work.... They begin to see that if we let the cow go out and eat the grass for itself, there are some ways to profitability that have more to do with ingenuity than endurance." Another explained that grazing requires that you use your "eyes and brain rather than your pocket book." And one woman grazier said, unapologetically, that her family had come to recognize that "we don't owe agribusiness a living." For another woman, the fact that grazing emphasizes "brains over brawn" is particularly important, because it seems more accessible to her than farming with lots of machinery. She is not alone in this, several male graziers mention that they prefer grazing because they never enjoyed working with machinery. Clearly, a feature of the technique graziers find valuable for a variety of reasons is that rotational grazing is not a device to purchase or operate, but a skill to develop.
Rather than use production as the standard by which to measure success, Wendell Berry suggests that nature should be the measure (1990). Likewise improving, maintaining, and effectively using high-quality pasture is the measure of the grass farmers' success. If we adopt nature as measure, it is important to consider the views of graziers with respect to the environment. At a rotational grazing workshop sponsored by a chapter of the Future Farmers of America, one grazier expressed his environmental values in saying that with grazing "you are farming in harmony with nature; you are not fighting nature" (Brown 1994:B8). Many graziers express appreciation for the environmental benefit of having a thick sod in the pasture. For example in the fall of 1993, we spent an afternoon on one of the grass-based dairy farms. While walking in the pastures, the farmer who invited us there told us this story:
One day, it started raining hard. He was out in the pastures, and his brother was over by one of the corn fields. His brother later told him how he could see the runoff from the corn field immediately when that rain came. But he had noticed that there was no runoff from the pastures, that the rain percolated right into the soil. They were impressed with the benefit of rotational grazing over corn cropping in its reduction in soil erosion.
It was not really necessary for these farmers to have this observation confirmed in a scientific sense. They could see the benefits with their own eyes and could relate the story to others. Graziers also recognize that replacing corn fields with permanent pasture addresses other environmental problems, such as those associated with pesticides, fertilizers, and other petroleum products. Although some graziers have always been low-input or organic farmers, others have not. But taking land out of monoculture crops such as corn means fewer, if any, agrichemicals will be needed. Farmers have remarked that adopting grazing made them subsequently question the need for these chemicals, as they begin to think about alternative means to profitability and utilizing animal management to create healthy diverse pastures that are less susceptible to pest problems. In turn, many graziers stress that if pasturing is done properly, it can improve soil health, for example, by increasing earthworm populations.
An important part of establishing nutritious pastures is trying to achieve a diversity of plant species within them. Legumes in the pasture add nitrogen to feed the grasses, and varying plant growth rates ensures that different species will be available at different times of the season. There is disagreement on how to best achieve this goal. Some advocate "just letting what wants to grow grow" or "trying to allow nature to take its own best course." These graziers emphasize that "the main thing is to manage what you have got so it is good feed." Many others believe that while it works to rely on the existing "seed bank" in the soil, they would like to help the process along by "frost seeding" grasses and clovers directly onto the pastures in the spring.
Some purists say "I want diversity out there. I don't want it to look like a golf course." Others struggle with what they want their pastures to look like aesthetically and try, for example, to control thistles by clipping pastures. Interestingly, there appears to be a redefinition of what constitutes a weed in the pasture. For example, certain species that have been considered weeds in the past, such as quack grass, are recognized as having good forage value in pastures and are welcomed. Conversely, graziers frequently mention disappointment with alfalfa for its palatability and vulnerability to harsh winter weather. This is certainly a heretical idea in a state that promotes alfalfa as "green gold." Overall, graziers seem to share the view that species diversity is important, however it is achieved, and that grazing management can be used to improve pastures.
