Photo Source: John Boyd , 1910 Available at: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/agriculture/pics/3403_farmer_strw_hat_1020.jpg
The Context:
A juxtaposition is defined by merriam-webster dictionary as: "the act or an instance of placing two or more things side by side; also : the state of being so placed." The farmer is in juxtaposition between a rock and a hard place.
A farmer doesn't set out farming in the morning with the goal of destroying the land he and his family relies on for their daily bread. Neither does he purposefully degrade the streambanks or pollute the water of the streams running through his property. In the morning he sets out to provide for himself and his family, "me and mine", and to keep a balance between what he owes to the bank and what he needs to survive. For centuries farmers have been allowing cattle to wade in streams, as this is a free source of water for the farmers to use to water their cattle. He isn't a bad person because he lets his cattle wade and drink from the stream, he is just making do with what he has. Neither is he to be despised because he spreads manure and fertilizer on his fields and the nitrates, phosphorus, and bacteria end up in the surface waters, causing crippling impairment for the aquatic life within. He is just farming the way that he knows how to in order to meet his budget.
It is well understood that agricultural activities are linked tightly with water pollution and stream degradation. ( Agouridis, C. T., 2005; Withers, P. J., & Hodgkinson, R. A., 2009) Some of the common problems which streams face due to pollutants running from agricultural land are, increased BOD due to nitrate, phosphorus and microbe contamination, algal blooms, sediment loading, and decrease in overall health of aquatic life in the streams. For further information about causes and effects of streambank erosion and sedimentation please see blog entry, published on 12 January 2010, entitled "A systems model of streambank erosion".
There has been a lack of understanding of the farmer's point of view in discussions of farming and its effects on the environment (Barnes, 2009). The media has made the farming community seem like uneducated, senseless and stubborn minded simpletons who hate nature and treehuggers. That is an unjust and clichéd misrepresentation of this demographic of people in our nation. Many farmers know that their farming practices are taxing the land and the streams. They watch as year after year their soil is depleted of nutrients and ever increasing amounts of their land is scoured and sent down stream. A farmer knows when his land is disappearing or decreasing in fertility, he knows his land like the back of his hand. He knows that just like the wrinkles in his face, trenches on his land that are formed from the erosion of his fields are deepening every year.
Through the Farm Bill the federal government provides grants and tax incentives in order for farmers to implement and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) for pollution prevention and control and for streambank stabilization and erosion control. Since these programs have been implemented hey have showed little long term success, despite millions of dollars of funding. However, in Augusta County, Virginia there is proof of successful long term implementation of BMPs.
Behavior Over Time:
* Implementation of BMPs across the US and in Augusta Co. , Virginia.
* Funding for BMPs by the federal government
* Funding for BMPs by the Virginia state government
* Financial pressure on farmers
a. Income
b. Real Estate Tax Increase
c. Operating expenses
* Stream water quality indices for Augusta Co., Virginia
Policies:
The Farm Bill 2009 - Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Potential Issues or Concerns:
Problems from this policy are that the policy was previously underfunded and previously had a substantial failure in implementation and maintenance.
Study Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to determine what factors are influencing the decisions of farmers to implement the EQIP program or other BMPs presented by the federal or Virginia governments. It will also determine if there are any counter-balancing effects at play that cause the BMPs to eventual fail in implementation. It will allow policy makers and conservation technicians see where the negative reactions stem from in order to best advise farmers in their BMP implementation plans. It will address why the farmers are inclined or not inclined to implement BMPs and what is causing these reactions.
References:
Agouridis, C. T. (2005). Streambank erosion associated with grazing practices in the humid region. Transactions of the ASAE , 181.
Barnes, A. (2009). Farmer perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland. Agricultural Water Management , 96, 1715-1722. Withers, P. J., &
Hodgkinson, R. A. (2009). The effect of farming practices on phosphorus transfer to a headwater stream in England. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , 131, 347-355.
Hey Meg
ReplyDeleteReally good blog post. :) I find this problem very interesting - it's a typical scenario of 'biting the hand that feeds.' There is so much inertia in the farming community to do only what they already know, that I imagine it's hard to break the cycle and introduce new practices.
Regarding "Behavior over time", what is the time frame under which significant degradation of land and pollution of water has been occurring on these farms? Also, when was the EQIP bill introduced? Are there time-frame goals associated with its implementation and success?
Under "Policies", I wonder if you can add one or two more policy points that speak to the other 'best practices' that you mention in the study purpose.
Finally, I think the questions you raise in the "Study Purpose" are good ones. I wonder - have these programs showed little long term success because the science that supports the 'best practice' is not accurate? Or has it been unsuccessful because farmers are unwilling to implement these practices?
Nice job overall :)