The Amish and Voting

Slate has a piece on the Amish and their voting, or non-voting. She doesn't mention that the Amish don't vote for their bishops, they choose them by lot. (Makes sense, if you believe that God's will rules everything, let Him choose the bishop. It's also egalitarian, which is also part of their ethos.)

Why the Amish Aren't a Role Model

I've done a fair amount of posting on the Amish, much of it based on Donald Kraybill's work. They seem, as a commenter on an earlier post said, to be a possible model for an alternative agriculture. Possibly, but I respectfully disagree.

There are many attractive aspects to the Amish way of life. The tight-knit community, the sharing of burdens, the evocation of a slower, more peaceful way of life, a way of life close to that which I experienced before 1951 (when we convert from horses to a tractor).

But the key to the Amish is they want to be "off-the-grid", not of "this world", outside the market economy. Their way of life is part and parcel of their religion, which ironically gives them advantages in competing with capitalistic, free market-oriented farmers. Consider:

• no health insurance. They do cooperate with modern medicine; see this article in the Smithsonian magazine about a doctor and the genetic diseases to which Amish and Mennonites are susceptible due to in-breeding. If memory serves, they paid for the treatment of the children wounded in the schoolhouse shooting.
  
• no social security. They rely on the close-knit community and the large families to take care of the children
• no college tuition. They don't go to college.
• no real estate loans. Their new settlements pay cash for land.
• no utility bills (except kerosene) No cable, no electricity. Well water and septic tanks.
  

All this is in addition to the better known self-sufficiency in food, shelter, and clothing.

So, based on these facts, the Amish can afford to farm small, farm solar (in Pollan's new phraseology.) They simply don't need the cash flow of a big, industrialized farm. I remain to be convinced there's a "middle way" (to re-use a term from the early '50's for a different purpose) between John Phipps and the Amish.

My mantra: the way you farm, the way you live, and the way you eat are all intertwined.

Interesting Posts

As I continue to try to catch up, let me note aspects of some posts that caught my eye:

• Jennifer M in Ethicurean on an Ohio meeting about preserving farmland quotes David Kline, an Amish farmer: "Though the Amish have long been seen as old-fashioned and too low-tech to be emulated widely, their methods work: from building soil fertility through the use of manure, to promoting advances in simple but efficient technologies (European-designed plows, horse power, small-scale operations). “There is no such thing as post-agricultural society,” he warned, and farming can provide job security if we remember that the goal is “honest living” and to leave the land a better place for our children. “We’re the last people to advocate you should do it our way,” he noted, but with a twinkling, self-deprecating smile, he added, “But it works.” He rounded out his comments with a call for diversity in farming — in ideas as well as in crops — and for an emphasis on community."
• a summary of a panel in Ethicurean on the future.
  
• a reference in Ethicurean to the blueprint. (Most interesting, as it was dated in 2003 and focused on the low prices for US farm products in 1996-2003 whereas other writers more recently have focused on the high food prices of recent years. It's one problem of agriculture, indeed of economics in general, you come up with a good theory and turn your head and it's been challenged by data.)
  

Amish Take Over Farming

The Post had an article on the surging Amish population a few days ago. Professor Kraybill estimates a gain of 84 percent in 16 years. Keep that up, and pretty soon the Amish will accomplish what the locavores and organic farming types want.

Why the Amish Stay Slim

They work, not office work, physical work. So even if their genes favor obesity, they're slim. So says this study.

I buy it. A rural society with lots of physical labor is not stout. "Stout" is a word from the past. Of course many so-called farmers now have a pot, "so-called" because they just drive tractors and because I'm feeling grumpy today. Contra Professor Pollan, the key variable is not the diet, it's the labor.


(Decided since I'm fascinated by the Amish, I need to add a tag for them.)

Amish Growth

Organic farming has a future, and its name is "Amish". See this MSNBC piece on their growth, doubling in just a few years.

Map of Religions

Here's an interesting map of the US, showing the leading churches by county. I knew the Mennonite/Amish community was spreading, but not to Kansas. (The Presbyterianism of my father's side is a minority faith everywhere, even in its western PA heartland.) Hat tip to Religion in America.

Coral, Algae, and Culture

The NY Times had an interesting article on coral and algae that hits the slow food and cultural markers as well. Carrageenan comes from algae and is used in industrial food (i.e., ice cream). But the algae that were brought into Pacific areas to be farmed are now endangering the coral reefs. And solving the problem is hard:

"Then there are cultural factors. Some Pacific countries, like Kiribati, are populated by what ethnologists call nonconsumers: people who need just a little cash to get by and once that need is met, prefer to spend time with their family, go fishing or sleep.[instead of gathering algae]

There is also “pubusi,” (pronounced poo-boo-SEE) the local tradition in which one person can ask another for pretty much anything, using the magic word, and the other person has to hand it over or face public opprobrium.