Achieving diverse and productive pastures and meeting the needs of livestock are obviously important to the grass farmer, but adopting rotational grazing appears to be good for the people involved as well. A gathering of graziers in Wisconsin is characterized by a kind of positive excitement hard to find in many rural communities today, because grass farmers are afflicted with what they call "grass fever." Catching the "grass bug" has to do with the enjoyment graziers experience from farming. Many graziers feel that grazing is less stressful and requires less work than does the confinement approach. However, these benefits may not be realized in the first few years of adopting grazing when fencing requirements and skill development are particularly demanding. And seasonal milking allows farm families to take vacations from the milk house, rarely an option with year-round lactation.
There is another meaning to "grass fever" that became evident on a beautiful fall day at a sixth generation family farm where the first full season of rotational grazing was coming to a close. A young farmer standing atop a hay wagon captured the attention of the crowd of nearly fifty people gathered below with his enthusiasm:
One of the first things he said was: "People ask me why I do this. This has put the fun back in farming. What I do now is a whole lot more fun than what I did before. And it doesn't cost me more to do it."
Following this farmer into the pasture, it was easy to see the source of his "fun." He had experimented with many different species of grasses and legumes in the various paddocks through which he moved his cattle, and he could recall what he planted in each one. The crowd hunted around excitedly looking to see how well different seed species had taken hold in the pastures. Articulating agrarian ideals, graziers often express the value that farming should be a fun and enjoyable way of life.
Some of the ideas, values, and beliefs expressed by graziers and relayed here are indicative of what Harriet Friedmann has called a "movement for self-protection" (1993:218). According to Friedmann:
Self-protection, to be conscious and effective, must build on the understanding that land and labor are the real substance of society. Rather than subject land and labor to the vicissitudes of the self-regulating market system, the substantive relations between people and the earth must be the center of sustainable agrofood regions (1993:227-228).
Most graziers here still sell their product into the self-regulating market system (with the possible exception of the few graziers who market through a farmer-run organic milk marketing co-operative). Although not separate from the market system, grass farmers are engaged in a kind of self-protection. Particularly as graziers uncouple themselves from the technologies promoted by industrial capitalism, rotational grazing allows them to step back away from the cliff, and away from the precarious edge of the self-regulating market. Rediscovering grass as a source of strength and the pleasure in relying on their own skills, graziers are able to step away from the technologies that separate people and the earth. Those with "grass fever" emphasize the value of their own labor and the idea that farming should be an enjoyable way of life. These ideas drive the kinds of questions grass farmers here are asking and determine the kinds of answers they accept, as they further develop the knowledge necessary to successfully adapt rotational grazing to Wisconsin dairies.
The organizational dimension
The final dimension of knowledge-related activity with respect to rotational grazing in Wisconsin is the organizational. For Eyerman and Jamison the organizational dimension is "the way in which movements get their message across, and the organizational forms within which their cognitive praxis unfolds" (1991:69). The organizational dimension refers to the mechanisms through which the technical and ideological dimensions of the movement are constituted and disseminated.
In order to successfully establish grazing systems here, graziers obtain knowledge about the principles of rotational grazing through a variety of means. Graziers recommend reading "all the information on it you can." Graziers frequently recommend a number of books and magazines to one another as important sources of information on grazing principles. The most prominent periodicals, which either specialize in grass farming or frequently publish articles on it, are The Stockman Grass Farmer based out of Jackson Mississippi, Rodale Press' The New Farm Magazine, and Agri-view a Wisconsin agricultural newspaper. Quite regularly, articles in these publications cover the activities of graziers around Wisconsin, the country, and even the world. Books often mentioned by graziers include Grass Productivity by Andre Voisin (1988) and Greener Pastures on Your Side of the Fence by Bill Murphy. There are also a number of short grazing fact-sheets, videos, guides written by farmers, and network reports available. Not only do these materials provide substantive information, they connect a wider community around the nation and the world who are practicing rotational grazing and/or other alternative techniques.
At the local level, numerous grazier networks have been organized in the last five years, and these represent one of the most exciting of the alternative means for disseminating information and ideas in Wisconsin. There are at least eighteen formal networks around the state that sponsor relevant events, and eleven of which are organized specifically around rotational grazing. Most of these grazier networks were formed in 1993 and 1994 indicating their recent popularity. In geographic area, most networks cover only one or two neighboring counties, while a few others are considerably larger. Farmers and/or local extension agents act as network coordinators (e.g., arranging for mailings announcing events).
