PART ONE : The Dawn of a New Country and the Engine of Agriculture. 

The importance of agriculture during this period can be appreciated simply by looking at two numbers: farm population as a percent of the work force, and percent of  total exports /dollar value. As illustrated below, though the number of farmers decreased over the span due to a shift from rural to urban-based economies, the dollar value of agricultural exports increased  exponentially over the same period. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that despite the shifting economy during this period, more than one out of every two Americans farmed (until 1880) and many more performed
the ancillary services such as the processing, transportation, and the commerce associated with  farm-produced products. 

Overview and Growth of Farm Production  1790-1900 
Date    Farm population as a %   of workforce.         % of all exports / value per annum  
1790    90%                                                                        44% / $4.36 million (tobacco major export)                       
1810    n/a                                                                          75% / $23 million
1819    n/a                                                                          87%/$40 million                                  
1829    n/a                                                                          65%/$42 million                                   
1839    n/a                                                                          69% / 73%/$74 million                         
1849    n/a                                                                          65%/$90 million
1859    58%                                                                        81%/$189 million
                        CIVIL WAR PERIOD                                
 
1870    53%                                                                        79%/$453 million                                                                      
1880    49%                                                                        76%/$574 million
1890    43%                                                                        71%/$703 million  
1900    43%                                                                        71%/$703 million

(5)(6)

1825-1860 Agricultural Ups, Downs, and the Impending Conflict of the Civil War. 

The Erie Canal was completed in 1825, providing a supply line west and a valuable water-link to the east coast for commodities produced in the West. The 1820 Land Act,  over the course of the next two  decades, enabled many more citizens to become landowners, in fact more than doubling  the sale of public lands over the previous twenty years (1800-29:16 million acres. 1821-1841:75 million acres).  Additionally, preemption laws were passed and revised continuously during this period (1820-41), giving
squatters  various degrees of rights to the land they settled on and worked. Historian David Danbom illustrates the rise and links formed between the country’s growing industrial center and agriculture, citing as an example the story of Proctor and Gamble, who moved their operations to Cincinnati, the “swine capital of the west,” to be close to a reliable supply of lard for soap and candle making. He further illustrates this symbiosis by pointing to the fact  that off-season farm labor increasingly found a place in the industrial centers, providing labor for the processing of agricultural commodities as well as supplemental income for the farm family. As farming aided industry, industry provided for the farmer in the form of new technology: within the span of three years, McCormick introduced the mechanical reaper, John Deere, the steel plow, and Avery and Pitts their improved threshing machine. 

                In 1830, Andrew Jackson culminated a personal campaign, that spanned over 20 years, against the “Five Civilized Tribes” of the Southeast with the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.23  This law  forcefully (see “Trail of  Tears”) ended all legal claims native American tribes had on land that was coveted by Southern plantation owners and settler farmers. In a larger sense this event served to relegate the role the indigenous people played in early American agriculture to relative insignificance. The farming methods and crops  that allowed the early settlers to survive came from a hybridized adaptation of Native American agriculture; and with the exception of a minor mention around Thanksgiving, there is but minor recognition of that fact. 

In 1841 the second Preemption Act was passed opening up additional public lands for settlement at a relatively modest price of $1.25/acre for squatters who had lived on a plot of up to 160 acres.   In the decades spanning 1840-1860 railroads expanded their  tracks by ten times, allowing farmers in landlocked locations transportation access. As expansion continued, the specter of the one -free/one- slave state, Missouri Compromise of 1820 loomed in the background as political and economic tensions between Southern and Northern farmers continued to build. Beyond all  moral and philosophical considerations, there were high-stakes economic issues in play, including a perception by those in the north that the slave trade gave the Southern states an unfair competitive advantage in agricultural production and processing. Additionally, the aforementioned dealings with the farming Indian tribes of the South by Southerners, including illegal land grabs, offended the Northerners and flew in the face of those on the federal level that promoted farming by Native Americans as a peaceful and humane method to handle the “Indian problem”and a path to assimilation. In a fashion, the North was able to counter the  advantages of 
slave labor, and at the same time continue the supply of free-white farmers for expansionism by promoting and sanctioning liberal immigration policies that favored Northern Europeans. Fueled by the Irish Potato Famine of  1845 and economic problems throughout Europe, immigration to the U.S. increased
by almost 600% in the period between 1841 and 1860 (4,311,465) with 87% of this  population coming from Ireland, Germany, and Great Britain.   Though
many of these immigrants came as a result of problems at home, many also came  because of the lure of land ownership and farming on the new frontier
accompanied by incentives coming from railroads, the largest private sector land owners. (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)