“What’s the point of making money if you have to pubusi it all away?” says Kevin Rouatu, a stocky, cheerful former banker who runs the Atoll Seaweed Company in Kiribati."

The conflict between market and non-market thinking/culture exists not only in Amish communities in the U.S. but in Kiribati.

A Life in Agriculture--What's the Future

Erin writes of her childhood, and her children, at "Raising Country Kids". While she has memories of her past, written better than I ever could, it seems even in Montana modernity has struck:

"Times are different now. It seems that kids are so overscheduled in the summer that they can hardly call summertime a vacation. My children are ages ten, seven, five, and two, and still we spend nine weeks of the summer in organized activities of some sort. I realize now that I will have to be cautious to ensure that my children do not perpetuate the problem of young people becoming disengaged from agriculture. After all, they won’t learn to love it unless they experience it, and summer is a perfect time to do just that."

I don't know. I really don't. "Engaged in agriculture" can mean ranching or farming--that presumably would give her children (and grandchildren) what she values. But when there's only one ranch or farm to inherit, it's hard for everyone to continue in agriculture. And why does she value it. Was it the unscheduled dreamy summers, full of work and time to read and dream? If her kids have nine weeks of organized activities, what would her grandkids have? As life gets more and more competitive, will parents have to preserve their children's options or, as with the Amish, limit their options (i.e., no school after 8th grade).

And why the organized activities? In Montana one might say (at least in my imagination--I've no idea of the truth)--it's the only way to socialize because travel is so far and, particularly these days, so costly so you have to have organized activities, you can't just try "dropping in" on people as we used to do in my day. And the pressure is on--with so few neighbors, you have to be neighborly and you can't say, well, X is not going to play T-ball this year. And you want X to play T-ball because he/she needs the socializing. "Being neighborly" is a euphemism for conformity (as viewed by a secular liberal) or for being a Christian good person (as viewed by someone else).

Lawns and the Environment

Tom Philpott at Grist points out a NASA study on lawns. It seems that we were environmentally correct when I was growing up. Never watered the lawn, never fertilized, left the grass clippings on the lawn; so the bottom line is that our lawn was a carbon sink. Flash forward and we could have gotten paid under a cap and trade policy for carbon. Best of all, from the environmental standpoint, for many years the lawn was mowed using a hand mower. I can still feel the blisters on the inside of my thumbs and in the my palms which I got every year the first time I mowed. Because there were no emissions, we were absolutely correct. (This contrasts with the rest of the country, where you need to water and fertilize, at least according to the author, and with now, when everyone uses power mowers.)

That's one difference between the Amish and the "greens". The Amish, at least some groups, will permit standalone gasoline engines to drive horse-drawn balers or milking machines. A true-blue green would never permit a gasoline engine to cross onto their property. ()

Amish, Mennonites, and Tom Philpott

From the Brownfield Network, this report:

Amish and Mennonite farmers currently produce about 10 percent of Missouri’s fresh commercial vegetables, but 15 years ago that market didn’t exist. That’s according to the University of Missouri Extension, which has hosted workshops to teach growers about new farming techniques.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided a grant to help develop the workshops with MU. Extension Horticulture Specialist James Quinn says the EPA was interested in helping emphasize reduced pesticide applications with the Amish and Mennonite growers.

It's not clear from the broadcast whether the growers have been moving into the area or whether the market is new. The Amish have been expanding, courtesy of their high birth rate. And I know they've moved into new areas for them, like upstate New York, where they can find cheaper land to support their life style.

Meanwhile, from the organic ag movement, comes the news (a bit late) Tom Philpott has moved on from the NC farm he ran. No doubt he has good reasons for the change of occupation--he's now full time at Grist. But it fuels my cynicism, nurtured over the years of community gardening watching people come and go, that for many in the movement it's a phase, rather than a livelihood. That's not the case for the Amish--it's a way of life. One might view the organic /locavore niche as the scene of a contest between Amish and "crunchies". Given the rate of natural increase and the community share, the Amish will win. In another 50 years farming in the U.S. will be divided between the Amish and the Mennonites, and a few surviving megafarms.

Horses Are the Answer

So what's the question? Why we've gone to highly specialized agriculture over the last 60 years (according to ERS farms producing the most usually produce only one commodity)?

