Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How farmers “repair” the industrial agricultural system

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scholars are increasingly calling for the environmental issues of the industrial agricultural system to be addressed via eventual agroecological system-level transformation. It is critical to identify the barriers to this transition. Drawing from Henke’s (Cultivating science, harvesting power: science and industrial agriculture in California, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008) theory of “repair,” we explore how farmers participate in the reproduction of the industrial system through “discursive repair,” or arguing for the continuation of the industrial agriculture system. Our empirical case relates to water pollution from nitrogen fertilizer and draws data from a sample of over 150 interviews with row-crop farmers in the midwestern United States. We find that farmers defend this system by denying agriculture’s causal role and proposing the potential for within-system solutions. They perform these defenses by drawing on ideological positions (agrarianism, market-fundamentalism and techno-optimism) and may be ultimately led to seek system maintenance because they are unable to envision an alternative to the industrial agriculture system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Though similar to Goffman’s (1974) notion of “frame,” Henke’s discursive repair concept points more directly to the significant role that individuals’ or groups’ construction of problems and solutions can have in system maintenance or transformation.

  2. However, there are several reasons why the price of nitrogen does not limit farmers to applying as little as possible. Indeed, it is sometimes considered economically rational for farmers to over-apply nitrogen (Sheriff 2005) or, if not national, at least the inefficient use of N is not a significant economic cost to farmers (Pannell 2017).

Abbreviations

N:

Nitrogen

IA:

Iowa

IN:

Indiana

MI:

Michigan

References

  • Althusser, L. 1971. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and philosophy and other essays, ed. L. Althusser, 127–186. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M. 1989. Agroecology: A new research and development paradigm for world agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystems and the Environment 27 (1–4): 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(89)90070-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A., and C.I. Nicholls. 2012. Agroecology scaling up for food sovereignty and resiliency. In Sustainable agriculture reviews, ed. E. Lichtfouse, 1–29. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M., R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, and A. Norrie. 2013. Critical realism: Essential readings. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashwood, L., D. Diamond, and K. Thu. 2014. Where's the farmer? Limiting liability in Midwestern industrial hog production. Rural Sociology 79 (1): 2–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S.E., A. Hullinger, and L. Brislen. 2015. Manipulated masculinities: Agribusiness, deskilling, and the rise of the businessman-farmer in the United States. Rural Sociology. 80 (3): 285–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R.D., and D.A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26 (1): 611–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. 1998. Philosophy and scientific realism. In Critical realism: Essential readings, ed. R. Bhaskar, M. Archer, A. Collier, T. Lawson, and A. Norrie, 16–47. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S.C. 2018. The profit problem of American agriculture: What we have learned with the perspective of time. Choices 33 (3): 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blesh, J., and L.E. Drinkwater. 2013. The impact of nitrogen source and crop rotation on nitrogen mass balances in the Mississippi River Basin. Ecological Applications 23 (5): 1017–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassman, K.G., A. Dobermann, and D.T. Walters. 2002. Agroecosystems, nitrogen-use efficiency, and nitrogen management. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 31 (2): 132–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilia, L. 2020. 'We don't know much about Bees!' Techno-Optimism, Techno-Scepticism, and Denial in the American large-scale Beekeeping Industry. Sociologia Ruralis 60 (1): 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, D.J., H.W. Paerl, R.W. Howarth, D.F. Boesch, S.P. Seitzinger, K.E. Havens, C. Lancelot, and G.E. Likens. 2009. Controlling eutrophication: Nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 323 (5917): 1014–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLonge, M., and A. Basche. 2017. Leveraging agroecology for solutions in food, water and energy. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 5: 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dentzman, K. 2018. “I would say that might be all it is, is hope”: The framing of herbicide resistance and how farmers explain their faith in herbicides. Journal of Rural Studies 57: 118–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dentzman, K., R. Gunderson, and R. Jussaume. 2016. Techno-optimism as a barrier to overcoming herbicide resistance: Comparing farmer perceptions of the future potential of herbicides. Journal of Rural Studies 48: 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dentzman, K., and R. Jussaume. 2017. The ideology of US agriculture: How are integrated management approaches envisioned? Society & Natural Resources 30 (11): 1311–1327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, J. 2008. Beating a dead zone. National Resource Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jon-devine/beating-dead-zone

