Thesis - Chapter 4 - Results
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Social and Geographical Issues Related to Sustainability
Sustainability
in the Kishacoquillas Creek watershed is not merely a theoretical
discussion. Kish Creek is part of the
Susquehanna River Basin, which drains over half of the state of Pennsylvania
into the Chesapeake Bay (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, 1994). Over the past few decades, the ecological
health of the bay has been deteriorating, damaged by nutrient pollution,
sediment, and toxic substances. Because
of the role of agriculture in enhancing some of these problems, the state of
Pennsylvania has had to more strongly regulate farmers on matters of manure
management and erosion. Thus farmers are
quite aware of these specific environmental concerns, although many of those
with whom I spoke felt farmers were being unfairly singled out for harming the
bay.
The
Kish Creek itself, however, appears to be a microcosm of the larger problems
facing the bay. Kish Creek is considered
to be “significantly pollution-stressed,” contributing poor water quality to
the Juniata River (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, n.d.). A recent water quality assessment of the
Juniata River Subbasin concurred, finding that the physical habitat conditions
of Kish Creek near Belleville are quite poor.
Five miles of the creek do not support the designated use (trout-stocked
fishery) because of siltation from agriculture (Edwards, 1996). The stream channel is severely degraded and
riparian conditions are very poor. In
addition, this segment of the creek has the highest recorded concentrations of
dissolved nitrogen in the entire Juniata Subbasin (McGarrell, 1997).
A
strongly promoted method to alleviate some of the siltation and nutrient
pollution in the streams is stream bank fencing. This practice limits the amount of access that
cows have to the stream, protecting the stream bank from erosion and reducing
the amount of urine and manure that enter the water. Keeping the cows out of the stream is
actually healthier for the animals, too, since wallowing in the slow-moving
water can lead to mastitis or other possible infections. In my travels around Big Valley, I saw very
few instances of this style of fencing.
Rather, in the hot July days, I often saw cows congregating in streams,
muddying the creek and relieving themselves whenever necessary. A few local farmers are beginning to fence
off their streambanks, and the rest assume a new regulatory requirement will be
coming in the near future. As one Amish
farmer put it, “[Stream bank fencing] is going to happen. People are getting fussy about [contaminating
the streams].”
Kishacoquillas
Valley is not only located in a region of ecological concern, but an area of
rapid growth. For all of its geographic
isolation, Kish Valley happens to lie directly between Harrisburg, the state
capital, and State College, the home of Penn State University, one of the
largest universities in the country. The
highway that runs through the valley, US 322, enables commuters to live farther
away from these urban centers in rural communities. While Kish Valley has not yet become one of
these so-called “bedroom communities,” its intact rural character and charm
appeal to new residents and tourists alike.
Housing developments on former farmland are an increasingly common
sight.
Growth
was a common concern raised by the farmers I interviewed. It impacts them in several ways, both
directly and indirectly. The most direct
impact of this growth is the new US 322 bypass being built through Kish
Valley. A Nebraska Church farmer I
interviewed had his farm bisected by the highway, making the landlocked area
useless for farming and blocking a dirt road that he and other Amish families
used to travel to the nearby town. The
local officials claimed the amount of traffic did not justify a bridge or
underpass. As the farmer said, though,
“We don’t want much traffic, just access.” In addition, he noted, 46 acres were bought
for the highway right-of-way, but “they only pay half of what it’s worth.” At least three other farmers were directly
affected by the construction project, including another Amish man whose farm
was also split by the highway. His
situation was featured in a local newspaper article because, in his case, a
“cow underpass” was built, allowing his cows access to the other half of his
farm (Cauffman, 1998, p. A-1+). The
greatest irony of the new highway bypass is that even though the Amish pay
dearly for the highway (through the loss of farm acreage and value as well as
through taxes that support its construction), the Amish themselves will not be
allowed to use the road; buggies are not permitted on limited access
highways. In this case, the Amish aren’t
even getting what they pay for.
Indirect
effects of the growth in population and tourism are increased development,
decreasing amounts of farmland in an already tight market, and increased land
prices. One 100-acre farm near the
highway is soon to be rezoned and sold for housing lots. Plans are being discussed for a water line
along the nine-mile stretch of highway between the towns of Belleville and
Reedsville, enabling easy roadside development in prime farmland. In a land market where farms are already
expensive and difficult to obtain, the steady conversion of farmland to other
uses only increases the prices and the pressure.
In
a situation where in-migration combines with local population growth to create
land shortages and high prices, the economic “bottom line” becomes more and
more important to farmers. Productivity
takes priority, along with the means to achieve a high level of productivity. This situation is quite common in Amish
communities (Gallagher, 1980). The
emphasis on productivity was seen among the Amish of Kish Valley as well, most
clearly in the strong connections between Amish farmers (primarily Renno
Church) and Union Mill Soil Service, the local division of Chemgro, an
agricultural service and supply company based in Lancaster County, Pa.
While
it was somewhat expected for Amish farmers to be practicing non-organic
agriculture, I was surprised at the amount of influence that Union Mill had
among farmers in Kish Valley, especially Amish farmers. When working through the agricultural
practices questionnaire, many farmers, Amish and non-Amish alike, pulled out
their “program,” a fertilizer and pesticide application plan drawn up with a
Union Mill consultant prior to each growing season. Many farmers, in fact, did not know exactly
what was going into their soil unless they checked their program. Union Mill does custom spraying, along with
their consultant work, and many farmers take advantage of this service as well,
distancing themselves even further from their own chemical use. My general impression is that Union Mill has
an extremely significant role in influencing the agricultural practices used in
Kish Valley, for both Amish and non-Amish farmers. Considering the number of Amish farmers who
were following Union Mill’s advice, this business may be more significant than
either tradition or religious belief in determining Amish agricultural
practices (especially chemical use).
The
Nebraska Church Amish did not seem to be as connected to Union Mill; many of
them are working with a local Amish Mennonite who does custom spraying and now
promotes the Farm for Profit program, a middle-of-the-road sustainable
agriculture program. While not entirely
organic, the focus of Farm for Profit is on maintaining a high level of soil
fertility and reducing the amount of chemicals needed by using a vegetable oil
applicator.
To
Union Mill’s credit, the division carries both organic and chemical
fertilizers; according to the division manager, Don Hartzler (1998), this is a
matter of supplying the products that his customers want. Generally, however, the company’s leadership
supports the conventional wisdom of conventional agribusiness. Chemical pesticides and fertilizers are
viewed as necessary to maintain production.
“Could we feed the global community in organics?” asks Hartzler
rhetorically; “No.” It is a risk-benefit
issue, a tradeoff, which seems quite common in agriculture; no-till methods
maintain soil structure and decrease the potential for soil erosion, for
example, but they use copious amounts of chemical herbicides. Hartzler considers the new generation of
chemical pesticides to be more specifically directed at the target species,
thereby causing less disturbance to soil microorganisms. For this and other reasons, he thinks the
benefits outweigh the risks. “We want
our customers to be stewards of the ground, but also to get a crop,” says
Hartzler. Thus, conventional modern
agricultural ideas and methods are being proposed and sold to Amish farmers by
Union Mill, and the amount of influence is great.
The
interactions between Amish and English in Kish Valley occur more often and in
more places than solely at Union Mill, however.
The Big Valley Livestock Auction brings together farmers of all types
every Wednesday to buy and sell produce and livestock and to swap stories. Other venues exist to bring local residents
in contact with one another, one of the most visible being the many Mennonite
and English drivers who transport the Amish to stores and other Amish
settlements. Many Amish work with
non-Amish on roofing, painting, and construction crews. And when a Red Cross bloodmobile came to a
local Mennonite church for a blood drive, a half-dozen Amish people gave blood
during the hour while I was there. While
the Amish appreciate the relative isolation from the “outside world” that Kish
Valley affords them, they are not isolated from the local social setting,
especially not from the local agricultural community.
Agricultural Practices
A
few studies have demonstrated the differences between Amish farming and modern
American agriculture (Blake et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 1977). In addition, the Renno Church Amish and
Nebraska Church Amish have been shown to practice distinct styles of
agriculture, the last scholarly research of these differences being performed
in the 1970s (Craumer, 1979; see also Hostetler, 1951).