 

                                                 The Era of the  Bonanza Farm: How Human Arrogance Led To Failure

 The long term success of farming and specifically farming as a  commercially viable enterprise requires that its practitioners recognize and maintain a unique relationship with, and awareness of, the environment. Those enterprises that have ignored this most basic caveat have ultimately ended in failure. In the history of American agriculture, the Bonanza farm model which began in the 1870’s, and  peaked  within 10 years of its inception (fading to insignificance by the early 1900’s), provides a textbook lesson of  how  human arrogance in defiance of nature led to failure on a grand scale.The Bonanza farm came largely into being as an end-result of conditions
facilitated by numerous government acts and actions primarily during and immediately after the Civil War.Though the door was opened by the Preemption Act of 1841, the real business of land speculation did not begin in earnest until the passage of the  Homestead Act of 1862. Clever land speculators could  engage the services of “dummy entrymen” who could amass tracts of up to 1200 acres, meet legal requirements for ownership and then, in turn, resell these properties to speculators and railroads. Additionally, between 1862 and 1871, Congress granted over 127,628,000  acres to various railroads to encourage them to extend  their lines into the new territories of the west. With  these large tracts of land in hand, railroads themselves entered the real estate business using this virtually free land as a source of capital to not  only expand but to cover shortfalls in their own revenue stream. By selling the land to speculators and at the same time encouraging large scale farming, the railroads gained a double advantage as they held a monopoly on the land closest to rail lines and the exclusive means to move product produced on the farms to a mass market.  The most famous and the first pure example of the Bonanza farm was the Dalrymple farm, begun by the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1871. Located in the Red River Valley along the Minnesota-Dakota Territory border and managed by Oliver  Dalrymple, this 1280 acre farm (later expanded) produced thirty-two thousand bushels of wheat during its first year of operation, an unprecedented 25 bushels per acre (respectable even by today’s standards). The initial success of the Dalrymple farm spurred on the Bonanza farm movement  eventually leading to the creation of mega-enterprises that ranged on the average of 3-30k acres with the largest, the John Miller Company farm, owning
and operating 59k acres.  Because of the cheap and abundant capital provided by the railroad, land consortiums and speculators, these farms were seemingly at a great advantage over their conventional farm model counterparts, specifically the family farm/homesteader.  The Bonanza operations were able to utilize the latest technological, innovations such as steam engines and threshing machines, and the latest in horticultural advances, including improved strains of spring wheat hybridized to
the semi-arid and often harsh environment of the Great Plains. With these advantages, the Bonanza model experienced a brief period of prosperity that spanned the 1870’s-80’s and spawned others to follow suit. By the late 1880’s,  flaws within the Bonanza farm model, such as overproduction, reliance on a monoculture, skill
  specialization and high outside labor demands, in terms of sheer numbers in the  related labor costs began to emerge. These flaws combined with outside forces
  including weather, foreign competition, high taxes and a plethora of social,  political and economic changes bought about the rapid demise of this “darling” of new agriculture in less than a generation. According to Kenneth Sylvester  author of The Limits of Rural Capitalism,most of the original Bonanza enterprises were subdivided and sold  to smaller farmers by the mid-1890. Ownership of the Bonanza farms consisted mainly of absentee investors and speculators who
never set foot on the land themselves and hired professional managers to operate the farms. Though the availability of ready and cheap cash provided by these
  investors proved a short term advantage to the Bonanza operation, the lack of a physical connection to the land proved a long term disadvantage. With profit
  the overriding factor, the onus of responsible stewardship of the land was all but absent, putting the managers in the position of having the  primary function of providing a consistently favorable return on investment above all else. The typical farm was broken down into units ranging in size from 3-5k acres, with a
separate manager responsible for each unit and with each unit broken down into 1200 acre stations managed by a foreman. Work crews, by any standard were
massive and specialized. The aforementioned Oliver Dalrymple operation, in its heyday, employed a harvesting crew of over a 1000 men, operating 30 separate
