Five Truths IV: we are just too busy


I began this series of blogs on “my truths” with an introduction to the project and then explored “My Truth One (that modern agriculture is not sustainable).”  My second truth examined the tension between public good and private benefit.  The third in the series looked at how leadership becomes disconnected from the rest of us. This post examines the forth of “my truths.”


My Truth Four: many of us in agriculture are running ever faster to stay even –  on a treadmill where farmers pursue technologies that don’t offer long-term solutions, researchers pursue the next grant, and teachers offer ever bigger classes.  There is nothing sustainable about the way we live, the way we work, the way we farm, or the way we relate to the earth.

Everyone seems to be running ever faster to stay even.  At least 96% of the survey respondents thought so, indicating strong or full agreement with this truth (see my introduction blog).

Farmers adopting the latest technology are particularly vulnerable.  Each new technology that enhances productivity or improves efficiency makes the technology treadmill run faster.   For those who know how to read a systems model (see this link for instructions), the diagram here presents the dilemma.

The problem is not intuitively obvious.  Most of us think increases in food production would be a good thing.  But the diagram above suggests that as Total Production increases, Commodity Supply also increases (the “s” indicates it moves in the same direction).  Therefore a technology that increases yield does little to benefit individual farmers as competitors quickly adopt the new technology and total production drives prices down.  The major beneficiary is the company that created the new technology and consumers who realize lower food prices.  In the industrial farming system the greatest return on investments in technology go not to farmers but corporations. The technology treadmill turns and if you don’t get on, you get lost.  But if you do get on, you have to run faster to stay even.  As a society, little is gained but much is lost.  Food is cheap, but there are other problems.

One survey participant wrote:

“The loss of community, the ungluing of stable human relationships, and the substitution of material things for substance have played a major role in the injustice and despair that have plagued agriculture and society and have caused untold unconscious damage to our planet and ourselves.”

This is true for both “agriculture and society” as the quote suggests.  We substitute material things for ‘substance’ and sacrifice honest relationships, personal serenity, ecological integrity, and inter-generational responsibility.  What we have gained is fast,  cheap food and very busy lives.

There is no end in sight so we run ever faster, yet it doesn’t seem possible to keep up with the accelerating speed of the treadmill.  Many of us (farmers and non-farmers alike) know we are caught in our own personal treadmills but don’t get off, thus we each contribute to making the treadmill run faster.

Stepping off before the inevitable fall is difficult, but is a necessary act of honesty and courage.  According to T.S. Eliot again, in our normal workday lives all too many of us wear…

 …strained time-ridden faces

Distracted from distraction by distraction

Filled with fancies and empty of meaning

We search for meaning in ‘distractions’ and amusements.  We find our days filled with emptiness, so we run faster.  Some of us deaden this feeling with addictions like yet more work, desiring something indefinable but not achievable.  And the treadmill keeps moving, turning, ever turning.  Eliot writes. . .

Desire itself is movement

Not in itself desirable;

The process of getting off the treadmill begins with telling your own truth and acting according to a clear set of personal values.  When I am clear on my personal values and my actions are consistent with those values, I know that I am not only more effective in my work but I find more joy in my life.

Many of us who came to work in agriculture because we deeply cared about people, hunger, or the environment found ourselves working for the economic self-interests of those who hold money and power.  But we can’t see the truth of what has happened as long as we are on the treadmill.

The industrial agricultural system and the public university that supports it are on an economic treadmill that won’t change unless we change individually.  We need our lives to be less busy and more full.  We must step off the treadmill before we fall off, and in doing so perhaps save ourselves and the earth.

My fifth and last truth suggests that the quest to discover wisdom in humility may be what we need to save ourselves from our own “busyness” and wake up to “the truth.”


I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   Go here for more of my posts or my personal webpage or my resource page.

Five Truths III: leaders of hierarchical organizations become disconnected


I began this series of blogs on “my truths” with an introduction to the project and then explored “My Truth One (that modern agriculture is not sustainable).”  My second truth examined the tension between public good and private benefit. This post examines the third of “my truths.”


My Truth Three:. . . the leadership of the farming community has come to rule farm policy, often at the expense of small and mid-sized farmers, farm workers and rural communities.  

There was slightly less agreement with this statement among survey respondents (see my introduction blog for an explanation).  Only 76% indicated strong or full agreement.  One participant noted the complexity of the situation:

“I can’t lump all farm leadership into the “bad” column because I know and work with some extraordinary farm leaders who are regularly overlooked by the sustainable ag community.  For instance, Farmers Union has not veered from working on behalf of small farmers, farm workers, and outside the conventional system, but rarely gets recognition for it.”

 Another participant disagreed for a different reason.

“I don’t consider the folks in charge to be leaders of any kind of community — but that is contingent on my definitions of leadership and community. Community requires love and generosity of spirit, and these qualities are notably absent from farming policy.”

Still another sees this as part of a larger pattern.

 “…the leadership of the farming community has come to rule farm policy, but it is only fronting for the interests of powerfully concentrated private capital.”

These are strong statements and seem to carry a fair amount of anger.  If we can get past the anger, we might begin to notice how all large organizations seem to allow their leaders to become disconnected from the vast majority of their membership.