Amish farms are typically smaller than English farms, since the Amish rely on horsepower rather than tractors. Amish farms generally feature more crop diversity; farmers devote a greater percentage of land to pasture and practice crop rotation. These farms are usually more diverse in terms of livestock, because many of the animals are raised for the family’s own consumption rather than as a product for sale. Thus the farms are more self-sufficient in terms of providing food for animals and people, and they mimic natural cycles by returning animal waste to the soil, feeding the crops. Traditional four-year crop rotations (corn-oats-wheat-hay), use of manure, and labor-intensive methods of weed control, i.e. cultivation, usually lessen the need for chemical inputs.
Farm Size
Figure 3 clearly demonstrates that Amish farms in the Kish Valley are indeed smaller than Mennonite and English farms. English farms are the largest on average, due in part to two farmers in the sample who farm more than 800 acres each. Another unsampled English farmer in the valley farms even more acres. Mennonite farms are also sizable, though not as large as the English farms. Amish farms are the smallest, with no appreciable difference between Renno and Nebraska farm size.
FIGURE 3. Mean Acres Farmed (Crops and Pasture) by Amish and Non-Amish Kish Valley Farmers in 1998
Not only do English and Mennonites farm more land than the Amish, but they are also more interested in expanding their existing farms. Forty-five percent of Mennonites and 35 percent of English would like to farm more land than they presently have, averaging a desired increase of 60 and 71 acres respectively. The Amish, by contrast, are generally not looking to increase their acreage. Nineteen percent of Nebraskas and 20 percent of Rennos would like to expand, averaging an increase of 15 and 13 acres respectively. Even though the non-Amish are relatively more interested in expanding, a majority of each group is content with their present farm size. This might be due, in part at least, to the relative scarcity of available land – why desire something that is unavailable?
Crop Diversity, Rotations, and Tillage
Table
1 shows the types and amounts of crops grown by each group of farmers. Since the total acreage of Amish farms is
smaller than non-Amish farms, it is no surprise that the average acreage of
crops is smaller as well. However, the
diversity of crop types grown on Amish farms is considerably greater than on
non-Amish farms. Nebraska farmers grew
the most types of crops per farm on average (4.9), significantly more than all
other groups (p<0.05). Renno farmers
grew an average of 4.0 crops each, significantly more than the non-Amish
(p<0.05), while English farmers grew 3.0 and Mennonites grew the least
(2.6).
Corn
and alfalfa are the most common crops for all farmers except the Nebraska
Church. Nebraska farmers still prefer
mixed hay (clover and timothy) to alfalfa, but Renno farmers are more similar
to the non-Amish, growing nearly pure stands of alfalfa. Many Amish farmers grow oats because of its
value as horse feed. Other small grains
(wheat, spelt, and barley) are also grown for animal feed and for sale, but the
price is presently very low for wheat.
Thus few farmers except those from the Nebraska Church still grow small
grains. Five Renno farmers are growing a
few acres of produce to diversify their farm products. While many Amish farmers sell extra produce
from their gardens, growing produce specifically for the market appears to be a
unique and growing trend among this group.
TABLE
1. Amounts of Land in Crops and Pasture
for Amish and Non-Amish
Kish
Valley Farms in 1998
|
|
Nebraska Church |
Renno Church |
Mennonite |
English |
||||
|
Crop |
Number of farms (%) |
Mean number of acres
(SD*) |
Number of farms (%) |
Mean number of acres
(SD) |
Number of farms (%) |
Mean number of acres
(SD) |
Number of farms (%) |
Mean number of acres
(SD) |
|
Corn |
16 (100) |
15.4 (8.1) |
18 (90) |
23.7 (6.9) |
20 (100) |
77.2 (27.0) |
15 (75) |
91.7 (75.3) |
|
Alfalfa |
12 (75) |
9.0 (5.6) |
18 (90) |
20.6 (5.7) |
18 (90) |
56.6 (25.7) |
14 (70) |
76.2 (70.4) |
|
Mixed Hay |
14 (88) |
12.2 (8.9) |
6 (30) |
7.5 (2.3) |
5 (20) |
28.0 (22.5) |
5 (25) |
63.4 (46.6) |
|
Oats |
16 (100) |
10.8 (6.9) |
14 (70) |
6.9 (2.3) |
1 (5) |
10 |
6 (30) |
28.4 (35.4) |
|
Wheat |
11 (69) |
7.5 (8.3) |
4 (20) |
5.4 (3.2) |
6 (30) |
10.8 (5.7) |
6 (30) |
28.7 (35.3) |
|
Spelt |
9 (56) |
4.6 (2.1) |
4 (20) |
4.5 (0.6) |
0 (0) |
|
1 (5) |
3 |
|
Soybeans |
0 (0) |
|
0 (0) |
|
2 (10) |
12.0 (5.7) |
6 (30) |
40.7 (28.5) |
|
Barley |
0 (0) |
|
3 (15) |
4.3 (0.6) |
0 (0) |
|
0 (0) |
|
|
Sorghum |
1 (6) |
3 |
0 (0) |
|
0 (0) |
|
1 (5) |
3 |
|
Fruit |
0 (0) |
|
2 (10) |
9.5 (7.1) |
0 (0) |
|
2 (10) |
66.5 (10.6) |
|
Produce |
0 (0) |
|
5 (25) |
4.9 (1.5) |
0 (0) |
|
0 (0) |
|
|
Pasture |
16 (100) |
21.8 (17.6) |
19 (95) |
18.4 (13.6) |
20 (100) |
24.6 (20.1) |
19 (95) |
46.8 (66.4) |
* SD = Standard deviation
While
the average amount of pasture per farm appears to indicate that non-Amish
farmers have more pastureland than Amish farmers, the Amish still have a
greater percentage of pasture than the non-Amish. Nebraska farms have the largest proportion of
their land in pasture (30 percent).
Renno farms have 26 percent in pasture, English have 21 percent, and
Mennonites have the least at 15 percent.
This supports the idea that non-Amish farming is more intensive, growing
more crops, buying more feed, and relying less on pasture. However, in this case, the non-Amish still
have a considerable amount of land in pasture.
These numbers may be a bit misleading, however, because both the English
and Mennonite samples include a few farmers practicing managed intensive
grazing on large quantities of pastureland and these individuals may
significantly influence the group means.
Four-year
crop rotations of corn, oats, wheat, and hay used to be a hallmark of Amish
farming. Presently, however, only the
Nebraska farmers in the study still maintain the traditional crop rotation,
whereas many Renno farmers do not.
Fourteen of 16 Nebraska farmers continue the traditional practice. Only 10 of 20 Renno farmers grow a small
grain other than oats and none practice four-year, four-crop rotations. The
most common rotation for Renno farmers was growing corn for two to three years,
oats for one year, and then alfalfa for three to four years. Nine of 20 English farmers grow either a small
grain or soybeans, and five (25 percent) grow solely corn and alfalfa. Twelve Mennonite farmers (60 percent) only
grow corn and alfalfa, with the most common rotation being four to five years
of corn and three to five years of alfalfa.
Tillage
practices also demonstrate differences between farmers in Kish Valley. All of the Amish farmers interviewed use
moldboard plows as their primary tool for tilling the soil.[1] Conventional moldboard plows turn the soil over
and reduce weed growth, but they also disrupt soil structure and can lead to
soil erosion. One each of the Nebraska
and Renno farmers mentioned using no-till methods.
Non-Amish farmers, on the other hand, use minimum tillage methods (chisel plow, disk, harrow) predominantly. Eighty percent of Mennonite farmers used no-till methods this year, but only 15 percent used no-till on half or more of their cropland. No-till was less common overall for the English, with 73 percent using no-till on at least a few acres, but this group used the methods more intensively, as 33 percent practiced no-till on half or more of their cropland. Compared to no-till methods, moldboard plowing was used less commonly by both Mennonites and English (60 and 67 percent respectively), but Mennonites used conventional plows on a majority of their cropland more often than did the English (30 to 13 percent). In addition, Mennonites used conventional plows more intensively than they used no-till methods (30 to 15 percent).