threshing crews. Accounts of the period found in scholarly journals, specifically those that delve into the economic aspects of the Bonanza farm model, agree that the management of  such large workforces with their accompanying problems and inefficiencies occupied an inordinate amount of the management time. Additionally, manager  compensation was tied to yields, relegating any beneficial, and long- term cultural practices as secondary considerations. Ultimately this management style
and the seemingly inexhaustible supply of land led to a “slash and burn” attitude (despite the technology and sophisticated agronomics of the time) which
filtered down to the workforce itself. With  timing being the most critical factor in both the sowing and harvesting of a  crop, particularly on the scale of the Bonanza farms, a large and dichotomous workforce had to be recruited. On one end of the workforce was the unskilled  component that provided the hand labor for the farm. Because the typical Bonanza operation would seasonally utilize up to one-thousand or more hands, migrant  labor was a necessity. Hiram Drache in his book, The Day of the Bonanza: the History of Bonanza Farming in the Red River Valley of  the North, states that as the number of Bonanza farms began to increase the demand for migrant labor increased to the point that it exceeded the supply, which consequently increased the price of migrant labor; two noteworthy conditions that put the Bonanzas at a competitive disadvantage when compared to  the relatively self-contained family/homestead operation. On the other end of the labor spectrum  was the specialized labor that included working foremen, steam tractor engineers, ploughmen and experienced farmers. Again, the finite supply of  labor that possessed the skill-sets required, coupled with the cost of such labor, put the Bonanza operation at a  disadvantage that was only exacerbated when environmental conditions and market  forces caused price fluctuations that impacted not only the net profit but also caused severe cash flow problems . Without the diversity of crops and animals found in the smaller family-farm models, the wheat monoculture practiced on the majority of the Bonanzas made them unable to “ride-out” both natural and man-made tough times. When environmental  conditions were conducive to wheat growing, they could flourish, providing that  the market was able to absorb their crop. When yields were down due to drought,  insect or disease problems, the Bonanza had no contingency or backup crop to  mitigate the losses. At the onset of the Bonanza farm, Europe was still in the
middle of a population increase (estimated to have doubled within the span of a  century) that exceeded its own ability to feed  itself, a condition that created an ideal market for Red River Valley wheat. By 1895, European agriculture had advanced to the point that it became  self-sufficient, driving wheat prices down and creating surpluses in America. As  the surplus grew, the price of wheat declined from a high of $1.05 per bushel  between 1870 and 1880 to a thirty-year low of $.653 in the 1890’s. Though the Bonanza farm movement managed to hang on into the new  century, in the end it was both a victim of its own success and a harbinger of  the direction agriculture would eventually take through the new century and beyond. It would be irresponsible not to recognize the technological, managerial and scientific knowledge that were an important and positive contribution to American agriculture. As agriculture entered a new phase, the specialization concept that was born out of this era, particularly in the livestock industry, has become an integral part of modern agriculture. Bonanza farming illustrated that the corporate farm model was not
equipped to deal with the great environmental challenges that arise when attempting to establish a monoculture of a seasonable crop on fragile land. In
this way, it validated the diversified family-farm model that could adapt and offer creative and cooperative solutions to “nature’s curveballs” and at the  same time has shown there is no one system that is universally adaptable to the very diverse science of farming. (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)  

A New Era of Farming Begins:
At the turn of the century, after over a decade of trial and error, tremendous growth, western expansionism and phenomenal scientifically-based achievement, American agriculture emerged as an organized and politically potent entity. With the USDA becoming an integral part of the Executive branch, farmers finally had the ear of the country they had so desired. As the USDA strayed further from their original mission of scientific and technological support for the farming industry and began to formulate and regulate almost every aspect of farming and farm policy, the adage “Be careful what you wish for” has taken on a special significance for the generations of
American farmers who followed. Those, many whom are descendents of the Populists and Greenbackers and Grangers, got the regulation and government control they
desired but at the price of their independence and individualism. From this  point forward the success, and often the failure, of the American farmer, as  well as his counterparts in other countries, would be directly linked to the farm policies of the United States.