Networks are engaged in a variety of activity. Monthly pasture walks are the most common type of event held during the grazing season (approximately April to November). Pasture walks are usually hosted by a different grass-based farm each time, and involve the host farmer sharing his or her practices, problems, and ideas. Walks usually last for two to three hours and draw anywhere from fifteen to over one hundred people. Networks also sponsor field days to present on-farm research results, and winter meetings with speakers and discussion. Forming a kind of regional network of graziers in the Upper Midwest, an annual, two-day, grazing conference has been held in Wisconsin for the past several years. The grazing conference attracted approximately 500 participants (mostly farmers) in 1993 and 600 in 1994. Originally sponsored by one of the local networks, responsibility for the conference has recently been transferred to a group of graziers from around the state. An annual Upper Midwest Organic Farming Conference also includes workshops on rotational grazing.
Although rotational grazing must be adapted to place, farmers recognize that it is not necessary for everyone "to reinvent the wheel," as one farmer/network co-ordinator put the point. There is, in fact, a great deal to be discussed. These gatherings provide an opportunity for beginning and experienced graziers to learn more about the technique, and to share experiences and problem-solving ideas.
Much of the discussion centers around fairly technical questions, such as: how to lay out paddocks, how to time the proper rotation of pastures, what (if any) species to sow in the pastures, whether to give cows mineral supplements when on pasture, how to satisfy the herd's water needs, whether to supplement pasture forage with grain rations, how to extend the grazing season, and how to breed cattle for seasonal milking. Among the women who consistently attend network events, technical information is exchanged that reflects a common gender division of labor on dairy farms (e.g., a whole milk on pasture feeding system for calves).
The tecnical is closely tied to the ideological dimension, as we have tried to show in preceding sections. Not surprisingly, then the grazier networks are not only about sharing technical knowledge. Indeed, the ideas and values of graziers that we highlighted above were expressed during network events or conferences.
Sustainable farmer networks appear to be the kind of social spaces in which people with common interests can pursue inquiry in a spirit of mutual learning, support, and cooperation. Networks provide an opportunity for face-to-face interaction between people who may not encounter one another on a daily basis, but who share an interest in alternatives to the dominant approach to dairying here. Valuing the knowledge that other graziers have gained through experience and a willingness to share their own techniques and ideas are central features of this social activity.
In these social spaces, a collective identity is created among those who share the "grass fever." A critical element of this identity is that farmers see themselves and the collectivity, rather than the government or the university for example, as the source of solutions to the problems dairy farmers face in the region. This contrasts clearly with other approaches to social change, for example organizing for passage of legislation or co-operative marketing. Rotational grazing as a technique is understood as something that a farmer can do to take control of what happens on his or her farm.
Defining the scale of problems at a level at which people can contemplate and execute solutions in a particular locality can facilitate social change in agriculture. That is, social change can occur through "small wins" (Weick 1984), incremental steps people can take in their everyday lives. Or, similarly, change can occur through "radical gradualism" -- actions which do not rely on the existing state and which mobilize resources to achieve whatever presently possible in the pursuit of long-term goals (Wainwright 1994:80).
Farmer networks are organizational mechanisms for sharing the technical and ideological dimensions of knowledge on alternative practices. As such, networks make possible the kinds of small wins that might ensure not only the continued viability of particular family farms, but the future of agriculture in the region. A speaker at a network's winter meeting emphasized this point in saying that there will be "a renaissance in southwest Wisconsin.... You'll be the envy of the agricultural world, perhaps the best grazing area in the entire country. We'll have great grass when we figure it out." Along with the feeling of hope that characterizes "grass fever," there is the sense that the collectivity of graziers (the "we" in this quote) can bring about dramatic change through the development of knowledge about grazing. Seeing themselves as problem-solvers and potentially able to bring about a "renaissance" here engenders a source of pride and empowerment among graziers.