Livestock Diversity and Treatment
Diversity
on the Amish farm includes animals as well as crops. Table 2 shows the amounts and types of
animals owned by each group of farmers.
More types of animals are found on Amish farms (Nebraska – 4.8, Renno –
4.1) than on non-Amish farms (English – 2.7, Mennonite – 2.65).[2] In fact, the means of crop types and animal
types are extremely similar across all groups.
The significance of this similarity is unclear, but very intriguing.
Part
of the observed difference in animal diversity is due to the omnipresence of
horses on Amish farms. Horses provide
essential transportation and fieldwork functions for the Amish, and thus are
not typical livestock. Without horses,
the difference between the number of animal types on Renno farms (3.1) and the
number on non-Amish farms (2.45) is no longer statistically significant. The difference between the numbers of animal
types on Nebraska farms and on non-Amish farms remains significant, however. The presence of horses, therefore, is the key
difference in animal diversity between the Renno Church farms and non-Amish
farms.
TABLE 2. Number of Animals on Amish Versus Non-Amish Kish Valley Farms in 1998
|
|
Nebraska
Church |
|
Renno
Church |
Mennonite |
English |
|||||
|
Animal |
Number of
farms (%) |
Mean
number of animals (SD*) |
Number of
farms (%) |
Mean
number of animals (SD) |
Number of
farms (%) |
Mean
number of animals (SD) |
Number of
farms (%) |
Mean
number of animals (SD) |
||
|
Dairy cows |
16 (100) |
12.6 (6.4) |
17 (85) |
22.1 (4.3) |
19 (95) |
76.4
(28.0) |
13 (65) |
65.0
(30.2) |
||
|
Heifers** |
16 (100) |
19.6
(24.2) |
18 (90) |
30.1
(21.2) |
20 (100) |
62.4
(25.0) |
17 (85) |
57.6
(44.6) |
||
|
Bulls |
16 (100) |
1.7 (0.8) |
18 (90) |
1.6 (0.9) |
14 (70) |
1.6 (1.2) |
11 (55) |
5.5 (11.5) |
||
|
Pigs |
7 (44) |
7.0 (6.3) |
7 (35) |
28.1
(58.6) |
4 (20) |
3.3 (2.6) |
6 (30) |
12.3
(14.6) |
||
|
Goats |
4 (25) |
2.5 (1.3) |
2 (10) |
1.0 (0) |
10 (50) |
2.4 (1.8) |
3 (15) |
8.3 (10.2) |
||
|
Sheep |
6 (38) |
6.0 (4.8) |
4 (20) |
2.8 (1.0) |
1 (5) |
1 |
4 (20) |
16.3 (9.6) |
||
|
Chickens |
15 (94) |
51.6
(54.4) |
17 (85) |
99.8
(217.1) |
4 (20) |
34.0
(19.1) |
5 (25) |
9015
(20116) |
||
|
Horses |
16 (100) |
6.9 (2.3) |
20 (100) |
8.3 (3.2) |
4 (20) |
2.0 (1.4) |
5 (25) |
4.0 (1.9) |
||
|
Ducks |
6 (38) |
36.7
(31.7) |
7 (35) |
26.1
(35.3) |
1 (5) |
12 |
2 (10) |
18.5
(20.5) |
||
|
Other |
4 (25) |
24.5
(27.4) |
4 (20) |
4.3 (1.5) |
4 (20) |
7.5 (9.0) |
8 (40) |
43.1
(51.8) |
||
* SD = Standard deviation ** Includes both heifers and calves
English
and Mennonite farmers own much larger herds of dairy cows and heifers (their
primary production livestock) than do their Amish counterparts, but more Amish
farmers than non-Amish own bulls (primarily for breeding). Herd size is in part related to farm size,
but density figures show that other factors are at work as well. Mennonites have the highest cow density, at
0.87 cows/acre.[3] Rennos, surprisingly, have the second highest
cow density, at 0.67 cows/acre. The
English (who have the largest farms) and the Nebraska farmers feature the
lowest cow densities, at 0.43 and 0.44 cows/acre, respectively. Thus, while larger farms feature larger herd
sizes, Renno farmers actually have more cows per acre than the English do.
Nebraska
Church farmers own a wider range of animals in order to provide more food
sources for their own families. A high
percentage of both Amish groups own chickens, which they use for eggs and meat,
while few non-Amish own any sort of fowl. Wandering fowl (chickens, ducks,
geese, turkeys), often with a scattering of young in tow, are a common sight at
an Amish farmstead. Renno farmers own
significantly larger dairy herds than do Nebraska farmers (p<.001), as well
as more horses, although this difference is not statistically significant. The apparent difference in the size of Renno
and Nebraska chicken flocks is also not statistically significant.
The
use of BST (Bovine Somatotropin, or Bovine Growth Hormone) is a controversial
issue in animal husbandry today. Many
modern dairy farmers use the product because it causes the cow to increase milk
production. Environmental and animal
rights activists oppose the hormone because it is thought to harm the cow and
increase the potential for disease contraction.
However, even many farmers oppose the substance because of its high
monetary price and because it “wears out” the cow, shortening the amount of
years a cow can be milked. Of 13 English
dairy farmers in the sample, none used BST, while five of 18 (28 percent)
Mennonite farmers used BST. Although not
specifically addressed in most interviews, it is unlikely that Amish farmers
use BST, primarily because Amish farmers would not be able to feed their cows
at such high levels of productivity.[4] Of the farmers included in the study, it is
significant to note the minimal usage of this controversial product.
Agricultural Inputs: Chemical Fertilizers and Pesticides
The use of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides is perhaps the most significant issue in this study, considering that these substances are widely used in modern agriculture and are highly controversial in terms of public environmental and health concerns. Table 3 presents the most commonly used fertilizers by group. Precise amounts were often unavailable.
TABLE 3. Fertilizer Applications Reported on Amish and Non-Amish Kish Valley Farms in 1998
|
|
Nebraska Church |
Renno Church |
Mennonite |
English |
||||
|
Fertilizer N/P/K (as percent of total) |
Number of farms (%) |
Mean lbs/acre |
Number of farms (%) |
Mean lbs/acre |
Number of farms (%) |
Mean lbs/acre |
Number of farms (%) |
Mean lbs/acre |
|
10-20-20 |
9 (56) |
250 |
14 (70) |
250 |
7 (35) |
165 |
6 (30) |
270 |
|
5-20-20 |
7 (44) |
190 |
9 (45) |
213 |
0 (0) |
|
5 (25) |
220 |
|
N (urea) |
0 (0) |
|
8 (40) |
76 |
9 (45) |
95 |
12 (60) |
75 |
|
Manure |
4 (25) |
|
2 (10) |
|
15 (75) |
8025 gal |
12 (60) |
7000 gal |
|
Organic |
3 (19) |
|
3 (15) |
|
0 (0) |
|
2 (10) |
|
|
Other |
13 (81) |
|
15 (75) |
|
16 (80) |
|
14 (70) |
|
* N/P/K = Nitrogen/Phosphorous/Potassium
First,
an explanation is needed regarding the apparently minimal use of manure by
Amish farmers. The tabular results are
due to the wording of the question and the conceptual relationship of
fertilizer and manure in the Amish mind; they do not accurately represent the
use of manure by the Amish. Farmers were
asked to identify “what substances [they] use to fertilize [their]
fields.” Amish farmers did not often
mention manure when they were asked this general question about fertilizers;
upon prompting, nearly all Amish indicated that they do indeed spread the
manure that their animals produce. The
fact that the Amish in Kish Valley did not immediately associate fertilizer
with manure is quite intriguing, especially since this finding is very different
from that of Blake et al. (1997), who found that Amish farmers were more likely
to mention manure as a fertilizer (unprompted) than were non-Amish farmers.
In
contrast, majorities of both the Mennonite and English groups mentioned manure
as a fertilizer that they use. Often,
this was the first substance mentioned, even before chemical fertilizers. Many of the sampled farmers own large manure
pits or tanks, which allow them to spread manure only twice per year, before
planting and after the harvest.
The
corn starter, 10-20-20, is the most commonly used chemical fertilizer by the
Amish farmers in this sample, with 5-20-20, a popular fertilizer for small
grains, coming in a close second.