PART TWO : HIGHLIGHTS OF 1900 TO WW II
In the first decade of the 20th century, farming was still the largest single sector of employment in this country. Farming, as an industry, accounted for 58% of all exports ($917 million or $23 billion in  today’s dollars) and over 30% of the population engaged in farming. As the new century arrived, the relationship between agriculture and the government, from the local to the federal level, had changed rapidly and radically over the course of the last decade. This was an evolution that saw farmers demanding more from the government and the beginnings of unprecedented government control of almost  every aspect of farming. Setting the tone for what is often called the “Golden Age of  U.S. Agriculture” (1900- circa.1920) were, in terms of legislation, the legacies that evolved from the Homestead Act of 1862, the Morrill Act(s) of 1862( 2nd in 1890), Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1890 and the Newland’s Reclamation Act of 1902. With the USDA at cabinet level status and powerful Congressional agricultural committees that included members of the Populist Party, agriculture was a national priority. (38)

The Country Life Movement brought the realities of the natural evolution of farming to the forefront, pointing to the need for integration between urban and rural  culture and the need to understand that the romatic vision of the family farm  model was not a reality. (44) (45) 

 Downturn, WW II and the Dawn of the Agricultural Class Structure  

The original Agricultural Adjustment Act was declared unconstitutional in 1936 on the grounds that it was illegal to tax one group to pay another. The
Roosevelt administration quickly rewrote the legislation eliminating the processors’ levy and shifted the financing of the program to the general fund. It is accepted that there was a  modest recovery from the depression in the early years of the Roosevelt administration (1933-1937) particularly for medium- to-large scale agriculture and related businesses.There is however, a little discussed period of downturn that resurfaced just after the start of 1937, known as ‘Roosevelt’s Depression.’ Though many of the actions that resulted from the AAA were positive, several additional acts that were implemented during the ‘Roosevelt Depression’ period,  including the Resettlement Act and the Farm Security Agency, became disasters for the government. Though many of the actions that resulted from the AAA were positive, several additional acts that were implemented during the‘Roosevelt Depression’ period, including the Resettlement Act(RA) the Farm Security Agency(FSA) became disasters for the government. the highly socialist overtones of some of the actions that  resulted from the RA (later to fall under the auspices of the FSA) were so  controversial that they were challenged by the Supreme Court on several  occasions including the “Franklin County et.al. vs. Tugwell,” which found that  the RA/FSA had violated the Tenth Amendment in a number cases in which the  federal government attempted to establish “Greenbelt communities and Soviet-style collective farms. “ The feedback and  political ramifications of the RA/FSA, exacerbated by the downturn, marked yet another milestone in American agriculture as an institution as it further  defined the hierarchy of the industry itself, identifying the real schism between  the small farm and the medium-to- large, more industrial operations (ultimately coming down in favor of the latter).
As  the country began to move toward war, it became clear that the federal  government through the USDA, and supported by the Farm Bureau and the Grange, was going to eventually abandon its efforts at seeking equality among all  farmers and concentrate on a larger more productive model for the future. Additionally, as the war effort ramped up, factory jobs became plentiful, which in turn, meant that the concern for the rural unemployed was no longer a factor. This turn of events provided the embattled administration a rationalization for  distancing itself from the FSA (and eventually dissolving it in 1946) while  saving face. Sociologists Jess Gilbert and Carolyn Howe, in a study of the era, evidence the fact that this shift marked the beginning of a government-induced defined class structure within the agricultural community. One of their key
 observations includes, ‘. . . commercial farmers were able to beat back challenges from the agricultural underclasses and gain an enduring niche within the government.’  
 As the war effort gained momentum, the government began to shift its focus from  control (at least temporarily) of agriculture to the facilitation of production
with a general tenor of a “hands-off” policy.  Agricultural deferments were granted to farmers who produced essential crops (the interpretation of “essential” was very
liberal)The  War Manpower Commission (Exec. Order 9139:1941), in terms of the agricultural  sector, contained provisions that effectively left the government out of labor  and wage mitigation between agribusiness and workers. Disturbingly, the order  also gave the government the right to force laborers to either remain on farms,  move to farms deemed important by the Commission, or face the threat of the draft; thus creating a modified slave labor class (paid  but not free to move about  or choose other employment). Abuse  of these provisions was rampant and included such actions as forcing  sharecroppers to ( illegally) sign contracts or face conscription, forcing
  laborers who didn’t comply with the farm owners to be drafted, falsifying  information to deceive laborers into believing that the growers represented the  government , and complicity between growers and county agents in forcing  laborers to accept low wages and long hours. The abuses continued until the end  of the war and escalated to include less-than-subsistence wages for migrants and prisoners of war as well as the use of children and women in the fields. At war’s end, the average farm income
had risen and had in fact almost tripled due to the demands created by the war and the laissez faire type policies that were practiced at the beginning of the war. By 1947, adjustments and greater government control crept back into the industry and the die was cast, as American agriculture moved into its most  productive phase ever.(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)  