Most organizations have promotion and reward policies that support individuals who conform to the dominant paradigm.  Talented conformists are the people chosen for positions of power and higher rank.  Talented ‘trouble makers’ rarely find themselves in positions of authority, and when they do – they generally lose some of their ‘fire’ as they learn to compromise to get along.  Why is that?  What happens to people when they get into positions of power?  It seems they get disconnected from the ‘rank and file’ and more important perhaps, they seem to lose track of the mission of the organization.  Of course this is not always true.

I know many organizational leaders who have dedicated their talents and passion to serving their organization with integrity.  At the same time, I’ve seen many more begin a leadership career with strong ideals of service only to get beaten down by power and politics.  I don’t think we should blame the individuals.   In today’s typical organizational hierarchy of power-over relationships and competition for resources, many are led to sacrifice values they care for deeply, just to survive.

In a hierarchy of power, successful leaders may lose their focus on mission and values just to keep the organization afloat.  Even well-meaning sustainable agriculture organizations are susceptible to this problem.  One survey participant wrote;

“Sustainable agriculture organizations have succumbed to the same treadmill, competing for grants, members, and other resources, the goal becoming the survival of the organization rather than the vision that created the organization.”

Replacing old leadership with new voices rarely changes systems built on hierarchical power-and-control relationships.   All of our mental models of how organizations work (especially with respect to the relationship between leaders and followers) carry this fatal flaw.  Leaders and followers (members or employees) act in collusion, expecting leaders somehow to know what is wrong with complex systems and how to ‘fix it.’  This is a form of dependency that is not healthy in a living system or community.

We need to understand how organizations create an environment in which leaders and members alike have internalized power-over ways of thinking and accepted either the role of “boss” or of the “bossed.”  Power-over thinking makes domination and control normal and acceptable.

T.S. Eliot, warns us that;

We shall die of the absolute paternal care

That will not leave us, but prevents us everywhere.


As long as our mental models of organizational behavior assume that leaders are to provide ‘paternal care’ the power relationship between leaders and followers will be sustained.  Even the most well meaning people and the most service-oriented organizations seem to evolve cultures of competition, disconnectedness and oppression based on power-over thinking, all seemingly for a good cause (well mostly).   But the result is always the same.

Part of the problem is the hierarchical model of organization and part of the problem is our “busyness”.  Stopping to think about the situation requires an investment in time.  But we are running so fast to sustain the status quo that we can’t even wonder if the status quo is worth preserving.  Busyness kills sustained thought and creativity.  My “forth truth” shall examine this systemic problem of organizations built on the industrial model.


I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   Go here for more of my posts. And finally if you are ready to study sustainable food and farming, check out our our Bachelor of Sciences degree program.

Five Truths II: public good or private benefit


I began this series of blogs on “my truths” with an introduction to the project and then explored my first truth (that modern agriculture is not sustainable).”  This post examines the second of “my truths.”


My Truth Two:   the public agricultural research and education (land grant) system created to serve the public good is influenced by the private agenda of multinational  corporations, large agricultural commodity groups, and disciplinary-bound science societies.

The extent of agreement with this statement among all survey participants (see the introduction blog on my truths for background on the survey) was clear, with 90% choosing strong or full agreement.  Its easy to criticize scientists whose work directly benefits corporations willing provide research dollars, yet the situation is not quite that simple.

Agricultural researchers and educators may begin their university careers full of idealism and hope that they might contribute to feeding the world’s hungry and preserving the natural environment.  Something happens along the way however to redirect their work toward more limited (and more publishable) objectives.

Nevertheless, I believe that ‘just below the surface‘ of many academics is a hopeful visionary, still dreaming of making a difference in the world. The evaluation system which requires scientists to conform to the expectations of their discipline-bound professional societies (which determine if they are able to publish their work) limit their ability to address complex real-world problems.

One of the survey participants wrote;

The social and cultural environment in graduate school and in ladder rank positions pushes people to work alone using reductionist methods which limits the ability to research real world problems that exist today”

And another participant wrote:

If researchers from different disciplines don’t figure out how to work together, we will not be able to solve the problems that confront us.”

True – but it will take more than individuals from different disciplines working together to create a more sustainable agricultural system.  As long as the goal of research is primarily the short-term economic success of those groups holding financial power (mostly multinational corporation or large agricultural commodity groups) there will be little progress on the path toward long-term sustainability.   Another participant wrote:

…dollars and cents, has become the dominant, if not the only, criteria by which we measure the value of everything — including publicly funded research and education.”

I agree that economic efficiency is one important goal for research and education, however it is insufficient alone and may actually be harmful when other goals such as environmental quality and social justice are neglected.  University presidents are fond of citing their institution as an “engine of economic growth” for the state and nation.  But this narrow representation of the public mission of the land grant university encourages much of agricultural science to be directed toward new technologies that prioritize short-term financial return – often at the expense of long-term sustainability.  One survey participant suggested an alternative role for the university;

…the US does not have a clear policy on the role of agriculture and the future of rural America.  A major failure of land grants in my opinion is their lack of leadership in helping the nation develop such goals. The only goals articulated are the next technical fix.”