English and Mennonite farmers used these specific fertilizers less
often; instead, they generally used combination fertilizers with a higher ratio
of potassium along with a purely nitrogen fertilizer. Also, nearly all English and Mennonite
farmers used large quantities of liquid manure collected from their sizable dairy
herds.
Overall,
the fertilizer analysis is made difficult by the great variety of fertilizers
used, demonstrated by the large numbers in the “other” category. Every group but the Nebraska Church used more
than 20 different fertilizer varieties.
Very few farmers of any group used commercial organic fertilizers,
although only the Mennonite group used absolutely none. One interesting difference noted in the table
is the lack of urea used by Nebraska Church farmers. Other than this and the use of corn starter
and 5-20-20 by the Amish, few group trends can be noted. The amount of fertilizer used was roughly
similar across all groups. If anything,
the Amish farmers may use larger amounts of purchased fertilizer than the
non-Amish, although this is rather speculative.
The use of pesticides by Amish and non-Amish farmers presents clearer trends for comparison. Table 4 summarizes the methods used to control weeds in corn, including non-chemical methods.
TABLE 4. Weed Control Methods Associated with Corn Production on Amish and Non-Amish Kish Valley Farms in 1998
|
|
Nebraska Church |
Renno Church |
Mennonite |
English |
||||
|
Control method |
Number of farms
(%) n=16 |
Mean pts/acre |
Number of farms (%)
n=18 |
Mean pts/acre |
Number of farms (%)
n=20 |
Mean pts/acre |
Number of farms (%)
n=15 |
Mean pts/acre |
|
Cultivation |
12 (75) |
|
2 (11) |
|
3 (15) |
|
4 (27) |
|
|
Herbicide Use |
15 (94) |
|
18 (100) |
|
20 (100) |
|
14 (93) |
|
|
Atrazine |
7 (44) |
4 |
15 (83) |
3 |
10 (50) |
3 |
9 (60) |
2.6 |
|
Cyanazine (Bladex) |
2 (13) |
|
5 (28) |
2 |
2 (10) |
|
2 (13) |
3 |
|
Dicamba (Banvel) |
1 (6) |
0.25 |
0 (0) |
|
4 (20) |
0.75 |
1 (7) |
0.6 |
|
Glyphosate (Round-up) |
2 (13) |
3 |
3 (17) |
3.2 |
13 (65) |
3 |
6 (40) |
2.6 |
|
Metolachlor (Dual) |
1 (6) |
2 |
4 (22) |
2 |
8 (40) |
2.05 |
5 (33) |
2 |
|
Pendimethalin (Prowl) |
1 (6) |
3 |
11 (61) |
3.3 |
16 (80) |
3.36 |
7 (47) |
3.1 |
|
Simazine (Princep) |
1 (6) |
|
3 (17) |
1 |
2 (10) |
|
0 (0) |
|
|
2,4-D |
9 (56) |
1.13 |
3 (17) |
1.17 |
2 (10) |
|
2 (13) |
1.25 |
|
Other |
2 (13) |
|
2 (11) |
|
9 (45) |
3.1 |
4 (27) |
2.2 |
Clearly, nearly all farmers in each group use herbicides to control weeds in corn. Atrazine and 2,4-D are the most popular herbicides for the Nebraska Church farmers. Atrazine is even more popular for the Renno Church and English farmers, along with Prowl. Mennonites prefer Prowl, but many also use Atrazine and Dual. Round-up is commonly used by non-Amish farmers, not for killing weeds among corn plants (as are the others listed), but for killing all vegetation prior to planting. No-till methods require Round-up or another chemical to burn off the existing weeds and crop before planting a new crop.
The
amounts of herbicide applied are roughly similar across all groups, with the
exception of Atrazine. For this
herbicide, the Nebraska group appears to use more pints per acre on average
than the other groups. These data cannot
be considered irrefutable, however, since many subjects across all groups were
not able to indicate how much herbicide they applied per acre. In any case, we would not expect application
rates to differ significantly across groups, since most farmers would generally
use the rates suggested by the manufacturer and/or Union Mill Soil Service.
Nebraska
farmers were the heaviest users of non-chemical means of weed control, i.e.
cultivation. A large majority of
Nebraska Church farmers (75 percent) still use this traditional, labor
intensive method. In contrast, only two
Renno Church farmers maintain this practice.
In fact, a greater proportion of non-Amish reported practicing
cultivation than did Renno farmers.
For
oats, 2,4-D was the herbicide of choice.
Seventy-five percent of Nebraska Church oat-growers used herbicide, with
63 percent using 2,4-D. Of the Renno
Church oat-growers, 79 percent used herbicide, with 64 percent using
2,4-D. Four of six English oat-growers
(67 percent) used herbicide, with three using 2,4-D.
Alfalfa
doesn’t usually require herbicide once it is growing, but to start new
seedings, 55 percent of Mennonites used herbicide, with 35 percent choosing to
use 2,4-D B (Butoxone). In contrast, 39
percent of Renno Church farmers, 19 percent of English farmers, and zero Nebraska
Church farmers reported using herbicide on alfalfa, with Butoxone being the
preferred product for the Renno and Mennonite groups as well.
Only
one Nebraska farmer (6 percent) and three English farmers (15 percent) reported
using no herbicide on any crop whatsoever.
Two of the English farmers only do rotational grazing or hay, and thus
grow no weed-threatened crops, and the other English farmer is converting to
certified organic practices (the only one in the entire sample to do so).[5] In contrast, every Renno and Mennonite farmer
in the sample applies chemical herbicides.
The
most common insect problems for these farmers were rootworm in second-year (and
beyond) corn and potato leafhoppers in alfalfa.
Mennonites were the most intensive in their use of insecticides. One hundred percent of Mennonite farmers
applied row insecticides while planting their corn, with Counter and Force
being the most popular products. In
contrast, only 67 percent of Renno corn-growers, 65 percent of English
corn-growers, and 38 percent of Nebraska corn-growers used insecticide. For alfalfa, 94 percent of Mennonites, 94
percent of Rennos, 43 percent of English farmers, and 25 percent of Nebraska
farmers sprayed insecticide. Lorsban was
the preferred alfalfa insecticide for all groups, with many Mennonites and
English also using Ambush and many Renno farmers using Dimethoate. All fruit and produce farmers in the sample
used chemical insecticides (and herbicides) on these crops as well.
Neither Mennonite nor Renno Church farmers avoided insecticides; all the sampled members of these groups applied at least one insecticide. In contrast, 30 percent of English farmers and 56 percent of Nebraska farmers used no insecticide. Three of the six English farmers are not necessarily opposed to using chemicals; they simply haven’t used any lately. One English farmer even wished he had used chemicals but couldn’t afford them. The Nebraska Church farmers, however, appeared to purposely avoid chemicals if they could. At least six members of this group mentioned that they practice crop rotation so that chemicals are less necessary. “That’s what I like about rotating, you get away from that [pesticides],” said one Nebraska Church farmer. Others made comments such as, “We don’t like to use more than we have to; they’re [herbicides] not too good for you,” or “I never did spray alfalfa; I hate the idea of that stuff,” or “I don’t like to spend much on [insecticide] if I don’t have to.”
Farm Products Sold
The
products that are sold off-farm vary according to type and amount. Figure 4 shows the vast differences in milk
production from group to group.
Interestingly, the Mennonites produce significantly more milk than do
the English, both in terms of absolute and per capita production. Besides producing less milk, Renno and Nebraska
Amish farmers are also restricted to selling their milk as Grade B for
processing since they store it in 80-pound cans rather than bulk tanks. Similar numbers of Mennonite and English
farmers sell field crops (40 and 45 percent respectively), while only one Amish
farmer from each group sells any excess crops.
Many Amish farmers, on the other hand, sell heifers (Renno – 75 percent,
Nebraska – 69 percent), poultry (Renno – 45 percent, Nebraska – 63 percent), and
produce (Renno – 75 percent, Nebraska – 69 percent), with sweet corn, string
beans, potatoes, and tomatoes being the most common items. Most of these items are sold either at the
farm (produce and poultry), at the Big Valley Livestock Auction and other
farmer’s markets (heifers, poultry, and produce), or to local restaurants
(ducks and chickens). None of the
Nebraska Church farmers grow produce specifically for sale, whereas five Renno
Church farmers (25 percent) devote cropland to high-value vegetables. Interestingly enough, ducks are a significant
market item for Nebraska Church farmers; five of these farmers surveyed (31
percent) sell ducks, compared to only one duck seller among the Rennos.