The popularity of these networks underscores the significance of what Sara Evans and Harry Boyte call "free social spaces" (1986). In their historical analysis of several social movements in the United States, they identify such spaces as a critical source of democratic change (see also Melucci 1984, 1985). By "free social space" they refer to "settings between private lives and large-scale institutions where ordinary citizens can act with dignity, independence, and vision" (1986:17). Places where people can meet "free" from elite control and where social communities can form seem to be crucial for the emergence and development of social movements. (4) Farmer networks represent the kinds of free spaces where movement cultures arise and suggest a different way of living as people construct basic alternatives to conventions. In such spaces, people "find out new facts about the world, debate alternatives, [and] develop a vision of the common good that transcends limited and particular interests" (Evans and Boyte 1986:192).
Of course, the grazier networks are not isolated. Individuals from within the academic community and other institutions have connections to the networks and to rotational grazing. Several extension agents and researchers are involved in grazing-related activities, demonstrating that the university at a variety of levels is becoming interested in the technique. The Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems at the University of Wisconsin -- Madison has organized a "grazing-based dairy systems" group that attempts to encourage the development and coordination of related research projects. And a state of Wisconsin sustainable agriculture grants program funds many of the farmer networks, as well as research and demonstration projects on individual farms. Although the involvement of the university and state government in grazing-related activities has often been the result of the work of sustainable agriculture advocates, sometimes it has not been. For example, seed corporations have now jumped on the grazing bandwagon, as university and corporate scientists have teamed up to provide seed companies with alfalfa varieties that can be grazed (e.g., "Alfagraze" and "Magnagraze").
Thus, it is important to recognize that free spaces are "never a pure phenomenon" (Evans and Boyte 1986:19). They are often marked by the power relations within them. And they are influenced and potentially undermined by the wider culture which presumably holds different values. Graziers in Wisconsin have developed knowledge about grazing and organizational mechanisms for sharing that knowledge as much out of necessity as anything. As a result, a sense of collective pride has emerged as they articulate the value of farmer knowledge. Whether they will retain control over the direction that grazing takes in the state will require a conscious and deliberate effort to make networks as "free" as possible.
Conclusion
The sustainable agriculture movement is responding to one of the forces that has profoundly shaped agricultural production -- the apparent hegemony of agricultural science. The movement has sought both to reform existing agricultural research and education policy, and to create an alternative knowledge system that operates largely outside of dominant institutions. We have focused on the latter strategy not only because it has received much less attention, but because knowledge creation and dissemination outside of dominant institutions can potentially transform agriculture for sustainabilty. Recent contributions to social movement theory have pointed to the ways in which social movements can be a socially constructive force shaping the character and organization of knowledge (Eyerman and Jamison 1991; Wainwright 1994).
The activity around rotational grazing in Wisconsin is an exciting and important example of social movement activity centered around knowledge creation and dissemination. Technologically, rotational grazing is "dairy heresy" because it is a major departure from confinement feeding. In contrast to conventional technologies which perform the same regardless of location, grazing requires the application of very flexible, general principles to particular places. Developing the "grass eye" necessary for successful grazing relies on graziers' local knowledge.
Not surprisingly, the technological is closely intertwined with the ideological, and graziers exchange a variety of ideas about the meaning of grass-based systems. Like a "movement for self-protection" (Friedmann 1993) graziers articulate an ideology that reflects a deeper appreciation for people and the land than has been seen in U.S. agriculture's recent history. For example, graziers emphasize new conceptions of profitability that rely on skill rather than purchasing technologies from industrial capital off-farm. In addition, graziers discuss the technique's environmental benefits, the importance of species diversity in pastures, and the meaning of "grass fever" -- restoring farming as a way of life by making it more "fun."