Lacking a grand vision, technical solutions dominate the research of agricultural scientists.   But technical solutions to the complex problems created by industrial agriculture (such as environmental degradation and social upheaval) may do more harm than good.  While the reductionist approach may keep the discipline-bound research machinery of the university going, it does little to solve complex societal problems.

University administrators encourage scientists to address environmental and social problems but at the same time support a faculty evaluation system that rewards the acquisition of outside funding for their research.  Few sustainable agriculture organizations or public interest groups can provide significant financial support, so faculty must turn to those large agricultural commodity groups and multinational corporations that have a stake in maintaining the status quo rather than supporting a transition to a more sustainable food and farming system.  These organizations can influence the direction of public research either directly through gifts and grants (which thereby leverage public monies) or indirectly by serving as advisers on various public planning and review committees.

Corporate partnerships are sought and celebrated, thus driving the research agenda of the public university to serve the private needs of their corporate partners.  This is not the fault of individual faculty members but is part of aa larger systemic problem.

Public universities are caught in an archetypical “fixes that fail” feedback loop, in which they find their budgets being squeezed by a public that doesn’t entirely trust the university (or any large institution for that matter).  University leaders look to their friends in industry and among the big agricultural commodity groups for political and financial help – and what happens?  Public distrust is confirmed and the public budgets get squeezed even more.  University leaders then turn back to their private partners and ask for more help (and money).  It is a vicious cycle, spinning public universities in a direction away from their primary mission of serving the public good.

While it is possible for public/private partnerships to be created that serve both the public good as well as the private benefit of funders, this requires a transparent financial system, clear articulation of mission, public review of the partnership, and honest and open discussion about the purpose and limits of the partnership.  University scientists who are concerned with a public system that serves the private benefit of groups with economic and political power may feel isolated and afraid to challenge a system which celebrates such partnerships.  While we celebrate leadership in the abstract, most academics shy away from this topic.

There are few university leaders (I’ve known a few by the way) willing to encourage a public dialogue on how private funding might influence the public research agenda.  We might ask, where are the courageous voices telling the truth that we read about in novels and see in the cinema?  Where are the elders – wise with experience?  Turning again to some lines of poetry, T.S. Eliot asks;

Had they deceived us

Or deceived themselves, the quiet-voiced elders,

Bequeathing us merely a receipt for deceit?

Have our leaders “deceived themselves” and become “quiet-voiced elders” on this topic? Again, I don’t blame the individual administrators (and I’ve known some courageous ones). The larger systemic problem is that most leaders become disconnected from those they are charged to serve over time.  This is true for the U.S. Congress, multinational corporations, large commodity groups, and university leaders – in fact all leaders of all hierarchical organizations.  My next blog will examine this problem.


I’d appreciate it if you would share your own thoughts in the comments box below.  To stay connected, please join my Facebook Group, Just Food Now, or follow my posts.  And if you are ready to study sustainable food and farming, check out our 15-credit online certificate or our Bachelor of Sciences degree program.

Five Truths I: modern agriculture is not sustainable


In my blog, Five Truths Intro: reflections on agricultural research and education, I introduced what I intend to be a series of posts exploring some issues that have concerned me for most of my academic career.  Some years ago, I surveyed a group of university researchers and educators working in the areas of sustainable agriculture regarding their thoughts on five “truth statements”.  This blog reflects the first of “my truths’ and their response. Perhaps this is self-indulgent.  So be it.

My Truth Onethe form of agriculture currently practiced in most of the U.S. is not sustainable, as it continues to leak biological toxins and soil into the surrounding environment, use natural resources at rates greater than replacement, and put small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers off the land.

“Yes, we know all that.”

This was the most common response among survey participants.  On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating ‘don’t agree‘ and 5 signifying ‘full agreement‘, 90% choose either 4 or 5 (strong or full agreement).  One of the respondents summed it up by writing:

 “Most political organizations, institutions and commodity agricultural organizations are aware of the social/natural resource problems, however, they lack the knowledge and understanding that would enable them to take constructive steps towards sustainable systems.  Instead they are locked into old patterns and keep trying the same old things.

This is so true.  We are all locked into old patterns and keep trying the same things, or making small changes ‘around the edges’.  Indications that something is amiss in the world go unnoticed (or noticed only by a minority of activists).  Think about:

  • A ‘dead zone’ where oxygen breathers don’t survive in the Gulf of Mexico and reports from respectable sources about projected global water shortages are mostly ignored.
  • Potato production increases to satisfy our desire for French fries, while more potato farmers go out of business.
  • A billion people hungry or malnourished and another billion over-fed.
  • And yet another food recall.  Sometimes people get sick or die.

We know what is happening; yet we stay on the same path.  I’ve written dozens of blogs about the non-sustainability of modern agriculture and I have lots of followers in the social media.  We agree… and nothing changes.  Another participant wrote:

 ‘If you keep on doing what you have been doing, you will keep getting what you have been getting.  If you don’t like what you are currently getting, then you need to try something different.  The industrial model of agriculture is not sustainable.’