FIGURE 4. Mean Quantity of Milk Produced Daily on Amish and Non-Amish Kish Valley Farms in 1998
Sources of Agricultural Information
Not only do farmers of each group practice agriculture differently, they also learn about it differently. Figure 5 presents the primary sources of agricultural information for farmers in each group and illustrates the differences among the groups. Amish farmers consider their fathers and/or their own experience to be the most significant source of farming information.[6] English and Mennonite farmers put the most stock in farm magazines to keep them up to date on the latest machinery and farming techniques. No Nebraska Church farmers mentioned either magazines or university extension agents as a primary source of information. A near majority of English farmers, more than any other group, consider the Penn State University Agricultural Extension offices to be a primary information source. Half of the Mennonites considered both agricultural businesses (e.g. Union Mill Soil Service, seed salesmen, feed consultants, etc.) and other farmers to be important sources of information, more than any other group. A considerable number of Renno Church farmers consult farm magazines (35 percent) or agricultural businesses (40 percent). More Renno Church farmers than any other group mentioned Union Mill Soil Service by name as a primary source of information, demonstrating the influential role that this company plays with these Amish farmers. Finally, three Mennonite farmers and one English farmer mentioned the Internet as a primary source of information, demonstrating the growing reach of modern technology even into extremely rural communities.
FIGURE 5. Primary Sources of Agricultural Information for Amish and Non-Amish Kish Valley Farmers
Environmental Attitudes
Overall Group Mean Scores on the NEP
How
do the environmental attitudes of the study groups compare to one another? Table 5 presents the cumulative group mean
scores on the original 12-statement New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale. Five statements from the New Ecological
Paradigm scale are tested for group differences on an item by item case, but
not included in overall mean scores.
Scoring
works as follows. Each subject’s
response to each statement on the scale was given a score from one to four, a
higher score indicating what is considered a more pro-environmental
response. Undecided responses were not
included in the scores for this part of the analysis. These statement scores were then summed and
averaged to produce an overall mean score for each individual subject. For the group mean scores, then, a range from
one to four is also possible, with a score of one indicating a strongly
anti-environmental attitude and a score of four indicating a strongly
pro-environmental attitude. The group
mean is calculated by adding each individual’s mean score and dividing by the
group sample size.
TABLE 5. Comparison of Overall Group Means on the New Environmental Paradigm Scale
|
Sample Group |
Mean Score (SD*) |
Cronbach’s
Alpha (Reliability) |
|
English (n=20) |
2.88 (0.48) |
.79 |
|
Mennonite (n=21) |
2.69 (0.41) |
.75 |
|
Renno
Church (n=19) |
2.66 (0.24) |
.63 |
|
Nebraska
Church (n=12) |
2.64 (0.15) |
-.77 |
|
Combined Amish (n=31) |
2.65 (0.21) |
.47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa
Study** |
|
|
|
Farmers (n=348) |
2.9 |
.66 |
|
Urbanites (n=407) |
3.2 |
.78 |
|
|
|
|
|
Washington
Study*** |
|
|
|
General Population (n=806) |
3.0 |
.81 |
|
Environmental Organization Sample (n=407) |
3.7 |
.76 |
* Standard Deviation ** Albrecht et al., 1982 *** Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978
Considering
that a score of 2.5 is the midpoint of the scale, none of the groups studied
show strong pro-environmental tendencies.
The English have the highest, or most pro-environment, score, followed
in succession by the increasingly more conservative religious groups. The most conservative Amish group, the
Nebraska Church, features the lowest group score, though not by much. The differences between the lowest three
scores are not statistically significant.
Using a between-group, two-tailed t-test, the difference between the
English and Nebraska group means is significant at p=0.0536. The difference between the English and Renno
group means is not as great, and therefore is only significant at
p=0.0747. Since the sample size of the
Nebraska Church Amish group is rather small, a combined Amish sample is also
included and analyzed. The difference
between the English group mean and the combined Amish mean is significant at
p=0.0564.
Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient, a reliability measure that tests the internal consistency of
a scale, is listed for each group (Clark-Carter, 1997). The English and Mennonite samples’ alpha
coefficients are adequate (>0.7), the Renno sample’s coefficient is
marginal, and the Nebraska sample’s coefficient is extremely poor. Consequently, the combined Amish sample’s
alpha coefficient is also in the unacceptable range (<0.5). Thus, we should be cautious about drawing any
major conclusions from NEP results that include the Nebraska or combined Amish
samples.
The
order of group mean scores, from the most socially conservative to the most
socially mainstream group, is not particularly surprising. Prior studies have shown that one’s level of
education can influence one’s pro-environmental attitudes, most likely because
those with more schooling are more likely to have access to information about
the wider world and its range of ecological problems (Dunlap et al., 1992;
Scott and Willits, 1994). This factor
appears to be at work in this case as well.
The Amish end their formal schooling after the eighth grade and are not
exposed to much information about the outside world, which is exactly how the
Amish want it. In this study, all of the
Mennonites have graduated from high school, but only 15 percent have attended
college; none graduated. The English
were the most educated as a group, with 45 percent having attended or graduated
from college.
The fact that this sample includes only farmers may help to explain why the overall scores are relatively low. In a prior study of Iowa farmers and urbanites, Albrecht et al. (1982) found that farmers scored significantly lower (2.9) on the NEP than did the urbanites (3.2). These findings were reportedly consistent with previous research that claimed farmers are less environmentally aware and concerned than are non-farmers (Albrecht et al., 1982, p. 41). The present study would seem to concur with the findings that farmers support the NEP at relatively low levels, although, of course, no urban-dwellers were sampled in this study with which to compare the farmers’ scores.
Item Analysis
Figure
6 and Table 6 present (in graphical and tabular formats) the individual item
means by group, which fluctuate widely.
Items 13 through 17 in both Figure 6 and Table 6 correspond to items #6,
#8, #10, #14, and #15 from the New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap et al.,
1992). See Appendix B for the full list
of statements in both scales.
FIGURE 6. Group Mean Scores by Item for the New Environmental Paradigm Scale
TABLE 6. Comparison of Group Means for New Environmental Paradigm and New Ecological Paradigm Scale Items
|
Item
# |
Nebraska Church |
Renno Church |
Mennonite |
English |
|
|
Mean Score |
Mean Score |
Mean Score |
Mean Score |
|
1 |
2.50 |
2.42 |
2.00 |
2.58 |
|
2 |
3.00 |
3.06 |
2.90 |
2.90 |
|
3 |
1.80 |
1.91 |
2.79 |
2.80 |
|
4 |
1.45 |
1.68 |
1.57 |
2.50 |
|
5 |
3.36 |
3.00 |
2.98 |
2.95 |
|
6 |
1.58 |
2.03 |
2.00 |
2.47 |
|
7 |
3.17 |
3.28 |
2.62 |
2.68 |
|
8 |
3.42 |
3.26 |
3.33 |
3.80 |
|
9 |
3.00 |
2.79 |
2.90 |
3.05 |
|
10 |
2.73 |
2.72 |
3.40 |
3.15 |
|
11 |
2.80 |
3.06 |
2.81 |
2.70 |
|
12 |
2.91 |
2.71 |
2.95 |
2.95 |
|
13 |
1.67 |
1.68 |
1.75 |
1.55 |
|
14 |
2.09 |
2.25 |
2.93 |
2.70 |
|
15 |
2.00 |
1.88 |
2.36 |
2.05 |
|
16 |
2.90 |
3.15 |
3.40 |
3.21 |
|
17 |
2.78 |
2.75 |
2.29 |
2.35 |
|
Groups (higher scores) |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
English |
3**,4***,6**,8* |
3***,4**,8*** |
1*,4**,8* |
--- |
|
|||
|
Mennonite |
3**,10*,14* |
3***,10***,14* |
--- |
|
|
|
||
|
Renno Church |
|
--- |
7*** |
7* |
|
|||
|
Nebraska Church |
--- |
|
7* |
|
|
|||
|
|
Nebraska |
Renno |
Mennonite |
Engl. |
Groups (lower scores) |
|||
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
FIGURE 7. New Environmental Paradigm and New Ecological Paradigm Scale Items with Statistically Significant Differences as Measured by T-Tests
Differences
between group means on individual items are generally relegated to degrees of
agreement or disagreement, rather than agreement versus disagreement. Items #3, #14, and #17, are the exceptions to
this trend. Item #3 states, “Humans have
the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.” Both non-Amish groups score significantly
higher on this item than both Amish groups.