  • Drinkwater, L.E., and S.S. Snapp. 2007. Nutrients in agroecosystems: rethinking the management paradigm. Advances in Agronomy 92: 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C. 2013. The symbiotic ideology: Stewardship, husbandry, and dominion in beef production. Rural Sociology 78 (4): 429–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, S.B. 2015. Independence and individualism: Conflated values in farmer cooperation. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (1): 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • [ERS] Economic Research Service. 2018. Fertilizer use and price. US Department of Agriculture, Oct 18. Retrieved from ers.usda.gov/data-products/ fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx

  • Faugier, J., and M. Sargeant. 1997. Sampling hard to reach populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing 26 (4): 790–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flis, S. 2017. 4R nutrient stewardship and nitrous oxide losses. Crops and Soils 51 (1): 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frison, E.A. 2016. From uniformity to diversity: A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium): IPES, 96. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/75659

  • Gardezi, M., and J.G. Arbuckle. 2018. Techno-optimism and farmers’ attitudes toward climate change adaptation. Environment and Behavior 52 (1): 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, J.B., and L.E. Drinkwater. 2009. The fate of nitrogen in grain cropping systems: A meta-analysis of 15N field experiments. Ecological Applications 19: 2167–2184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, T.N., W.E. Newburry, and E.D. Reiskin. 1997. Why is the northern elite mind biased against community, the environment, and a sustainable future. In Environment, ethics and behaviour: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation, ed. M.H. Bazerman, D.M. Messick, A.E. Tenbrunsel, and K.A. Wade-Benzoni, 234–274. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2004. The trouble with ‘organic lite’in California: A rejoinder to the ‘conventionalisation’ debate. Sociologia ruralis 44 (3): 301–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, A. 2009. Policy directions for agricultural land use in Australia and other post-industrial economies. Land Use Policy 26: 1195–1204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, M.K., P.H. Howard, and D.H. Constance. 2019. Power, food and agriculture: Implications for farmers, consumers and communities. In Defense of farmers: The future of agriculture in the shadow of corporate power, ed. J.W. Gibson and S.E. Alexander, 13–61. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, M.K., and H.S. James. 2005. The ethics of constrained choice: How the industrialization of agriculture impacts farming and farmer behavior. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3): 269–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henke, C.R. 2008. Cultivating science, harvesting power: Science and industrial agriculture in California. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstadter, R. 1955. The age of reform: From Bryan to FDR, vol. 95. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houser, M., and D. Stuart. 2020. An accelerating treadmill and an overlooked contradiction in industrial agriculture: Climate change and nitrogen fertilizer. Journal of Agrarian Change. 20: 215–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • [ISDA] Indiana State Department of Agriculture 2018. Cover Crop and Tillage Transect Data. Indiana State Department of Agriculture. https://www.in.gov/isda/2383.htm

  • Jaffee, D., and P.H. Howard. 2010. Corporate cooptation of organic and fair-trade standards. Agriculture and Human Values 27 (4): 387–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juchems, L. 2018. Iowa cover crop acres grow, but rate declines in 2017. Iowa State University. https://www.extension.iastate.edu/news/iowa-cover-crop-acres-grow-rate-declines-2017