While there are some people who honestly support the industrial model of agriculture, many researchers and educators know something is wrong but can’t see an alternative.  Their response to this first truth is usually something like…

“yes, but aren’t we doing better?” 

And the answer is surely, yes.  Or they might say…

“so what choice do we have?  We have to feed the ever increasing human population, don’t’ we?   Only the modern industrial system can feed the world.  Right?

And of course the answer is yes … and no.  Yes, food is a human right and we have an obligation to make sure nobody is hungry.

And no…industrial farming isn’t the only way, but in the absence of a clear and proven alternative path, we fall back on that which we know best – industrial agriculture with its quick fixes and addiction to growth at all costs.  We have a vague idea there is a better way (which many of us call agroecology) but the ecological path seems treacherous, full of unknowns.  T.S. Eliot assures us this is the right path when he writes;

  …in order to arrive at what you do not know. 

You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.

Right, and isn’t research ‘the way of ignorance?”  When we admit what we do not know, we are then able to begin the search for a better way.  Eliot continues;

 . . . And what you do not know is the only thing you know.

Today, we must admit that we do not clearly know the path to an ecological agriculture.  Experiments in tillage practices, integrated pest management, multiple cropping, cycling of nutrients and the like surely point us in the right direction.  But when challenged by proponents of the industrial way, we must admit ignorance.  That is the beginning of the search for a better way that we intuitively know is based on principles of ecology.

And who will lead us in this path of discovery?  Surely those farmers and non-profit research and educational organizations devoted to agricultural sustainability are key.  And what of the universities?   It seems that the public university is a place where this work SHOULD be happening to a significant extent.  A survey participant wrote:

“This undertaking is beyond the resources or capability of any single institution (public or private) and therefore can only be achieved through the re-establishment of some form of commons.”

 It was both funny and sad that this survey participant didn’t recognize the publicly funded land grant university as a “commons.”   It was once upon a time.

My next “truth” blog looks at one of the underlying causes for this problem.


I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   Go here for more of my posts. And finally if you are ready to study sustainable food and farming, check out our 15-credit online certificate or our Bachelor of Sciences degree program.

Five Truths Intro: reflections on public agricultural research and education


If you have followed my blogs on systems thinking, you’ll know that I teach a class called Agricultural Systems Thinking, which introduces students to practical tools for trying to understand complex and often controversial problems.  This semester, some of my students have chosen to practice using systems thinking tools to explore the relationship between the public university and multinational agricultural corporations as a class project.

Student interest in this topic was triggered by a financial gift to the university to help support our new Undergraduate Agricultural Learning Center.  About half the students initially supported the gift and about half opposed. This project will help them understand this particular event within a larger context, which is one of the strengths of systems thinking.

I’ve spent some time thinking about the status of agricultural research and education in the U.S. (which has engaged me, employed me, and treated me well for over 40 years).  This blog introduces “my truths” about the system that was originally created to serve the public good and fails in so many ways.  (I invite you to share your thoughts on how your own truth might be similar or different in the comments box below).

A time for change

I address this topic at a time when my own university is working to restore the public trust and re-energize agricultural research and education – following many years of erosion due to lack of attention and active divestment by administrators.  I’ve written earlier about the “revitalization of the land grant system” at the University of Massachusetts.  As we mark the 150th anniversary of the Land Grant University System established by Abraham Lincoln, many of us will want to celebrate our illustrious past.  I applaud this recognition of the past, while at the same time hope we will examine our current vision and values as we focus on the future.

I believe this “revitalization” represents a long-overdue awakening by public agricultural universities nationwide to the failures of industrial agriculture (which has had many successes as well, of course).  This transformation began in the late 1980’s, when groups of farmers invented what they called “sustainable agriculture.”

The creation of the UMass Center for Agriculture and the recent investment in the Stockbridge School of Agriculture represent a significant commitment to agricultural research and education.  I am hopeful but realistic about our chances for real change.  Here is why…..

Lets ask some people I trust about “my truths”

A while back I sent an electronic survey to a group of colleagues who were involved in university research and education in support of long-term agricultural sustainability.  The survey tested the degree of agreement or disagreement with five “truth statements” related to the public university’s commitment to sustainable agriculture.

The response to the survey was reassuring (not only because many of the respondents agreed with “my truths”) but also because of the rapid response.  Within a few hours, I had 50 survey responses, and within a few days 73 scientists dedicated to building a research and education system that supports a more sustainable agriculture had participated in the survey.

This blog introduces the “five truths.”  Future blog posts will add further reflections on each, based partially on feedback from survey participants, partially on my own thinking and experience, and partially on lines of poetry from T.S. Eliot.  Some of my friends reminded me that these “five truths” have all been said before.  Well, maybe so.  But Eliot seems to assure me that some things are worth repeating when he writes (2);

You say I am repeating

Something I have said before.  I shall say it again.

Shall I say it again?

 Well yes… I’m saying it again!