A small majority of the non-Amish groups disagree with this statement
(which is the pro-environmental response in this case), while both Amish
samples consistently agree with the statement.
As indicated by their comments during the interviews, a number of Amish
seemed to be thinking of small, localized modifications, like cutting down
trees, building houses, and, of course, farming. Their responses seemed to have in mind the
government’s tendency to disallow or make difficult some of their traditional
activities through zoning laws, etc. A
Nebraska Church farmer qualified his agreement, however, in a way with which
many Amish would probably agree: “[Modification is acceptable] as long as they
do it the natural way; if they don’t do it the natural way, they could
contaminate the air or water.”
In
contrast, the non-Amish seemed to be thinking more of the implications of
rampant, unregulated development. Most
non-Amish were supportive of modification only if it was cautious and
moderate. A Mennonite farmer related his
response to his faith this way: “Some things you do to improve [the farm], but
you can overdo it; God put things here for a reason.”
A
small majority of Mennonites and English disagree with item #14: “The balance
of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial
nations.” Their sense seems to be that
locally, the balance is fine, but many in both non-Amish groups knew of
examples in other parts of the world where the situation was not as positive.
The
Amish, on the other hand, are in general agreement with this item. This result is somewhat surprising, since on
other similar items, the Amish responded negatively to modern industrial
growth. However, the results might be
explained by the strong sense among the Amish that God’s Creation is stronger
than anything humans can do to it, in combination with the general lack of
knowledge the Amish have about events in the outside world, including negative
ecological impacts.
The
difference between the Renno and Mennonite scores on item #17 is not
statistically significant, but it is close (p=0.0593). On this item, the Amish are slightly in
agreement with the statement’s sensibility that “If things continue on their
present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.” This agreement may be due to the Amish
people’s biblical sense of apocalypticism, and their association of ecological
catastrophe with the end of the world.
As one Renno farmer put it, “Once the Lord sees that the earth won’t
support us anymore, I believe he’ll end it.”
The Amish believe that disobedience and evil behavior will receive
punishment, and they certainly see a lot of both of these behaviors in the
wider world.
The
non-Amish are in slight disagreement with item #17, although there is
considerable within-group variation for both groups. (See Appendix C, Table 9, which presents the
table of frequency distributions of responses by item for each group. Sample sizes vary by item because of the
removal of undecided responses.) Some
think that since people are aware of the problems, the problems will be fixed,
while others don’t even believe in some of the purported problems, like global
warming. Others in these groups strongly
disagree, however, believing that ecological catastrophes are already
occurring.
One
of the strongest areas of group difference occurs on the humans-over-nature
items, #4 and #6. These statements
associate extremely closely with biblical interpretations of the Genesis
creation story. It was not surprising,
then, to note that 100 percent of Amish and 90 percent of Mennonite subjects
agreed with #4, which reads, “Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.” While all the subjects in the English sample
affiliate with a Christian denomination, they were exactly split on this item,
50 percent agreeing and 50 percent disagreeing.
The English more strongly rejected the idea of ruling, saying instead
that we have to work the land with common sense. But although many Amish and Mennonites agreed
with the statement, opining that this is what God or the Bible says, they also
qualified the concept of “rule” quite strongly: “[We can rule] if we do it
right, not if we spoil things,” said one Renno farmer. “You don’t want to rule over it just any old
way,” said another Renno farmer.
The
agreement was only a little less strong on item #6, which reads, “Plants and
animals exist primarily to be used by humans.”
As animal husbanders and biblical literalists, the Nebraska Church Amish
are 100 percent in agreement with this statement which, like #4, could be
interpreted to relate to the Genesis admonition to have dominion. A few Renno
and Mennonite farmers disagreed, though, recognizing the presence of animals
and plants that are unused by people.
The English were in the least agreement with this item, but once again,
the within-group variation was dramatic.
Some felt that animals and plants are here “for what we get out of
them,” while others in the sample felt that other creatures exist for beauty
and the “good of the environment.”
The
Mennonites disagreed with item #10 significantly more than both Amish
groups: “Humans need not adapt to the
natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs.” This difference is primarily a matter of
degree, with Mennonites strongly disagreeing and the Amish only mildly
disagreeing, but it is still somewhat surprising considering the common notion
that the Amish feel close to nature and care about Creation. The Amish, who have spent much of the modern
era negotiating between modern culture and the needs of their cultural and
physical landscape, could hardly be considered non-adaptive. Part of the low score may be due in part at
least to some confusion over the construction of the sentence. Since the statement is a negative assertion,
and a pro-environmental response is to disagree, one must keep the double
negative straight in one’s head to respond “properly.” This may be one example where a stronger
grasp of the English language would have improved the scores of the Amish. On another interesting note of
interpretation, all four of the English subjects who agreed with this statement
responded on the basis of what they feel is the case, not what they
would like to see. Since humans have
remade their environment in some ways, adaptation seems unnecessary, but at
least two of these subjects disliked this reality and felt it was detrimental
in the long run. Thus, although these
subjects held pro-environmental attitudes, as shown by their additional
comments, their NEP responses gave the opposite impression.
Item
#1 raises the specter of global overpopulation: “We are approaching the number
of people the earth can support.” This
statement garnered slight agreement from the English, mixed responses from the
Amish, and relatively strong opposition from the Mennonites. As farmers, subjects across all groups
mentioned that food production must be sufficient to support everyone on the
earth; otherwise, why would prices be so low and the government be encouraging
farmers to set aside acres not to farm?
Also, subjects from most groups acknowledged that there are many
overcrowded places, like New York City and India, but that there are also many
under-utilized areas. Many of the Amish
expressed a lack of knowledge about “the Earth” (perhaps showing the influence
of their goal of being separate from the world) and declined to either agree or
disagree. One Renno Church farmer mentioned
that technology is still keeping us ahead of any potential problems. Two Nebraska men commented that God is in
control of this matter, not people.
Another Nebraska man said that it depends on how humans live: “If they
don’t live right, [the Earth] might not support anyone!” The English have a stronger sense of the
negative effects of population growth in terms of sprawl and
overdevelopment. Some don’t think that
farm production is high enough if everything were distributed fairly around the
world. Other English farmers echo the
Nebraskas; they feel that God is in control and won’t let humanity mess up the
world. As a group, Mennonites expressed
the most faith in technology and production capacity to cope with an increasing
population. Several said that the United
States can definitely support more people than it does, but they were not as
sure if this is true for other places.
Compared
to the other groups, the English were also significantly more in agreement with
item #8: “Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive.” The difference was mostly a matter of degree,
however, since both Amish groups expressed 100 percent agreement with this item
as well. The overwhelming support for
this item (80 percent strongly agreeing, higher than any group for any other
item) among the English is somewhat intriguing, but perhaps is partly explained
by an English farmer who strongly agreed, because “living with nature is not
necessarily submissive to nature.” Thus,
while some environmentalists may see this statement as supporting complete
non-interference in the natural world, animal husbanders can define harmony
differently, wholeheartedly supporting the need for a good relationship with
the other-than-human world.
The
only item where the Amish scored significantly higher than the non-Amish was on
item #7, which reads, “To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a
‘steady-state’ economy where industrial growth is controlled.” Sometimes a “steady-state” economy was an
unclear term, so an alternate wording was offered: “In the past 200 years, the
U.S. economy and industry has been expanding and growing, building more new
factories, stores, etc., and using more natural resources. In the future we will have to change, and
limit or reduce the amount of growth” (adapted from Caron, 1989). Another alternative was defining the term as
an economy that holds the amount of throughput, or “stuff,” steady, rather than
one that is continually growing in size.