The end of World War II marked the beginning of an era in which American agriculture reached “adulthood.’’ Though farming retained its aura of family tradition and as the epitome of the Christian work ethic, in reality it had evolved into an industry that had come of age in the world as a big business; now, mechanized, scientifically-based,  dependent on financial institutions, and often a ward of the state and as such, subject to the whims of politics and politicians. The New Deal legislation originally enacted in 1930-40’s had firmly established the power(and gargantuan budget) of the USDA and set a precedent so iron-clad that the basic tenets and modus operandi of the government and agriculture policy remained virtually unchanged into the new millenium, despite numerous attempts at reform and revision. With the passing of  each new piece of legislation came a greater capitulation to agri-business, with diminishing concern for the small and family-based farm beyond political and nostalgic rhetoric. To  understand the present state of agriculture, it is important to look at the rapid  advancements in technology, public and private financing, and government policy since the end of World War II in the context of an interactive set of components that, though dependent on each other, often are in conflict, vying for the money and power of an enormous but still, finite market. 

Finance and Debt Load: The Origins and Tragedy of Welfare  Farming

Since the early days of the Republic, all farmers, except the extremely wealthy, relied on some type of credit system to purchase land, to provide “seed  money”in the spring, and as a means to fill the cash-flow gap prior to fall harvest.  Farming, like every other American business is not immune to “boom and bust”  cycles and as farming moved toward  commercialization, the need (and often the “desire”) for credit multiplied geometrically. While private credit sources  existed prior to the turn of the century (1900), including the usury-ridden,  crop-lien system imposed upon  sharecroppers and small farmers (generally in the  South in the latter part of the 19th century), legislation and  initiatives begun in 1902, and carried through the New Deal set the precedent  for a massive credit-fueled partnership between banks, the federal and state governments, and farmers. The use of credit by farmers increased exponentially after WWII in response to both the need to expand and modernize operations, and government encouragement to do so.The use of credit by farmers increased exponentially after WWII  in response to both the need to expand and modernize operations, and government encouragement to do so. In the latter half of WWII and during the Korean War, the previous allotment system was suspended as farmers were encouraged to  produce at a high level to both profit from and compensate for the disruption in  the world food supply caused by the war(s). With the technological advancements of the previous decades including the gasoline tractor and herbicides, pesticides, and cheap chemical fertilizers,  farmers were able to produce more and
work more acreage than ever before, by supplanting expensive hand labor with the  product of fossil fuels in various forms. Beginning in 1951, the gap between  input and output widened exponentially. Charting the input/output ratio for the  period between 1950 and 1973, reveals that input remained flat, even declining slightly between 1957 and 1964, while production (output) grew 60%. In terms of  crop production vs. farmed acres during the same period, the gap was even  greater, as the amount of acres farmed fell and the yields per acre increased. Large capital and equipment investments were required to achieve these results, and as such, farmers were forced to obtain credit to make the necessary upgrades to  remain competitive. The cost of a new combine ($7K) in 1965 might well exceed  the yearly profit (often the same as family income which did not exceed $4-5k) of  a small to medium farm.The  debt to asset ratio for  medium to  large farms (sales over $20K) over the period from 1950-1974, grew at a very unhealthy rate of approximately 2.4% per year, with the largest of farms  pledging almost 25% of their total assets to debt and debt service.   