This study shows that a 3 and 4 year rotation using low inputs of synthetic fertilizer can beat the yields of a 2-year corn/soybean rotation. (Not organic, but low input.)

Great news, but what's the problem?

The problem is where's the market for the small grains and clover or alfalfa that are produced in the third and fourth year. In the good old days (and on Amish farms), the answer was horses--they'd eat the oats and hay. In the bad new days, no horses.

An Age-Old Tale of Graying Farmers

From the Gristmill, the first of 5 pieces on farm bill issues:

WHY PUBLIC POLICIES ARE NEEDED

• The average age of farmers and ranchers is increasing. USDA estimated that in 2004 about 4 percent of America's farmers were under 35 years of age, while nearly one-fourth were 65 years or older. The fastest growing cohort of farmers and ranchers are those 70 years or older, while the fastest declining is those 25 years old or younger.
• Over the next two decades an estimated 400 million acres of U.S. agricultural land will be passed on to heirs or sold. USDA estimates that currently over one-third of farmland is owned by landowners over the age of 65.

What the writer fails to realize, or at least mention, is that this is a continuing story. I remember doing a prototype system in Sherman County, KS in 1992--the CED had the ages of his farmers and the distribution was similar to this. I suspect back in Ontario County, NY (home of some ancestors) in 1840 the same story held. What happens is that those who are able to buy land live out their lives as farmers, the younger generation mostly leaves the farm, meaning the remaining farms grow bigger. The only time this changes is when the type of farming changes. For example, Lancaster county, PA used to be wheat country (back before the Revolution). It became mostly dairy and now I'd guess it's mostly tourist and truck, with some remaining dairy. Tourist farms are likely much smaller than a dairy (at least a dairy operated by non-Amish--the Mennonite tradition throws all my generalizations into a cocked hat).

Forgiveness

The Religion Writer has a post discussing the Amish, the shooting at the school, and the relationship of forgiveness and 9/11. Also refers to the new Donald Kraybill book on the subject. I liked his previous book, which gave me enough knowledge of the Amish to be able to use them as a comparison to mainstream society.

For example, when the locavores praise local agriculture, I can think of the Amish and say, yes, but. There's tradeoffs and there's tradeoffs. Do I, proud progeny of a line of teachers and preachers, really like the idea of ending school at the eighth grade?

And forgiveness--I admire the way they dealt with the blow. (Of course, the wounded got good medical care that depended on advanced schooling.) But do I really want to be that forgiving?

Questions--no answers.

Recipe for a Best Seller, Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle

Take 12 eggs, one for each month, purchased from budding entrepreneur (daughter Lily--9), These describe the gardening and farming work needed to eat local organic food. Add trips as follows:

• visit the requisite Amish farmers (in Ohio?)
  
• visit Farmer's Diner in central Vermont
  
• spend a week or more on holiday basking in the Tuscany sun during summer and eating Italian.
  

Stir in recipes from older daughter at regular intervals.
Add "facts" and editorials from husband.

Mix well with cups of romantic nostalgia (i.e, for childhood in tobacco country in Kentucky and the old ways of growing and eating), concern for the environment and global warming, populist anger against industrial food and the tycoons who govern our eating.

Season with spicy bits about the sex life of turkeys and the mating patterns of poultry.

Serve with a warm sauce of very well written prose. (What the McKibbens, Pollans, and Kingsolvers of the world lack in the quantity of accurate facts they more than make up for with the quality of their prose.)

NY Times Is Wrong on Farm History

I quarrel with this from the NYTimes editorial page:

For the past 75 years, America’s system of farm subsidies has unfortunately driven farming toward such concentration, and there’s no sign that the next farm bill will change that. The difference this time is that American farming is poised on the brink of true industrialization, creating a landscape driven by energy production and what is now called “biorefining.” What we may be witnessing is the beginning of the tragic moment in which the ownership of America’s farmland passes from the farmer to the industrial giants of energy and agricultural production.

This is like saying that government policy has created industrial dining, with nationwide chains like McDonalds, etc. Wrong! Economic forces, notably returns to scale and the importance of capital to farming, and the basic thrust of modern life have caused the growth of large-scale agriculture. Research has helped, but the farm bills have basically slowed and tempered the evolution. If the AAA had never been enacted, we would not today be a nation of Amish farmers.

Religion and Farming

This book review outlines some of the problems for farmers, dairy farmers, whose way of life is closely tied to their religion. The Virginians are members of the the Old German Baptist Brethern. It's an example of the persistence of culture, but also the challenges posed by free market capitalist society. Similar challenges are faced by the Amish.