Farmer networks are an important organizational mechanism for transmitting new techniques and ideas. Moreover, within these social spaces, a collective identity has been formed among graziers, and a sense of possibility for a regional, grass-based agriculture is shared. Graziers recognize that the resources for bringing about that future are farmers themselves and the grazing knowledge they develop. Whether or not graziers will continue to determine the direction that grazing takes in Wisconsin dairying is not yet clear.
Our discussion of this alternative knowledge system shows that bringing about sustainability requires transformation along the technological, ideological, and organizational dimensions. Change in one influences and is influenced by the other two.
References
Allen, Patricia, and Carolyn Sachs
1993 "Sustainable agriculture in the United States: engagements, silences, and possibilities for transformation." Pp.139-167 in Patricia Allen (ed.), Food for the Future: Conditions and Contractions of Sustainability. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Barlett, Peggy F.
1993 American Dreams, Rural Realities: Family Farms in Crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Beeman, Randal
1993 "The trash farmer: Edward Faulkner and the origins of sustainable agriculture in the United States, 1943-1953." Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 4(1):91-102.
Bennett, John W.
1986 "Research on farmer behavior and social organization." Pp. 367-402 in Kenneth A. Dahlberg (ed.), New Directions in Agriculture and Agricultural Research. Totowa, NJ: Roman and Allenheld.
Berry, Wendell
1977 The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. New York, NY: Avon Books.
1984 "Whose head is the farmer using? Whose head is using the farmer?" Pp. 19-30 in Wes Jackson, Wendell Berry, & Bruce Colman (eds.), Meeting the Expectations of the Land: Essays in Sustainable Agriculture and Stewardship. San Francisco, CA: North Point Press.
1990 What are People For? San Francisco, CA: North Point Press.
Borland, Katherine
1991 "'That's not what I said:' Interpretive conflict in oral narrative research." Pp. 63-77 in Sherna Berger Gluck and Daphne Patai (eds.), Women's Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bromfield, Louis
1988 "The business of 'Plowman's Folly'." Pp. 93-132 in Charles E. Little (ed.), Louis Bromfield at Malabar: Writings on Farming and Country Life. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Originally published in 1945. Pleasant Valley. New York: Harper and Brothers.)
Brown, Jim
1991 Intensive Grazing Dairy Cows: One Farmer's Experience. Published by author. Yuba, WI.
Brown, Judy
1994 "Opitz: farmers must concern themselves with cost controls." The Country Today. 18(8):B8.
Burawoy, Michael
1991 "The extended case method." Pp. 271-287 in Michael Burawoy, et al., Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern Metropolis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Buttel, Frederick H., Olaf F. Larson, and Gilbert W. Gillespie, Jr.
1990 The Sociology of Agriculture. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Buttel, Frederick H.
1993a "Ideology and agricultural technology in the late twentieth century: biotechnology as symbol and substance." Agriculture and Human Values (Spring):5-15.
1993b "The production of agricultural sustainability: observations from the sociology of science and technology." Pp. 19-45 in Patricia Allen (ed.), Food for the Future: Conditions and Contractions of Sustainability. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cohen, Jean L.
1985 "Strategy or identity: new theoretical paradigms and contemporary social movments." Social Research. 52(4):663-716.
Downey, Gary L.
1986 "Ideology and the clamshell identity: organizational dilemmas in the anti-nuclear power movement." Social Problems. 33(5):357-373.
Ehrenfeld, David
1993 Beginning Again: People and Nature in the New Millenium. New York: Oxford University Press.
Enshayan, Kamyar, Deb Stinner, and Ben Stinner
1992 "Farmer to farmer." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 47(2):127-130.
Esbjornson, Carl D
1992 "Once and future farming: some meditations on the historical and cultural roots of sustainable agriculture in the United States." Agriculture and Human Values. 9(3):20-30.
Evans, Sara M. and Harry C. Boyte
1986 Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America. New York: Harper & Row.