  • Kanter, D.R., X. Zhang, and D.L. Mauzerall. 2015. Reducing nitrogen pollution while decreasing farmers’ costs and increasing fertilizer industry profits. Journal of Environmental Quality 44 (2): 325–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J.R. 2005. First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuger, R.A., and M.A. Casey. 2009. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. New York: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrain, J. 1982. On the character of ideology Marx and the present debate in Britain. Theory, Culture & Society 1 (1): 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins, R.A., and W.W. Cochrane. 1996. The treadmill revisited. Land Economics 72 (4): 550–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magdoff, F., J.B. Foster, and F. Buttel. 2000. Hungry for profit: The agribusiness threat to farmers, food, and the environment. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malin, S.A., A. Mayer, K. Shreeve, S.K. Olson-Hazboun, and J. Adgate. 2017. Free market ideology and deregulation in Colorado’s oil fields: Evidence for triple movement activism? Environmental politics 26 (3): 521–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, L. 1964. The machine in the garden: Technology and the pastoral ideal in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2009. A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1): 139–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Méndez, V.E., C.M. Bacon, and R. Cohen. 2013. Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (1): 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montenegro de Wit, M., and A. Iles. 2016. Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology. Elementa: Science of the Anthopocene. 4: 000115. https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D.R. 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (33): 13268–13272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, P.H., and S.A. Hunt. 1996. A repertoire of interpretations: Master frames and ideological continuity in US agrarian mobilization. Sociological Quarterly 37 (1): 177–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • [NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service 2012. 2012 U.S. Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data, volume 1.

  • Pannell, D.J. 2017. Economic perspectives on nitrogen in farming systems: Managing trade-offs between production, risk and the environment. Soil Research 55 (6): 473–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plourde, J.D., B.C. Pijanowski, and B.K. Pekin. 2013. Evidence for increased monoculture cropping in the Central United States. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 165: 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponisio, L.C., L.K. M'Gonigle, K.C. Mace, J. Palomino, P. de Valpine, and C. Kremen. 2015. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282 (1799): 20141396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy, L.S., J.S. Carlton, T. Haigh, M.C. Lemos, A.S. Mase, and M. Widhalm. 2017. Useful to usable: Developing usable climate science for agriculture. Climate Risk Management 15: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribaudo, M., J.A. Delgado, L. Hansen, M. Livingston, R. Mosheim, and J. Williamson. 2011. Nitrogen in agricultural systems: Implications for conservation policy. Washington, D.C., USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribaudo, M., M. Livingston, and J. Williamson. 2012. Nitrogen management on us corn acres, 2001–10. Washington, D.C., USA: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, P.G., T.W. Bruulsema, R.J. Gehl, D. Kanter, D.L. Mauzerall, C. Rotz, and C.O. Williams. 2013. Nitrogen-climate interactions in US agriculture. Biogeochemistry 114: 41–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, G.P., and P.M. Vitousek. 2009. Nitrogen in agriculture: Balancing the cost of an essential resource. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34: 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roesch-McNally, G.E., J.G. Arbuckle, and J.C. Tyndall. 2018b. Barriers to implementing climate resilient agricultural strategies: The case of crop diversification in the US Corn Belt. Global Environmental Change 48: 206–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roesch-McNally, G.E., A.D. Basche, J.G. Arbuckle, J.C. Tyndall, F.E. Miguez, T. Bowman, and R. Clay. 2018a. The trouble with cover crops: Farmers’ experiences with overcoming barriers to adoption. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 33 (4): 322–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. 2015. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, W., and D.B. Lobell. 2010. Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture. Environmental Research Letters 5 (1): 014010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheriff, G. 2005. Efficient waste? Why farmers over-apply nutrients and the implications for policy design. Review of Agricultural Economics 27: 542–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of management review 20 (4): 936–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smil, V. 2002. Nitrogen and food production: Proteins for human diets. Ambio 31: 126–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. 1776/1976. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

  • Smith, H.N. 1950/1978. Virgin land: The American West as symbol and myth. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press