Why bother you may ask?  Why say it again?  Why survey agricultural researchers and educators about what they think?  I mean, who really cares what the sustainable agriculture research and education university community thinks?  We all know that power resides in the hands of corporations and politicians who would largely disagree with the “five truths” anyway.  Right?   An answer comes from Donella Meadows (3), who wrote that the first step in changing deeply rooted paradigms was:

“…you keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm, you keep speaking louder…” 

Finding justification for my impulsive inclination to continue to speak my personal truth (louder) by “pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm,”  I decided to share these reflections with you.  I recognize this blog will aggravate some readers.  My intent is to encourage exploration and dialogue, just as my students are attempting to do in a responsible, thoughtful manner.  We’ll see if I succeed….

My Five Truths (for discussion)

Below I’ve simply listed my “five truths” in raw form, without elaboration or interpretation.  Future posts will explore each statement at a bit more depth.  So here we go…..


My Truth Onethe form of agriculture currently practiced in most of the U.S. is not sustainable, as it continues to leak biological toxins and soil into the surrounding environment, use natural resources at rates greater than replacement, and put small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers off the land.

My Truth Two the public agricultural research and education (land grant) system created to serve the public good is influenced by the private agenda of multinational  corporations, large agricultural commodity groups, and disciplinary-bound science societies.

My Truth Three: the leadership of the farming community (in the form of well-financed national commodity organizations) and multinational food corporations have too much influence over federal farm policy, often at the expense of consumers, small and mid-sized farmers, farm workers and rural communities.  

My Truth Four: many of us in agriculture are running ever faster to stay even –  on a treadmill where farmers pursue technologies that don’t offer long-term solutions, researchers pursue the next grant, and teachers offer ever bigger classes.  There is nothing sustainable about the way we live, the way we work, the way we farm, or the way we relate to the earth.

My Truth Five: the quest for sustainability of the planet, including human and non-human communities, may be our best hope for public universities, the farming communities we love, and for ourselves as human beings. 


NOTE: I recognize the danger of making these bold statements without empirical evidence and ask for your patience.  Further elaboration of these statements will follow in future blogs (and are linked to the “my truth” statements above.  For now, I’d appreciate your initial reaction in the comments box below. 



I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas, videos and challenges, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   Go here for more of my posts.  To get a college degree see: UMass Sustainable Food and Farming.

(1) The origin of this blog was an essay titled ‘My Truths Today ‘ It’s Still All About Sustainability’ which was submitted (upon request) to a sustainable agriculture newsletter of a public university in the Midwestern U.S.   Upon receipt, the essay was deemed too controversial to print by the university administration.  It has not been submitted for publication elsewhere but has been shared with friends and colleagues.  The original essay has been slightly modified for this blog.

(2) Four Quartets’ were published in 1943, toward the end of Eliot’s illustrious career.

(3) This quote is from Donella Meadows, published in Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Sustainability Institute. December 1999.  For more, see the archives at


Who should study sustainable food and farming – ONLINE?


I was contacted recently by a teacher in a metropolitan area who wanted to quit his job and start a farm. While this might sound strange to many, it is an inquiry I’m getting on a fairly regular basis lately.  He asked me if I thought he should take one of our university online classes in Sustainable Food and Farming.  _________________________

I usually try to avoid giving someone I don’t know advice, but this time I told him “NO!”  Don’t take more classes!  Anyone with a strong educational background would surely be comfortable studying sustainable food and farming online – but THAT is not what most folks need to be successful in farming, food marketing, or working in the area of local and sustainable food advocacy and education. 

What they need is practical experience!

I advised this individual to volunteer or intern at a local farm, food market, or non-profit for at least a year – more is better.  I realize that lots of people today are looking for education related to backyard gardening, homesteading, farming, and creating a food related business – but I still can’t recommend university online courses for most people.  There are other (less expensive) options such as the online workshops offered by the Northeast Beginning Farmers Project.  These workshops are an excellent, inexpensive way to enhance your learning.

I advise most people to not take university online courses, but I do recognize for some people college credit is important.  So we need to ask….

Who should study sustainable food and farming – ONLINE?

Based on our experience with students at the University of Massachusetts, the answer is clear.  The online approach is perfect if you;

  • …recently graduated from high school are not quite ready to make the leap to college – but plan to do so in the future, or;
  • …are working in a food or farming related business and want to earn academic credentials to improve your chances getting a loan or a grant, or;
  • …are studying at an academic institution that doesn’t offer this area of study and can transfer the academic credits, or;
  • …are already involved in a career and want to explore your options in a food or farming related enterprise and earn an academic credential.

We have had students in all four of these categories take online classes with us at UMass.  Most have given our classes very positive evaluations.  Those few who were disappointed were the same folks who really would have been been better off learning to farm by farming!

Nevertheless, the world is full of people who are unhappy in their present line of work (or study) and are looking for something more fulfilling.  Many of us believe our world would be better off if we had lots more local farms and markets.  So we encourage a select few to get both the practical experience AND to study the academic side of the local food system either online or in college.

But is there good work?  Great question!

I’ve written about this before in “Are there sustainable agriculture jobs after college?”  We must realize there is a difference between “finding a job” and engaging in good work.  In sustainable food and farming, finding a job (even during difficult economic times) may be easier than discovering your calling in life.   I encourage you not to sell yourself short.  Consider this short essay by Derrick Jensen Who Are You? before you choose a career path.  And recognize that in a rapidly changing world, experts suggest that the work that will be needed (and rewarded) 10 years from now, may not even have been invented yet!