Somewhere this week, on one of the economist blogs I frequent, there was an argument for greater use of the hormone that enhances milk production as a measure to reduce milk prices, which have risen recently. It's this tension between modernity and older values that's interesting (particularly if you're on the sidelines and have no personal stake in the matter--entirely different if it's your livelihood and your values.)

Pet Peeves--"Traditional Farmers"

Don't have a URL for this, but it's aggravated me and, if this blog serves any purpose at all, it should help relieve my aggravations. Last week I ran across an article criticizing US farm programs (which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that). But one of the criticisms was that they had the effect of undermining the traditional farmers in other countries, because they couldn't compete with the flood of food imported from the U.S. at low subsidized prices.

What aggravates me is not the cause and effect relationship, but the idea that undermining traditional farming is somehow wrong and bad. After all, China is surging its way to developed nation status by policies that undermined traditional farming, creating an urban labor force for its new industries. Ireland is the Tiger of the EU because its traditional farming has been undermined and abandoned. The U.S. is an industrial power because our traditional farming patterns have been destroyed.

Granted, destroy any traditional way of life and you cause suffering and pain, loss of the past and loss of life. And granted, the power of the market is blind. But I believe in the general proposition that life in the U.S. today, taken by and large, is better than it was 180 years ago when one of my ancestors immigrated. And that's true despite, and even because, the traditional agriculture found in 1830 America has been destroyed, even on Amish farms.

Anxiety in Professorial Ranks--Stanley Renshon

Just finished reading "The 50% American : immigration and national identity in an age of terror"
by Stanley Allen Renshon. He's a professor and it's a scholarly work, lots of footnotes and citations. He points to the prevalence of nations who permit dual citizenship (most do) and argues it's a danger, leading people to fail to identify with the U.S. He sees immigrants, particularly Hispanics, as retaining allegiance to their country of origin and failing to assimilate. He's concerned about "multiculturalism", arguing that we need one national culture that is dominant. As I said, it's scholarly and makes a reasonable argument, though I'm not convinced. I'd offer these points:

• It's a rather ahistorical picture. He's not conscious of the extent to which the U.S. has already had experience in navigating between the Scylla of individual/subcultural rights and the Charybdis of national culture and rules. The flag saluting of Jehovah's Witnesses, the peyote use of native Americans, the off-the-grid culture of the Amish (including aversion to higher ed), the hasidic Jews in NY, the question of parental rights of Christian Scientists to forego treatment, etc. etc. True we don't come close to the experience that a land like India has had with multicultures, but I'm confident we can navigate in the future.
• While the tone is scholarly, there's a current of anxiety about American culture that pops out regularly--the culture wars, the crassness of popular culture, etc. etc. The anxiety is shared by others who'd oppose immigration as currently operative. This leads to an irony. On the one hand, Renshon says that immigrants have too strong and too cohesive of a (family) culture which poses a threat to the U.S. On the other, he points with alarm to the erosive effects of a free-market system of catering to individual tastes that supposedly dissolves our former culture. It's difficult to have it both ways.
• But Renshon does offer some good suggestions to help immigrants acculturate, orientation sessions, English as a second language classes, etc. While I'm a bit dubious about the payoff from such efforts, there is a purpose to symbols. Perhaps an eventual compromise immigration bill would benefit by including some of these measures. They constitute a better response to the concerns of those who would restrict immigration than just dismissing their concerns.

WSJ.com - How the Amish Drive Down Medical Costs

I don't normally go near the Wall Street Journal, but they do have some free articles and here is an excerpt from one--dealing with how the Anabaptists (Amish, Mennonites) deal with modern medicine.
How the Amish Drive Down Medical Costs:

"Heart of Lancaster is a small hospital, and its case load is fairly conventional. But the Anabaptists weren't looking for anything exotic. They wanted discounts on services such as orthopedic surgery, biopsies and childbirth. The hospital agreed to discounts of up to 40% off its top rates, resulting in prices that would still be slightly higher than Medicare reimbursements, the level most hospitals consider a minimum. Not satisfied, the Anabaptists pushed the executives to go lower. But the hospital said if it dropped prices to levels below Medicare reimbursements, it could be charged for fraud for charging Medicare patients more."

The Amish, and the other Anabaptists, fascinate me. They form a test case for many theories. Are they really American? How should one deal with other cultures (like those who discourage higher education)? etc. etc. In this connection, I strongly recommend the book "The Riddle of Amish Culture"by Donald Kraybill.