Upon the election of Richard Nixon in 1972, farm policy (in regards to production controls ) literally broke open under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz. Upon inking a deal with the USSR for wheat and corn specifically, previous restraints on production were lifted and farmers ‘bought into’ the new Butz policy of “get bigger or get out. . .”   This  new policy required a new infusion of cash to purchase land and new equipment.  Banks, backed by the various federal farm and rural lending vehicles available  to them, were eager, beyond reason, to loan money to those who wished to  fulfill the Butz policy . . . with an eye to cashing in on the new- found  agricultural bonanza. As a forbearer of the financial crises that occurred in  the mortgage “meltdown” of the 2008, financial institutions went beyond conventional, ethical and financial standards to find “creative” solutions to leverage “paper assets” of farmers in order to qualify them for larger and larger lines of credit to expand operations. While political lip-service was paid to addressing the increasing farm debt crisies through every adminstration to the present, these policies  have remained largely intact to this day, in many shapes and forms all exacerbated by government subsidies and reluctance to let certain market forces run their course. (69)(70)(71)(72)(73)(74)(75)     

Hope and Change for the Future
Grass Roots Indications of a Paradigm
Shift. 

Like many “revolutions,”changes in  agriculture are measured and deliberate, and often come from the “bottom up.”  During the post- WWII period, many small and family farmers “bought into” the  USDA/land grant college/agribusiness philosophies principally in regards to the use of chemicals and petroleum based agriculture. In the rush to become modern and in reality, to stay competitive, time-tested and sound cultural practices that were more in tune with natural cycles were largely abandoned.  This was the status quo through the turn of the century (21st) when an amalgam of factors began to coalesce into a new perspective on farming and agriculture in  general, loosely termed “sustainable agriculture.” 
These factors included: ·       
-Greater general awareness of the importance of the environment by both producers and consumers.
 ·       
-Acceptance of the general principles as confirmed by science, down to a molecular level, of the organic farming methodology: One important  principle that came out of the now-burgeoning aquaculture industry was that, in a closed system, optimizing of yield is exactly linked to the harvest-replacement  ratio and as such, if this ratio is in balance, harvesting can continue  indefinitely.   
               
-The resurgence of the family farm, small farm, hobby farm, and  retirement farm: This movement has brought a new and often unconventional perspective to  agriculture that includes the re-examination of traditional farm techniques and  their viability. This new farm model consists of highly-informed and educated practitioners who often have the “luxury” of attempting “new” methods as their  total income is not derived solely from the farm. 
·                   
- Acknowledgement by the USDA and more importantly, the extension services of the land grant colleges: Institutions such as Cornell University and  Ohio State University, (long bastions of big "agribusinessism") now recognize that “sustainable agriculture” and its accompanying  methodologies are valid and important to the future of agriculture and in fact  are based on sound scientific principles. 
 
-The Cornell Cooperative Extension(CCE), began to recognize the  small farm movement:  The creation of programs such as “Small Farms Program,” (circa 2002) dedicated solely to the dissemination of  technologies and related information applicable to the small and hobby farmer became a significant factor in the growth of the movement. In a bit of irony, as large-scale agriculture now turns  away from the Extension Services [relying on inputs from corporate scientists and financiers] , organizations  like the CCE now must, to a very large degree, rationalize their existence based  on what they can offer to the small farm; the very entity that, at one time, they chose to relegate to a secondary status among their clientele. 
·       
-Economic considerations that have been exacerbated by the current recession and the high cost of food transportation: These conditions actually serve to promote locally grown food (limiting petroleum inputs) which is currently the sole bastion of the small independent farm that practices, in some part, “sustainable agriculture.” 
·       
-Cultural and societal awareness of the link between health, the  environment, and support for local economies: This awareness translates into consumer willingness to spend more for agricultural products that are marketed locally and grown to certain standards: i.e. organically-grown, grass-fed, ethically-raised,  and hormone-free. 
(94)(95)(96)