Just a few of the areas of good work taken from my “finding work” page are:

  • small farm management
  • managing cooperative food store
  • processing local food for local sales
  • farm and nature center curator
  • urban community development food/garden educator
  • sustainable farming project manager and educator
  • and many more…..

Local farming, direct marketing, and being engaged in advocacy or education related to sustainable food and farming is good work!  But is it for you?

If you want to learn to farm or get involved in some aspect of the local and sustainable food business, just do it!  Apply for a job, volunteer or intern.

But for those individuals who fit one of the four categories above, the online approach may indeed make sense.  We currently have about a dozen students involved in our 15-credit Certificate in Sustainable Food and Farming and about 200 or so students who take individual online courses with us each year.  Anyone with a high school diploma or GED is welcome to take our online courses.

If you are one of the select few for whom online university classes make sense, check out these  5-week online classes offered this winter:

Winter Session Online Courses (December 17 – January 19, 2013)

And see this link for a description of the 15-credit Online Certificate Program.

Price:  the cost of online courses offered through UMass Continuing and Professional Education vary, but our courses cost $371/credit, which is a lot – but much less than “going to college.”  There is also a $45 (one time) registration fee.  Generally financial aid is not available for online courses unless you are a full time university student.


I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas, videos and challenges, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   Go here for more of my posts.  To get a college degree see: UMass Sustainable Food and Farming.


Edible Landscapes – from England to New England


Imagine walking down the street in your hometown and passing blueberry bushes full of berries for you to pick along the way (sharing them with the birds of course).  Or nut trees in the public park with a sign saying “please gather and share these nuts.”  Or perhaps an edible groundcover like Alpine strawberry, wintergreen, sage, mint, oregano, chamomile or thyme around public buildings?

Crazy, you say?

Maybe – but this is what is happening in Todmorden, a small town in the north of England, and being planned for the University of Massachusetts campus in Amherst, Massachusetts USA.  There is unused or underutilized public and private land in many places that could be growing food.  Please enjoy the story of how this crazy idea sprouted in Todmorden!

As Pam Warhurst says in the video, this is the beginning of a revolution.  Food provides a unifying language that everyone speaks.  Community resilience can grow and community spirit can explode when a simple idea like growing food in public spaces gets momentum.  Communities around the world are copying Todmorden become more food self-sufficient by replacing unused grassy areas with beautiful and productive food plants.

A similar proposal was developed by students at the University of Massachusetts to create an “edible campus.”  UMass students have a history of turning grass into food gardens. The UMass Permaculture Program was recognized by the White House as a Campus Champion of Change.  The following video presents the work of the UMass students who transformed unproductive space to a vibrant community garden.

Students at UMass have imagined a place where the ecologically simple lawns are replaced by diverse ecosystems offering both beauty and food!

FROM ecological simplicity…

TO ecological diversity…

In addition to planting more gardens in underutilized space on campus, the UMass Permaculture Program and the Stockbridge School of Agriculture will partner with the local school system to plant fruit trees and develop vegetable gardens with the kids.

We can all do more to grow food in public spaces.  According to a recent news story “Local government officials from Baltimore, Maryland, to Bainbridge Island, Washington are plowing under the ubiquitous hydrangeas, petunias, daylilies, and turf grass around public buildings, and planting fruits and vegetables instead — as well as in underutilized spaces in our parks, plazas, street medians, and even parking lots.”  Seattle created the nation’s first public food forest!

Of course, most towns won’t find leadership for this sort of effort from local government.  Citizens can take action on their own however.  A group of young people in Northampton, Massachusetts have launched a campaign called “Help Yourself“.  Their plan is to plant “ignored, abused, and out of mind places, like vacant lots, bike paths, road medians, and lawns of businesses and householdswith edible plants.  They are creating “free food in public spaces”, such as:

  • A community herb garden with informative signs…
  • Free to use – and harvest – raised beds around town...
  • Abundant fruit and nut trees that shower future generations with real wealth…
  • Peas, grapes, and kiwis climbing along fences and railings…
  • Beautiful flowers that attract pollinating insects and reduce pests!

A recent Kickstarter campaign raised $2500 in just a few weeks to begin planting fruit trees along the town bike path and other public spaces.  There are lots of possibilities for creating edible landscapes.  If you are doing a project along these lines, please let us know by posting to the comments box below.


I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   Go here for more of my posts.  To get a college degree related to this work, see: UMass Sustainable Food and Farming.

Lessons in Ag Systems Thinking


This is an introduction to my class, STOCKSCH 379 Agricultural Systems Thinking.   The course satisfies the Integrated Experience General Education requirement for Sustainable Food and Farming majors at UMass.


Our modern educational system trains students to think in a linear, analytical way (at best) or simply to memorize disparate facts (at worst).  College graduates are well-prepared to take exams and write term papers, but often not to think creatively and systemically about big agricultural problems (many of which I’ve written about in the past) like climate change, loss of biological diversity, peak oil, the threat of global pandemic, democracy, economic collapse, globalization, hunger, and food security, safety and quality.