Eyerman, Ron, and Andrew Jamison
1991 Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Fals Borda, Orlando
1988 Knowledge and Social Movements. Regents Lectures, Latin American Studies Program, Univ. of California, Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz, CA: Merrill Publications.
Fine, Michelle, and Virginia Vanderslice
1992 "Qualitative activist research: Reflections on methods and politics." Pp. 199-218 in Bryant et al. (ed.), Methodological Issues in Applied Psychology. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Francis, Charles A.
1990 "Sustainable agriculture: myths and realities." Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 1(1): 97-106.
Friedmann, Harriet
1993 "After Midas's feast: alternative food regimes for the future." Pp. 213-233 in Patricia Allen (ed.), Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions for Sustainability. New York: Wiley & Sons, inc.
Gardner, John C.
1990 "Responding to farmers' needs: an evolving land grant perspective." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 5(4):170-173.
Geertz, Clifford
1973 "Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture." Pp. 3-30 in Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Gerber, John M.
1992 "Farmer participation in research: a model for adaptive research and education." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 7(3):118-121.
Harper, Douglas
1987 Working Knowledge: Skill and Community in a Small Shop. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hamlin, Christopher
1991 "Green meanings: what might 'sustainable agriculture' sustain?" Science as Culture. 2(13):507-537.
H.A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture
1992 "Henry A. Wallace: Champion of a Durable Agriculture." Annual Report. Greenbelt, MD: Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.
Hightower, Jim
1976 "Hard tomatoes, hard times: the failure of the land grant college complex." Pp. 87-107 in Richard Merrill (ed.), Radical Agriculture. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Kirschenmann, Frederick
1992 "Beyond the second phase of sustainable agriculture." Paper delivered at the 1992 Organic Farming Symposium at Asimolar, CA.
Kloppenburg, Jack Ralph, Jr.
1988 First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology 1492-2000. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
1991 "Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for an alternative agriculture." Rural Sociology 56(4):519-548.
Larsen, H.J. and R. F. Johannes
1965 Summer Forage: Stored Feeding, Green Feeding, and Strip Grazing. Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin No. 257. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Lather, Patti
1991 Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern. New York: Routledge.
Latour, Bruno
1986 "Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands." In Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Leibhardt, William C.
1993 "Farmer experience with rotational grazing: A case study approach." Pp. 131-188 in William C. Liebhardt (ed.), The Dairy Debate: Consequences of Bovine Growth Hormone and Rotational Grazing Technologies. Davis, CA: University of California SAREP.
Lockeretz, William
1989 "Major issues confronting sustainable agriculture." Pp. 423-438 in C.A. Francis, C. B. Flora, and L.D. King (eds.), Sustainable Agriculture for Temperate Zones. New York: John Wiley &Sons
Logsdon, Gene
1984 "The importance of traditional farming practices for sustainable modern agriculture." Pp. 3-18 in Wes Jackson, Wendell Berry and Bruce Colman (eds.), Meeting the Expectations of the Land: Essays in Sustainable Agriculture and Stewardship. San Francisco, CA: North Point Press.
McNair, Joel
1992a "Going seasonal: crazy like a fox, or just plain crazy?" Pp. 9-11 in special edition, The New Dairy Grazing. Agri-view. Feb.27-28.
1992b "Grandpa never had it this good." P. 1 in special edition, The New Dairy Grazing. Agri-view. Feb.27-28.
1992c "The 'new' grazing: where dairy heresy is spoken." Agri-view, March 5, p. 1
McNamara, Ken
1990 "Their cows do the harvesting." The New Farm. 12(6)22-23.
Melucci, Alberto
1984 "An end to social movements? Introductory paper to the sessions on 'new movements and change in organizational forms'." Social Science Information. 23(4/5):819-835.
1985 "The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements." Social Research. 52(4): 789-816
Mulkay, Michael
1979 Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. London: George Allan & Unwin.
Murphy, Bill
1991 Greener Pastures on Your Side of the Fence: Better Farming with Voisin Grazing Management. Colchester, VT: Arriba Publishing.