Indicators
of Shift 
Once considered a fringe element of  agriculture, organic farming is big business for both large and small producers  globally. Organic agriculture and its related industry, organic aquaculture are currently practiced on 13 million acres globally. In terms of U.S Dollars, at the current rate of growth ($5 billion per annum), the global sales
figures for organically produced products will be $61 billion in 2012.39  Of the greatest significance in terms of North American agriculture are the economic incentives for both small and corporate farming entities that  organically produced products present. In terms of acres, North American organic  agriculture makes up only .6% of the world total, but in terms of market dollars, the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian markets reap 45% of the entire market or projected revenues based on current growth rates of 18% per annum, or as much as $45.75 billion by the end of 2012.   While altruism, environmental and  social concerns may not be incentive enough for big corporate agriculture and agribusiness to rethink their petro-chemical methodology, the lure of big money has begun to make these entities take notice. Corporations such as Horizon
Organic, the largest purchaser of organic milk in the United States, is one company among a growing number of agribusinesses that has recognized the value
of a products produced in accord with the principles of sustainable agriculture.

 Agriculture is, by its nature, a very  scientific venture that requires research to grow and flourish. Farmers must be armed with a body of knowledge that ranges from entomology to agronomy to  economics to biology and points beyond. Keeping this knowledge fresh, effective, and viable, simply put, requires money, and lots of it. One way to judge the legitimacy of a new or different technology is by the funding it receives from  stable and “blue chip” sources that exhaustively research the causes they
support. In that vein, funding for sustainable and environmentally responsible agriculture has been on the increase over the course of the last decade as
evidenced by the results of a 2006 report published by the Headwaters Group of Philanthropic Services in regards to aid to sustainable agriculture and its
ancillary food systems  research:
1.  Government funding prior to 2003 for sustainable agriculture in  the form of grants for research and related project was virtually non-existent.
2. From 1999 to 2002, foundation and non-government funding made up the bulk of sustainable agriculture funding and grants totaling approximately  $55.2 million with an average yearly contribution of $13.8  million.
3.  The period that includes 2003-2006 saw a dramatic increase in research funding and grants on the order of more than 400% overall, with  government spending coming in at $89.7 million and private and foundation investing contributing approximately $124.8 million, making the total for the period $214.5 million overall or a average yearly investment of $71.5 from all sources (as opposed to the previous periods average of just under $14million). 
Agriculture  is big business in the United States, generating approximately $420 billion annually and with over $150 billion in exports.  Though the federal government has been  slow in recognizing and supporting new and emerging trends in the private sector, in relative terms, the USDA has reacted rapidly to the notion of  sustainable agriculture, introducing a large number of programs that are geared  to support sustainable agriculture in big ways. The most telling of these efforts comes in the form of publication entitled “Building Sustainable Farms, Ranches, and Communities” released in 2009. This  publication is a solid endorsement for the coming of age of “sustainable  agriculture,” and environmental improvement/conservation.
(98)(99)(100)(101)(102)(103)(104)

With the impending passage of the 2012 Farm Bill (Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012) there are now indications that the face of American agriculture will diverge into two distinct and government sanctioned sectors : Agribusiness as one, and the other consisting of small to medium operations based largely on the Sustainable Agriculture Model.  While to many this trending does not go far enough to stem the  excesses of subsidized commodity farming (which run the gamut from environmental abuses to the waste of billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars), it does recognize the value, the profitability, and the ethical principles of a well run and well managed small farm as an important economic and  quality-of-life component of the American fabric.(105)

move to next section: Women. On the Forefront of the New Farm Model