Albert Einstein reminds us that…..

“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.”

My class in Agricultural Systems Thinking attempts to help students (and me) practice thinking creatively (explored in “On Creativity and the Sources of New Ideas“) at a level of complexity and rigor that will help us understand and perhaps even solve global problems.  The following blogs introduce some of the tools and topics I teach in class.

In the blog titled “Learn to Think Like a Mountain” we begin looking at that higher level of thinking that Einstein mentioned.  I suggest that we are unlikely to solve seemingly intractable systemic agricultural problems with linear (simple cause and effect) thinking.  Aldo Leopold’s famous essay “Think Like a Mountain” reminds us that we need to take the “long view” by seeing problems through an ecological lens.

In “Education for Sustainability: a holistic philosophy” I suggest that education for sustainability will require “the integration of thinking and feeling, mind and body, science and spirit, knowledge and values, head and heart.”  We need ethical ways of learning (explored in Ethics, Self-interest and a Purposeful Life) and new tools for teaching to achieve this broad goal for education.

One of the simple systems tools I teach is the Mind Map, which is a visual representation of the multiple components of a complex system like a farm.  Students majoring in Sustainable Food and Farming are introduced to this tool in several of their classes and most find it useful as a means of taking notes, planning projects, of just telling someone else about a farm they have visited. Here is an example of a mind map of a community farm which uses land owned by UMass in Eastern Massachusetts.

In two blogs, Digging for Root Causes of Global Crises and Finding the Root Causes of BIG Problems, we learn about the iceberg.  A very simple and useful tool for looking below the surface of actions and patterns of events to discover structural causes and the mental models (worldview, assumptions etc.) that direct human behavior.  Mental models are further explored in “Which Comes First – Sustainable Policies or Sustainable Behavior?”

It turns out that the answer to the question posed in the title of the last blog is – “NEITHER.”  in fact thinking must change before either behavior or policy.  In “Talking Sustainability” we explore how to be effective in sharing complex ideas and changing the thinking of large groups of people.  Step by step instructions are given on how to effectively communicate our ideas.  Its starts by speaking from the heart!

We know that the way we think has a powerful influence over our behavior.  In “Worldview,Clocks and Trees” we explore the difference between mechanistic and ecological thinking.  And we take another big picture look at ourselves and the world around us in “Understanding Hierarchy.”

Another of the tools we learn to use is the causal loop diagram, represented in the diagram above by a Fix That Fails,  one of the system archetypes that describe mistakes that we make over and over again.

For example, we need to learn to see that the use of antibiotics in the animal industry (which results in a short term “fix”) can reduce the effectiveness of these critical drugs for humans (an unintended consequence).  And the continued use of pesticides in farming results in the unintended consequence of increasing resistance to pesticides in insects and disease organisms.

When these fixes that fail are identified, it becomes possible to get off the “quick fix treadmill” and begin to find real solutions to these problems.  Then we use the iceberg tool to help discover the root causes –  and quite often find that we create our own problems!  Our objective of course, is to create food and farming systems that are sustainable.

In “Resilience” we examine the key features of a sustainable system, or one that can “experience change while retaining essentially the same function, structure, feedback mechanisms, and therefore identity.”   In the video below, Fred Kirschenmann describes the value of resilience in farming systems.


The blogs linked above offer a glimpse into my Agricultural Systems Thinking class and a vision of how I believe we must teach sustainable agriculture if we ever hope to address systemic global problems related to food and farming.  In Education for Sustainable Agriculture – A Vision, I wrote:

Today’s graduates from university agricultural programs are generally well-prepared to address problems and opportunities from both a practical management and a theory-based perspective at the organism, organ, cellular and molecular levels. Graduates in the future will also need to understand complex food and farming systems at the population, community, and ecosystem levels.  

While lots of people talk about the need for systems thinking in higher education, it is rarely offered as part of the curriculum.  I believe it’s time that systems thinking becomes a core learning objective in all agricultural education programs.  This is needed both to prepare students to think creatively and systemically, but also so they are better prepared to discover their own personal calling and create “good work” over a lifetime. This is one of my personal goals for agricultural education in the UMass Stockbridge School of Agriculture.


I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   Go here for more of my posts. Finally, for more on the transformation of agricultural education and research at the University of Massachusetts, see: Land Grant Revitalization at UMass.






Systems Thinking Tools: worldview, clocks and trees


This week my new class, Agricultural Systems Thinking, got underway at UMass.  We began by talking about the difference between a mechanical and an ecological worldview.  This blog explores the difference between looking at the world as machine or as a living system.

There has been much written about the emergence of the mechanical worldview as represented by the thinking of Descartes.  More recently we have been introduced to living systems theory as a more mature way of understanding the universe.  The difference between these worldviews is demonstrated by the difference between the clock and the tree.

The World as a Machine

In ancient eras prior to the invention of the clock, there was no mechanical time. The ringing of a bell, the setting of the sun, or the changing of the seasons marked time. When the clock was created, it was a marvelous invention but soon became more than a tool, it became a model for the universe – a worldview. This mechanical model of the world supported the belief that living systems were easy to take apart, adjust, and fix. Humans, as part of the world could also be “fixed” when something was wrong. Humans and ecosystems were perceived as “nothing but” machines.  This worldview is expressed nicely in this clip from the movie Mindwalk.