  • Sprague, L.A., R.M. Hirsch, and B.T. Aulenbach. 2011. Nitrate in the Mississippi River and its tributaries, 1980 to 2008: Are we making progress? Environmental Science & Technology 45 (17): 7209–7216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D. 2009. Constrained choice and ethical dilemmas in land management: Environmental quality and food safety in California agriculture. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics 22 (1): 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., R.C.H. Denny, M. Houser, A.P. Reimer, and S. Marquart-Pyatt. 2018. Farmer selection of sources of information for nitrogen management in the US Midwest: Implications for environmental programs. Land Use Policy 70: 289–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., and M. Houser. 2018. Producing compliant polluters: Seed companies and nitrogen fertilizer application in US corn agriculture. Rural Sociology 83 (4): 857–881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., and R.L. Schewe. 2016. Constrained choice and climate change mitigation in us agriculture: Structural barriers to a climate change ethic. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (3): 369–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., R.L. Schewe, and M. McDermott. 2012. Responding to climate change: Barriers to reflexive modernization in US agriculture. Organization & Environment 25: 308–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., and M.R. Woroosz. 2013. The myth of efficiency: Technology and ethics in industrial food production. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics 26 (1): 231–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Therborn, G. 1980. The ideology of power and the power of ideology. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • [UCS] Union of Concerned Scientist. 2014. Healthy farm practices: Crop rotation and diversity. Union of Concerned Scientists, Food & Agriculture. https://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/advance-sustainable-agriculture/crop-diversity-and-rotation.html

  • [USDA] United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2006. Environmental effects of agricultural land use: The role of economics and policy. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err25.aspx.

  • [USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2010. The quality of our nation’s water—Nutrients in the nation’s streams and groundwater, 1992–2004. National Water-Quality Assessment Program Circular 1350. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.

  • [USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2017. The quality of our nation's waters. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/

  • Veenstra, J.J., and C.L. Burras. 2015. Soil profile transformation after 50 years of agricultural land use. Soil Science Society of America Journal 79 (4): 1154–1162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A.M. 1966/1981. Can technology replace social engineering? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 22(10): 4–8.

  • Wines, M. 2014. Behind Toledo’s water crisis, a long-troubled Lake Erie. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/us/lifting-ban-toledo-says-its-water-is-safe-to-drink-again.html

  • Wright, E.O. 2010. Envisioning real utopias. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to especially thank the farmers who participated in these interviews. Our work is in no way intended to reflect poorly upon them. Only to point out how current modes of thinking considerably shape their views and intended actions. Consciousness of the possibility for a new and better system is needed in our efforts to address societal environmental issues—something everyone (including the authors) must continue to develop. We would also like to thank Dr. Adam Reimer for conducting a number of these interviews in Michigan. Finally, Matthew Houser would like to acknowledge Dr. Elizabeth Grennan-Browning for her willingness to provide source material on agrarianism and to thank his co-authors for lending their expertise to this project.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems program under Grant [1313677], the NSF's Kellogg Biological Station Long Term Ecological Research Site. Grant Number [DEB 1027253] and the Environmental Resilience Institute, funded by Indiana University’s Prepared for Environmental Change Grand Challenge initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Environmental Resilience Institute, Indiana University, 717 E 8th Street, Bloomington, IN, 47404, USA

    Matthew Houser

  2. Department of Sociology and Gerontology, Miami University, 375 Upham Hall, 100 Bishop Circle, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    Ryan Gunderson

  3. Program in Sustainable Communities, School of Earth Sciences and Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Room 280 Building 70, SBS West, 19 W. McConnell, PO Box: 6039, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011-6039, USA

    Diana Stuart

  4. School for Environmental and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Dana Building, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Riva C. H. Denny

Authors
  1. Matthew Houser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryan Gunderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diana Stuart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Riva C. H. Denny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Houser.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (include name of committee + reference number) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Houser, M., Gunderson, R., Stuart, D. et al. How farmers “repair” the industrial agricultural system. Agric Hum Values 37, 983–997 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10030-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10030-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation