Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:24:08.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socio-cultural aspects of cow–calf operation persistence in a peri-urban county in Iowa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2010

Karie Wiltshire ,
Kathleen Delate ,
Jan Flora  and
Mary Wiedenhoeft
Karie Wiltshire
Affiliation:
Graduate Program in Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
Kathleen Delate*
Affiliation:
Departments of Agronomy and Horticulture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
Jan Flora
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
Mary Wiedenhoeft
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cow–calf operations in grass-based agricultural systems in Marion County, Iowa, are multifunctional in their provision of agronomic, ecological, economic and social uses. Since 1992, however, pastureland and cow–calf operations have decreased because of urban encroachment, leading to a speculative loss of some beneficial functions. The goal of this interdisciplinary project, conducted from 2003 to 2005, was to employ a farming systems research and evaluation platform to investigate grassland multifunctionality at farm, field and community levels. A socio-cultural analysis was conducted with the objective of identifying motivations of cow–calf operators to remain on the land despite increasing urban pressure. Environmental, as well as socio-economic, parameters were evaluated in understanding grassland multifunctionality in semi-structured interviews and a focus group. Typology classes derived from the study placed the majority of participants as maintaining integrated cattle and grain operations as full-time income sources. At the farm and community levels, themes from participants’ responses suggested that the relevance of profit from a cow–calf operation is mediated by a wide range of livelihood and lifestyle choices, and that operators have diverse criteria regarding the suitability of land for pasture. Themes encompassing farm preservation and building intergenerational social capital were particularly evident among the full-time, integrated cattle/grain crop family farm members. At the community level, governmental policies rewarding practices that increase field and farm biodiversity, as demonstrated by a prairie pasture system implemented in a follow-up on-farm experiment, will facilitate greater support of grass-based systems from local institutions. In order to address the educational needs expressed by study participants, extension and federal environmental agencies are encouraged to provide relevant design and implementation recommendations in recognition of local knowledge related to farmland multifunctionality and sustainable land usage for integrated crop and livestock operations.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 60 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Frisina, M.R. and Mariani, J.M. 1995. Wildlife and livestock as elements of grassland ecosystems. Rangelands 17(1):23–25.Google Scholar
2Smith, D.D. 1998. Iowa prairie: original extent and loss, preservation and recovery attempts. Journal of Iowa Academy of Science 105(3):94–108.Google Scholar
3Smith, D.D. 1992. Tallgrass prairie settlement: prelude to the demise of the tallgrass ecosystem. In Smith, D.D. and Jacobs, C.A. (eds). Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference: Recapturing a Vanishing Heritage, 5 August 1990. University of Northern IA, Cedar Falls, IA. p. 195–199.Google Scholar
4West, N.E. 1993. Biodiversity of rangelands. Journal of Range Management 46:2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Ryan, M.R., Burger, L.W., and Kurejeski, E.W. 1998. The impact of CRP on avian wildlife: a review. Journal of Production Agriculture 11(1):61–66.Google Scholar
6Rosburg, T.R. and Glenn-Lewin, D.C. 1992. Effects of fire and atrazine on pasture and prairie plot species in southern Iowa. In Smith, D.D. and Jacobs, C.A. (eds). Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference: Recapturing a Vanishing Heritage, 5 August 1990. University of Northern IA, Cedar Falls, IA. p. 107–111.Google Scholar
7[NRCS-Iowa] Natural Resources Conservation Service-U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Conservation Cover (Acre): Code 327. Soil Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard, March 1997. NRCS-Iowa, Des Moines, IA.Google Scholar
8[NRCS-Iowa] Natural Resources Conservation Service-U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. Native prairie: Establishment and management of native prairie. Iowa Job Sheet: March 1998. NRCS-Iowa, Des Moines, IA.Google Scholar
9[NRCS-Missouri]. Natural Resources Conservation Service-U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. Pasture Management Guide for Northern Missouri. NRCS , Columbia, MO.Google Scholar
10Jackson, L.L. 1999. Establishing tallgrass prairie on grazed permanent pasture in the upper Midwest. Restoration Ecology 7(2):127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Primack, R.B. 1993. Essentials of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
12[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002 [Online]. USDA-NASS, Washington, DC. Available at Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/ (accessed October 20, 2005; verified September 10, 2010).Google Scholar
13Versterby, M. 2003. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators: Land Use. Agriculture Handbook No. (AH722), February 2003. USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) [Online]. USDA-ERS, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/ah722/arei1_1/DBGen.htm (accessed October 10, 2005; verified September 10, 2010).Google Scholar
14Cashman, J. II. 2002. Where's the beef? Small farms produce the majority of cattle. Agricultural Outlook: A0–297 December 2002, Livestock Sector [Online].USDA-ERS, Washington, DC. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/Dec2002/ao297g.pdf (accessed 20 October 2005; verified 10 September 2010).Google Scholar