The mechanistic model of the world was useful at the time since it allowed thinkers to break away from the tyranny of the church and initiate a scientific revolution.  However as the authority of the church declined a new authority emerged, a science and the resulting growth of technology that allowed humans to influence their environment. This new authority produced modern medicine, modern technology, and modern destruction of natural ecosystems. Today we need a new way to frame our understanding of the universe – new way to “see” the earth.

The World as a Living System

A reductionist scientist who breaks a tree into its component pieces, such as roots, leaves, and bark will never fully understand the key ecological relationships that support the tree.  A systems thinker would see the exchange of energy between the tree and the earth, between the soil and the atmosphere, and between people and the universe – as a living system. A systems thinker would see the life of the tree in relation to the life of the forest; a habitat for insects and birds and ask, “why does a tree produce millions of seeds and only produce few offspring?”  This question is answered in another clip from Mindwalk.

A systems thinker might look at the tree and notice both the subsystems that make up the tree (roots, stem, leaves) as well as notice the larger system in which the tree resides, the forest.  In a previous blog focused on hierarchy, I shared the idea that a systems thinker “looks up to the next larger system for purpose and down to the subsystems for function.”  A systems thinker would notice these relationships and might see both the forest and the tree.


I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   And go here for more of my posts.  Or for more systems thinking posts, try this link.

Systems Thinking Tools – Resilience


As I prepare to teach my new Agricultural Systems Thinking class at UMass this fall, I have become more and more intrigued with the thinking underlying the science of resilience.  Ecologists, psychologists and engineers are quite familiar with the idea that sustainable systems are able to withstand disturbances, large and small.  Most humans with significant life experiences can surely understand the value of resilience, as life is rarely “smooth sailing” and as the bumper sticker says “shit happens.”

The need for a deeper  understanding of resilience in agriculture has never been more obvious, as the U.S. experiences the impact of drought on the 2012 corn crop and on subsequent food and energy costs.  The inability of the industrial system to adjust gracefully to the shock of drought is just one of the indicators that it is at a tipping point.

Resilience science has taught us that systems designed for economic efficiency can maximize short-term profitability but at the same time will sacrifice resilience or the ability of the system to adjust to shocks and stresses such as drought.  Industrial agriculture and thus the modern food system is highly vulnerable to collapse.

According a report from the Prince Charities Foundation International Sustainability Unit (established by His Royal Highness, Charles the Prince of Wales), titled “What Price Resilience: Toward Sustainable and Secure Food Systems,” the systemic stresses for which industrial agriculture is NOT well-prepared to adapt to include:

A. Disruption caused by declining supplies of easily accessible fossil fuel and the subsequent escalation of energy prices.

B. Erosion of the natural capital upon which the system depends such as soil, clean water, and biological diversity and disturbance of global climate.

C. Global hunger, poverty and inequality, creating social unrest from the Arab Spring to the Occupy Movement.

Ecological agriculture on the other hand is more resilient as it addresses each of the systemic stresses that threaten the industrial system;

A. Agroecological systems minimize dependency on fossil fuel by increasing reliance on solar and energy reuse and efficiency.

B. Agroecological systems build rather than deplete natural capital  such as soil, clean water, and biological diversity, and sequester carbon to help ameliorate climate change.

C. Agroecological systems directly address social inequities, hunger, and poverty by creating opportunities for small landholders and community-based farming.

Systems scientists define resilience as “the capacity of a system to experience change while retaining essentially the same function, structure, feedbacks, and therefore identity, e.g.agricultural system properties and services.”  Resilience is conferred to living systems which (unlike industrial agriculture) exhibit the following attributes:

    1. Diversity – most ecologists agree that biological diversity adds to the resilience of a system.  This is achieved in agriculture through multiple cropping systems, permaculture and crop diversification.
    2. Openness – this is a measure of how easily components of a system such as people, ideas and species can move into or out of a system.  In agriculture it might be manifested in the ability of a farmer to change crops in response to market demand. 
    3. Reserves – reserves add to resilience in response to shocks.  In agriculture, this might be financial reserves, stored seed, or local knowledge.   
    4. Feedback – critical information on productivity, environmental quality or socioeconomic impact is needed by system managers to make good decisions.  In agriculture this might be information on the extent of soil erosion, sales figures, profitability of each product,

I’ll explore resilience in agriculture more in future blog posts but for now I’ll share a list of interventions available for systems in distress.  According to Walker and Salt in their 2012 book Resilience Practice, there are four main areas of intervention:

  • Management – changes in recommended management of components of a system
  • Financial – assistance, investment, subsidies, taxes which support the function of a system
  • Governance – laws, regulations, and policies
  • Education – knowledge to influence behavior (and especially to help decision-makers overcome denial)

If this topic is of interest to you, please check out this new video (click on the picture below) in which Fred Kirschenmann speaks about resilience in agriculture.


I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   And go here for more of my posts.  Or for more systems thinking posts, try this link.