In any case, many Amish clearly understood the concept of controlling
industrial growth, and liked the idea.
This response is understandable considering the Amish community’s
cultural predisposition to limits, or “cultural fences” (Kraybill, 1989, p.
236). As one Nebraska farmer put it, “If
you don’t control anything, it’ll get out of control.” The non-Amish, on the other hand, were more
ambivalent. Some were quite concerned
with the impacts of growth while others saw this statement as the “whole
socialist idea” and felt that industrial growth was necessary and vital to the
economy. These farmers were quite
opposed to any more government control.
Interestingly, in this case, the Amish do not appear to associate the
need for limits with government intervention as the non-Amish do. Neither do
they feel this statement directed at them, though. Thus it may be an example where the Amish are
supportive of limiting the negative impacts of something that they feel is
outside their cultural sphere.
The Renno Amish were also the high scorers on item #11: “There are limits to growth beyond which our industrial society cannot expand.” This difference is not statistically significant (p=0.093); even so, the results on item #11 tend to support the results of item #7.
Dimensionality of the NEP
Some
studies using the NEP have indicated that the scale may have more than one
dimension; in other words, the scale may measure not one overall attitude, but
a few distinct attitudes (Albrecht et al., 1982). Researchers identified three distinct
dimensions using factor analysis on their NEP data from farmers and urbanites
in Iowa: Balance of Nature, Limits to Growth, and Man Over Nature. The Balance of Nature subscale includes NEP
items #2, #5, #8, and #12. The Limits to
Growth subscale includes NEP items #1, #7, #9, and #11. The Man Over Nature subscale includes NEP
items #3, #4, #6, and #10. Table 7 shows
the subscale scores by group.
TABLE 7. New Environmental Paradigm Subscale Scores by Group
|
Subscale |
Sample
Group |
Mean
Score |
|
Balance
of Nature |
English |
3.15 |
|
|
Mennonite |
3.04 |
|
|
Renno
Church |
3.01 |
|
|
Nebraska
Church |
3.17 |
|
|
Iowa
Farmers* |
3.3 |
|
Limits
to Growth |
|
|
|
|
English |
2.75 |
|
|
Mennonite |
2.58 |
|
|
Renno
Church |
2.89 |
|
|
Nebraska
Church |
2.87 |
|
|
Iowa
Farmers |
2.8 |
|
Man
Over Nature |
|
|
|
|
English |
2.73 |
|
|
Mennonite |
2.44 |
|
|
Renno
Church |
2.09 |
|
|
Nebraska
Church |
1.89 |
|
|
Iowa
Farmers |
2.6 |
* Albrecht, 1982, p. 42
Two-tailed
t-tests were performed to identify significant differences among sample
groups. No significant differences exist
in the Balance of Nature subscale scores. In the Limits to Growth subscale, the
Renno Church score is significantly higher (p<.01) than the Mennonite
score. Both non-Amish groups scored
significantly higher (p<.05) than both Amish groups in the Man Over Nature
subscale.
Comparing the Iowa farmers in
Albrecht et al. (1982) with the English farmer sample in this study, the two
samples scored quite similarly across all subscales. Iowa farmers scored higher (3.3) than English
farmers (3.15) on the Balance of Nature subscale, very close on the Limits to
Growth subscale (2.8 – Iowa, 2.75 – English), and slightly lower on the Man
Over Nature subscale (2.6 – Iowa, 2.73 – English). The subscale scores and the trends across
subscales are similar enough to warrant confidence that the NEP is a fairly
consistent measuring tool and that the subscales are measuring similar
attitudes.
Analyzing scores by subscale helps
clarify the environmental attitudes of the Amish. The low scores for the Amish on the Man Over
Nature subscale indicate their support for dominion attitudes; this finding
agrees with the item analysis and seems to be related to their
biblical/religious beliefs. The Amish
samples’ evident support for human dominion is balanced, though, by their
stronger support for limits to growth, which also appears to be religiously
inspired. The Amish scores are improved
even more by strong support for the importance of the balance of nature.
Table 8 presents the
interrelationship of the subscales, listing the Pearson r correlations. If the subscales are measuring a common
paradigm, they should be correlated (Albrecht et al, 1982). As it turns out, the subscales are correlated
for the English sample across all subscales.
The Balance of Nature and Limits to Growth subscales are correlated
across all groups, showing a close relationship between the attitudes being
measured. The relationship between the
Man Over Nature and Balance of Nature subscales is less strong for the
Mennonites, nonexistent for the Rennos, and strongly negative for the Nebraska
Church. This indicates that these two
scales are not measuring positively related attitudes for the Amish groups and
may, in the case of the Nebraska Church, be measuring opposing values. Likewise, the Man Over Nature and Limits to
Growth subscales are weakly related for the Mennonite and Renno groups, and
once again strongly negatively related for the Nebraska Church.
TABLE 8. Pearsonian Correlations between Responses on the Three New Environmental Paradigm Subscales
|
Subscale |
Sample
Group |
Correlations |
|
|
|
|
Balance of Nature |
Limits to Growth |
|
Limits
to Growth |
|
|
|
|
|
English |
.66 |
|
|
|
Mennonite |
.80 |
|
|
|
Renno
Church |
.74 |
|
|
|
Nebraska
Church |
.71 |
|
|
Man
Over Nature |
|
|
|
|
|
English |
.53 |
.71 |
|
|
Mennonite |
.26 |
.23 |
|
|
Renno
Church |
.03 |
.22 |
|
|
Nebraska
Church |
-.80 |
-.76 |
The lack of consistent relationships across subscales for all groups suggests that overall mean scores, which assume within-scale consistency, may be painting an incomplete picture at best. The results of the Limits to Growth subscale show this most clearly, since the Amish actually scored higher than did the non-Amish. With the subscale scores identified, the placement of the Amish at the bottom of overall group mean scores is clearly due to the low scores on the Man Over Nature subscale, which drew down their overall scores considerably.
Comparison to Other NEP Studies
The NEP results were compared to two
other studies in order to see how this sample fits into the larger picture
(Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Scott and Willits, 1994). In the original NEP scale study performed in
Washington state (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978), a larger proportion of the
general population sample agreed with all statements but one (item #8), in
comparison with the English farmer sample in this study. The difference in percentages of those who
agreed with the other 11 items range from three to 17 percent greater for the
Washington sample. See Appendix C, Table
10, for the actual results.
A statistical test was performed to
check whether the English sample was significantly different from the larger
population. Since the sample consists of
rural farmers and is therefore assumed to score lower on the NEP, a one-tailed
z-test was used. Surprisingly, the differences between the sample and the
population were only significant on items #1 and #8 (p<0.05). Since the English sample was actually higher
on item #8, a two-tailed test was performed, but the significance of the
difference remained. Thus, on all but
two items, the English sample in this study appears to fit within the general
population sample from Washington.
Since the sample and population are
from different states and studies, these results may be influenced by regional
differences in geography, history, ecology, etc., not to mention differences
over time. Therefore, results from the
English farmer sample were also compared to a statewide Pennsylvania sample,
which is a better sample-to-population comparison (Scott and Willits,
1994). The data from the Pennsylvania
sample were more abridged than those from the Washington sample; only cursory
comparisons can be made. A five point Likert scale was used in the greater
Pennsylvania study, with the results table combining the varieties of agreement
and disagreement into one category each.
Thus the data for this study were converted to a five point scale for
comparison. (See Appendix C, Table 11,
for the five point Likert scale table of frequency distributions for this
study, and Table 12 for the comparison with the statewide Pennsylvania study.)
A larger proportion of the
Pennsylvania sample agreed with items #2 through #7 and item #12 than did the
English sample, with a range of eight to 19 percent more agreement. More members of the English sample than the
Pennsylvania sample agreed with item #8, a similar result to the Washington
state comparison. An equal number agreed
with item #10. On the remainder of the
items, the English sample agreed at higher percentages than the Pennsylvania
sample, but the percentage of disagreement was higher as well. This result is due to the large number of
undecided responses for the Pennsylvania sample, which on items #1, #9, and #11
was a greater percentage than the difference between the agreement of the
English and Pennsylvania samples.