Murphy, Bill M. and John R. Kunkel
1993 "Sustainable agriculture: controlled grazing vs. confinement feeding of dairy cows." Pp. 113-130 in William C. Liebhardt (ed.), The Dairy Debate: Consequences of Bovine Growth Hormone and Rotational Grazing Technologies. Davis, CA: University of California SAREP.
National Research Council (NRC)
1989 Alternative Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Padgitt, Steve, and Peggy Petrzelka
1994 "Making sustainable agriculture the new conventional agriculture: social change and sustainability." Pp. 261-285 in J.L. Hatfield and D.L. Karlen (eds), Sustainable Agriculture Systems. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Peters, Suzanne
1979 "Organic farmers celebrate organic research: a sociology of popular science." Pp.251-275 in Helga Nowotny and Hilary Rose (eds.), Counter-movements in the Sciences. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co.
Savory, Allan
1988 Holistic Resource Management. Covelo, CA: Island Press.
Scott, Alan
1990 Ideology and the New Social Movements. London: Unwin Hyman.
Shirley, Christopher
1993 "Milking for money or for profit?" The New Farm Magazine. September/October: 31-34.
Smith, Dorothy E.
1987 The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Snow, David A. and Pamela E. Oliver
1993 "Social movements and collective behavior: social psychological dimensions and considerations." In Karen Cook, Gary Fine, and James House (eds.), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Strange, Marty
1988 Family Farming: A New Economic Vision. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Suppe, Frederick
1987 "The limited applicability of agricultural research." Agriculture and Human Values. 5(4):4-14.
Tucker, Kenneth H. Jr.
1989 "Ideology and social movements: the contributions of Habermas." Sociological Inquiry. 59(1):30-47.
Voisin, Andre
1988 Grass Productivity. Covelo, CA: Island Press. (Originally published in 1959).
Wainwright, Hilary
1994 Arguments for a new left: answering the free market right. Oxford UK: Blackwell
Weick, Karl E.
1984 "Small wins: redefining the scale of social problems." American Psychologist. 39(1):40-49.
Whatmore, Sarah
1994 "Global agro-food complexes and the refashioning of rural Europe." In A. Amin and N. Thrift (eds.), Holding Down the Global. London: Sage.
Youngberg, Garth, Neill Schaller, and Kathleen Merrigan
1993 "The sustainable agriculture policy agenda in the United States: politics and prospects." Pp.295-318 in Patricia Allen (ed.), Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions for Sustainability. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, inc.
We believe in democracy because we believe that every individual has a contribution to make to the solution of our common problems. A meeting of neighbors and friends in their own homes is the grass roots of democratic organization, and a trading of ideas among neighbors is the way to make democracy work.
-- Carl C. Taylor 1941
In spite of many illusions and mistakes, the understanding of knowledge developing in the social movement left provides an impetus for a democratic transformation of existing political institutions, and for forms of socially owned, co-operatively organized and ecologically sustainable economies.
-- Hilary Wainwright 1994:260
1. Examples of organizations from around the country that would fall into this category include: Alternative Energy Resources Organization (Montana and Idaho), Arkansas-Oklahoma Sustainable Agriculture Network, Land Stewardship Project (Minnesota), Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Northeast Organic Farming Association, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, Organic Farming Research Foundation (California), and Practical Farmers of Iowa.
2. Approximately 250 hours of field work by the first author.
3. We use the term "rotational grazing" because it is the most commonly used here in Wisconsin. It should be noted, however, that essentially the same principles are referred to elsewhere as "management intensive grazing," "intensive rotational grazing," and "Voisin controlled grazing management." Although the shift to rotational grazing here is perhaps most significant in the case of cow dairying, producers are utilizing the technique with a variety of livestock species (e.g., sheep, hogs, chickens).
4. Examples of these kinds of social spaces include black churches in the civil rights movement and consciousness-raising groups in the feminist movement. In repressive contexts, simply gathering may be impossible.