15Welsh, R. 1996. The industrial reorganization of U.S. agriculture: an overview and background report. Policy Studies Report No. 6. Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, MD.Google Scholar
16Hinrichs, C.C. and Welsh, R. 2003. The effects of the industrialization of U.S. livestock agriculture on promoting sustainable production practices. Agriculture and Human Values 20:125–141.Google Scholar
17Altieri, M.A. 2005. Multifunctional dimensions of ecologically based agriculture in Latin America [Online]. University of California-Berkley, Berkeley, CA. Available at Web site http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/multifunctional_dimensions.html (accessed October 20, 2004; verified September 10, 2010).Google Scholar
18Sanderson, M.A., Skinner, R.H., Edwards, G.R., Tracy, B.F., and Wedin, D.A. 2004. Plant species diversity and management of temperate forage and grazing land systems. Crop Science 44:1132–1144.Google Scholar
19Hoppe, R.A., Perry, J.E., and Banker, D. 2000. ERS farm typology for a diverse agricultural sector. Information Bulletin Number 759 [Online]. USDA-ERS, Washington, DC. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/AIB759/ (accessed 20 October 2005; verified 10 Sept. 2010).Google Scholar
20Rusk, D. 1999. Inside Game–Outside Game. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
21Harl, N. 2003. Agriculture in the twenty-first century. Presented at Stewardship 2003, co-sponsored by Luther Seminary and the Southwest Minnesota Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2 August 2003 [Online]. Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Available at Web site http://www.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/harl/Papers.htm (accessed October 20, 2005; verified September 10, 2010).Google Scholar
22Schertz, L.P. and Doering, O.C. III. 1999. The Making of the 1996 Farm Act. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
23Beem, M. 2004. Rural-Urban Interface Problems and Opportunities. AGEC-922. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
24[NCSF] National Commission on Small Farms-U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. A Time to Choose: A Report of the National Commission on Small Farms. Miscellaneous Publication 1545. USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
25U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. State-based metropolitan and metropolitan statistical areas maps: December 2003. [Online]. U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division, Cartographic Products Managed Branch, Washington, DC. Available at Web site http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/stcbsa_pg/stBased_200411_nov.htm (accessed October 20, 2005; verified September 10, 2010).Google Scholar
26Russell, R.C. and Lockridge, D. 1980. Soil Survey of Marion County, Iowa. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Cooperative Extension Service – Iowa State University, and the Department of Soil Conservation, State of Iowa, Des Moines, IA.Google Scholar
27Hanson, M.R., Artz, G., and Imerman, M. 2002. Data for decision makers: Marion County. Iowa State University Extension to Communities: DD63 Revised September 2002. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
28Mayer, R. and Mensching, M. 2002. Incorporating Grassland Agriculture into Row Crop Production Systems in Madison, Warren, Marion and Mahaska County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Proposal to the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture number 2002–39. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
29Dixon, J. 2000. A farming systems contribution to agricultural policy analysis. In Collinson, M. (ed.). History of Farming Systems Research. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. p. 152–161.Google Scholar
30Jervell, A.M. 1999. Changing patterns of family farming and pluriactivity. Sociologia Ruralis 39(1):100–116.Google Scholar
31Shaner, W.W., Philipp, P.F., and Schmehl, W.R. 1981. Farming Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for Developing Counties. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
32Sutherland, A. 1987. Sociology in Farming Systems Research. Agricultural Administration Unit Occasional Paper 6. Overseas Development Institute, London.Google Scholar
33Collinson, M. 2000. My FSR origins. In Collinson, M. (ed.). History of Farming Systems Research. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. p. 34–41.Google Scholar
34Josling, T. 2002. Competing paradigms in the OECD and their impact on the WTO agriculture Talks. In Tweeten, L. and Thompson, S.R. (eds). Agricultural Policy for the 21st Century. Iowa State Press, Ames, IA. p. 245–264.Google Scholar
35Maier, L. 2001. Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
36Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91:481–510.Google Scholar
37Hinrichs, C. 1998. Sideline and lifeline: the cultural economy of maple syrup production. Rural Sociology 63(4):507–532.Google Scholar
38Bell, M.M. 1992. The fruit of difference: the rural–urban continuum as a system of identity. Rural Sociology 57:65–82.Google Scholar
39Fitchen, J.M. 1991. Endangered Spaces, Enduring places: Change, Identity and Survival in Rural America. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
40Hatch, E. 1992. Respectable Lives: Social Standing in Rural New Zealand. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
41Mingione, E. 1991. Fragmented Societies: A Sociology of Economic Life Beyond the Market Paradigm. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
42Richards, R.T. and Creasy, M. 1996. Ethnic diversity, resource values and ecosystem management: Matsutake mushroom harvesting in the Klamath ecosystem bioregion. Society and Natural Resources 9:359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Chambers, E. 2003. Applied ethnography. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. 2nd ed.Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. p. 389–418.Google Scholar