Basically, the results show that the English farmer sample showed consistently less agreement with the NEP statements than did the statewide Pennsylvania sample. This finding is consistent with the Iowa study of farmers and urbanites, since the Pennsylvania statewide sample would consist of a large proportion of urbanites, or at least non-farmers. An interesting note to add is that the Amish samples’ high level of support for item #7, limiting industrial growth, is greater than the statewide population as well as the local non-Amish sample.
Open-Ended Questions: Stewardship and Lifestyle Decisions
Besides the NEP, each farmer was
asked a few open-ended questions regarding their sense of responsibility for
taking care of the land and their self-professed reasons for living the way
they do. The goal of these questions is
to note any significant differences in the way Amish and non-Amish farmers
perceive their reasons for taking care of the land or for their particular
lifestyle. The literature discussing the
Amish indicates that they believe in stewardship, that they feel responsible to
God for taking care of Creation, and that they feel closer to God while in
nature (Hostetler, 1993). If these
attitudes are indeed more significant to the Amish than non-Amish Christians,
we would expect to find higher levels of religious motivation and environmental
concern in their responses.
In response to the question asking
why they feel a responsibility to take care of the land, many Amish mentioned
religion as a motivating factor. Many
indicated, as expected, that the sense of responsibility to take care of the
land comes from God and his requirement “to till and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). (A Nebraska Church bishop reworded this
phrase in a rather modern, ecological fashion: “to till and conserve it”
(emphasis mine).) Besides the positive
motivation to remain faithful to God and his gift, a Renno Church farmer also
indicated the negative implications of not taking care of the land: “We
read in the Bible, God will destroy him who destroys the earth.” Other motivations surfaced, such as concern
for future generations and reciprocity, i.e. if you treat the land well, it
will treat you well. But even the
motivation to treat the land with care in order to achieve farming success was
related to the larger sense of faithfulness to God. As one Nebraska farmer put it, “[We take care
of the land] so we can raise our own bread as God intended us to. If we don’t take care of the land in some
way, we might not be able to do that.”
In other words, taking care of the land perpetuates the farming
lifestyle, which is a necessary part of following God.
If the Amish consider taking care of
the land to be a God-given responsibility, what do they consider to be “taking
care” of the land in actual practice?
For the Amish in this study, taking care of the land is an active,
involved endeavor, basically equivalent to farming itself. To the Amish, it is irresponsible not to farm
arable land. As one Renno farmer said,
“[I’d] rather see [a farm] being farmed than growing up in weeds. … I feel that people on the farm should do
their farming; sometimes you see barns falling down, fields growing up in
woods.” Maintaining the soil’s ability
to produce crops by building up the soil with inputs like manure, fertilizer,
and lime and by reducing soil erosion was the most often mentioned way to take
care of the land. Removing weeds was
also considered to be caring for the land.
These results raise a few
concerns. The importance of maintaining
soil fertility has been noted in many other Amish studies as a positive sign of
their ecological concern. However, the
idea that farming is the best use of land and that high productivity is the
main goal of farming does not seem particularly environmentally positive. It assumes that the needs of the land and the
creatures who live on it are outweighed by human needs for food
production. An example of this is the
extreme lack of riparian zones along Kishacoquillas Creek. Forests and brush within Kish Valley are
considered obstacles to be removed. To
the Amish, “the tree is the enemy,” observed a local conservation agent. The
Amish sensibility considers “weeds” to be an enemy to be eradicated rather than
a colonizing species that thrives on human-created disturbances (like
plowing). The Amish idea of stewardship
is sustainable in intent, but because of its focus on high production rather
than adaptation to ecological systems, it may not be sustainable in practice.
A few Amish farmers expressed a
greater degree of environmental awareness than might be expected considering
the previous discussion. A Renno Church
farmer, thoroughly well versed in the importance of earthworms to soil health,
discussed his concern that some chemical fertilizers or pesticides may kill
earthworms. While the common sentiment
seems to be that arable land ought to be productive farmland, a Nebraska farmer
indicated that without humans, farmland will still be taken care of. “Nature takes care of it if you don’t take
care of it,” he says. “Just like a
mountain that’s out there that nobody’s taken care of, nature takes care of
it.”
Tradition was mentioned more often
than religion by Amish farmers as a motivator of their way of life. The most common response to the question,
“Why do you live and farm the way you do?” was simple and straightforward:
“That’s the way I was raised.” Religion
was mentioned less frequently as a motivation for their way of life. A Renno Church farmer was clear about the
role of the church in his farming, however.
“[We farm] according to our religion and the rulings of the churches; we
daren’t (sic) just farm any way – that’s our ruling,” he said. In general, a few more Nebraska Church
farmers mentioned religion as a motivation for their way of life than did Renno
Church farmers, but the difference was not clearly significant.
Other motivating factors cited for
the Amish way of life include the farm’s importance as the best place to raise
a family, the farmer’s sense of connection to the land or animals, or simple
enjoyment of farm work. Religion was
mentioned as often as each of these motivations for the Renno Church, and was
mentioned slightly more often for the Nebraska Church. Only one Nebraska farmer mentioned pleasure
as a motivating factor for his way of life.
While the Amish do claim to be
motivated by religion and tradition, it is significant to note that, in
response to the question asking why they feel a responsibility to take care of
the land, Mennonites as a group mentioned religion at least as often as, if not
more than, the Amish. The English also
mentioned the motivation of stewardship in general, but specific references to
religion were less common. The
importance of one’s upbringing in imbuing a sense of responsibility was more
explicit, perhaps taking the place of religion for some English farmers. Reciprocity and concern for future
generations appeared to be stronger sources of motivation for the English than
for the other groups, although the Mennonites also indicated these were
important factors.
When asked about their lifestyle
motivations, however, religion did not appear to play a significant role for
the non-Amish. Enjoyment of farm life
and tradition were the first and second most commonly cited factors for
Mennonites, while these factors were reversed as the top two motivators for the
English. Only one Mennonite and no
English connected their lifestyle decisions with religion. The Mennonites felt strongly about the value
of the farm in raising a family, liked being their own bosses, and appreciated
the connection to the land and animals.
Economic factors also played a big part in influencing their lifestyle
and farming choices. The English also
said they like being their own bosses and appreciate the connection to the land
and animals about as frequently as the Mennonites. But fewer English than Mennonite farmers
indicated that they were motivated by economic factors or the farm’s positive
influence on the family.
The
non-Amish generally associate stewardship practices with modern soil
conservation and manure handling practices, and were usually more articulate
than the Amish in terms of modern ecological notions of taking care of the
land. When asked how he takes care of
the land, an English farmer spoke for many when he said, “[By] using modern
practices – all sod, no erosion.
Maintain a good nutrient balance; don’t take out without putting back
in. Keep brush and weeds
controlled. Don’t use an over-abundance
of chemicals.” No-till agriculture was
commonly cited as an example of “taking care of the land.” As discussed in Chapter II, this is a
controversial and potentially troubling style of “care.” Excessive chemical use was considered poor
stewardship, but chemicals themselves were acceptable as long as they were only
used “as needed.” A general sensibility
among Mennonites was that today’s farmers were doing a better job than their
predecessors did in terms of reducing soil erosion, primarily thanks to greater
awareness of the problems and greater dispersion of information.
[1] Only half of the Renno Church farmers were asked this question.
[2]
For the
animal diversity figure, the three categories of dairy cows, heifers/calves,
and bulls were considered to be one overall “cow” type.
[3] “Cows” include dairy cows and
heifers/calves. “Acres” include crops
and pasture.
[4] Intriguingly, anecdotal information indicates that Amish Mennonites may be Kish Valley’s biggest users of the product, although this is highly speculative since no systematic study of Amish Mennonite farmers was undertaken.
[5] Only one other certified organic farmer exists in Kish Valley, to my knowledge; he is a member of the Nebraska Church Amish and is in the process of joining a regional organic grower cooperative.
[6] The category of “Experience” also
included responses such as learning from dad, being raised on a farm, and
learning by doing.
Comments
Post a Comment