44Scrimshaw, S.C.M. 1985. Bring the period down: Government and squatter settlement confront induced abortion in Ecuador. In DeWalt, B.R. and Pelto, P.J. (eds). Micro- and Macro-Levels of Analysis in Anthropology: Issues in Theory and Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. p. 121–146.Google Scholar
45Neuman, W.L. 2003. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 5th ed.Pearson Education, Inc., Boston, MA.Google Scholar
46Allen, D. and Blythe, T. 2004. The Facilitator's Book of Questions. Teachers College Press, NY.Google Scholar
47Capecchi, V. 1968. On the definition of typology and classification in sociology. Quality and Quantity 2 (1–2):9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Bailey, K.D. 1983. Sociological classification and cluster analysis. Quality and Quantity 17(4):251–268.Google Scholar
49Flora, C.B. and Flora, J.L. 2008. Rural Communities: Legacy+Change. 3rd ed.Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
50Ryan, G.W. and Bernard, H. R. 2003. Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. 2nd ed.Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. p. 259–309.Google Scholar
51Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed.Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
52Orum, A.M., Reagin, J.R., and Sjober, G. 1991. Introduction: The nature of the case study. In Orum, A.M., Reagin, R., and Sjober, G. (eds). A Case for the Case Study. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. p. 1–26.Google Scholar
53Stake, R.E. 2003. Case studies. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. 2nd ed.Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. p. 134–164.Google Scholar
54Finch, J. 1987. The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology 21(1):105–114.Google Scholar
55Becker, H.S. 1992. Cases, causes, conjunctures, stories, and imagery. In Ragin, C.C. and Becker, H.S. (eds). What is a Case: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge University Press, NY. p. 205–216.Google Scholar
56Robotham, M.P. and McArthur, H.J. Jr 2001. Addressing the needs of small-scale farmers in the United States: suggestions from FSR/E. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 19:47–62.Google Scholar
57Mishra, A.K., Ol-Osta, H.S., and Steele, C.J. 1999. Factors affecting the profitability of limited-resource and other small farms. Agricultural Finance Review 59:77–91.Google Scholar
58Glenna, L.L. 1996. Rationality, habitus, and agricultural landscapes: ethnographic case studies in landscape sociology. Agriculture and Human Values 13:21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59Flora, J. and Stitz, J.M. 1985. Ethnicity, persistence and capitalization of agriculture in the Great Plains during the settlement period: wheat production and risk avoidance. Rural Sociology 50: 341–360.Google Scholar
60Salamon, S. 1985. Ethnic communities and the structure of agriculture. Rural Sociology 50:323–340.Google Scholar
61Lauer, S.R. 2005. Entrepreneurial processes in an emergent resource industry: community embeddedness in Maine's sea urchin industry. Rural Sociology 70:145–166.Google Scholar
62Portes, A. and Sensenbrenner, J. 1993. Embeddedness and immigration: notes on social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology 98:1320–1350.Google Scholar
63Kloppenburg, J. Jr 1991. Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology 56:519–530.Google Scholar
64Harrison, C.M., Burgess, J., and Clark, J. 1998. Discounted knowledges: farmers’ and residents’ understandings of nature conservation goals and policies. Journal of Environmental Management 54:305–320.Google Scholar
65Ward, N. and Munton, R. 1992. Conceptualizing agriculture-environment relations. Sociologia Ruralis 37:127–145.Google Scholar
66Lawrence, J.D. and Schuknecht, S. 2005. Iowa beef producer profile, 2005: A survey of Iowa cow–calf and feedlot owners by the Iowa Beef Center. Iowa Beef Center, Iowa State University Economics Department, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
67Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L.J.D. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
68Flora, C.B. and Francis, C. 2000. Farming systems extension in the USA. In Collinson, M. (ed.). History of Farming Systems Research. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. p. 139–144.Google Scholar
69Cruise, J. and Lyson, T.A. 1991. Beyond the farmgate: factors related to agricultural performance in two dairy communities. Rural Sociology 56:41–55.Google Scholar
70Schwarzweller, H.K. and Davidson, A.P. 1997. Perspectives on regional enterprise marginality: dairying in Michigan's north country. Rural Sociology 62:157–179.Google Scholar
71Wiltshire, K., Delate, K., Flora, J. and Wiedenhoeft, M. 2010. Incorporating Native Plants into multifunctional prairie pastures for organic cow–calf operations. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. doi:10.1017/S174217051000044XGoogle Scholar
72Brunstad, R.J., Gaasland, I., and Vårdal, E. 2005. Multifunctional of agriculture: an inquiry to the complementarity between landscape preservation and food security. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32:469–488.Google Scholar
73Batie, S.S. 2003. The multifunctional attributes of Northeastern agriculture: a research agenda. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1):1–8.Google Scholar
74Boody, G., Vondracek, B., Andow, D.A., Krinke, M., Westra, J., Zimmerman, J., and Welle, P. 2005. Multifunctional agriculture in the United States. Bioscience 55(1):27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75Kline, J. and Wichelns, D. 1996. Public preferences and farmland preservation programs. Land Economics 72(4):538–549.Google Scholar
76Foster, B.L., Kindscher, K., Houseman, G.R. and Murphy, C.A. 2009. Effects of hay management and native species sowing on grassland community structure, biomass, and restoration. Ecological Applications 19(7):1884–1896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed