Abstract
As Amish and Old Order and Conservative Mennonite (i.e., Plain) farmers increase their presence in the agricultural sector, it is crucial for public sector agricultural professionals to effectively work with them to mediate nonpoint source pollution and address issues like the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. However, there is a dearth of research on how public sector agricultural professionals can better work with Plain producers on environmental management. There are also few training resources for those working with this key, yet hard to reach, population. Additionally, due to their religious doctrines, Plain communities strive to live apart from the “world” and may be discouraged from working with government entities and attending non-Plain people events. This study analyzes interview data from 23 Amish farmers in one region of Indiana and 18 public sector agricultural professionals from a variety of backgrounds and geographies in areas of the U.S. with heavy Plain populations. Public sector agricultural professionals identified some key agronomic challenges on Plain farms related to issues like poor pasture and manure management as well as socio-cultural challenges such as restrictions on electronic and phone communication. Educators should design outreach strategies that take into consideration that faith convictions and conservation concerns may vary greatly based on the specificities of the particular Plain church group. By better understanding this population and how to work with them, public sector agricultural professionals can more effectively work towards addressing environmental problems with this under-served group.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Anabaptists are Christians who broke off from other key Protestant reformers based on their dedication to adult baptism and ideas of separation of church and state (viewed as an extension of “worldly” power).
Much of the existing literature just focuses on the Amish but conservation and Extension public sector agricultural professionals also work with conservative Mennonites and experience overlapping challenges in working with them. Thus, we are including both in our discussions here despite the even greater lack of research on Mennonites.
The researchers obtained permission from the Institutional Review Board at Purdue University to conduct this research.
After some preliminary joint coding had been conducted, the number of codes were consolidated as there is a tendency of researchers to create more codes than is necessary for rigorous assessment given the ease of creating codes in NVivo (Welsh 2002).
For more details about the interview and survey data collection methods, please see (Ulrich-Schad et al. 2017).
The scope was limited to one specific area partly because it can be an involved process to research an underserved group who are harder to reach through contemporary communication channels (i.e., phone and email) (e.g., Bergefurd 2011; Brock and Barham 2009; Hoorman and Spencer 2001). Because this is a case study and the Amish are very diverse between different churches, this Berne study was not meant to be entirely replicable (an indicator of reliability) to other Amish communities.
Swiss Amish are sometimes considered more conservative than Old Order Amish because of their use of open buggies and their strict application of church discipline (Nolt and Meyers 2007).
Definitions vary as to how many rotations are necessary for it to be considered managed grazing.
A professional who was interviewed for this study discussed the efficiency of this cheese factory compensating farmers to implement conservation practices. This case study is discussed more extensively in (Parker et al. 2009)’s publication.
References
Agunga R (1997) Developing the third world: a communication approach. Nova Science Publishers, New York
Anderson M (2012) New ecological paradigm (NEP) scale 6. Berkshire Publishing Group, Great Barrington, Massachusetts
Bakeman R, Gottman JM (1986) Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. University Press, Cambridge, MA
Barbercheck M, Brasier K, Kiernan NE, Sachs C, Trauger A (2014) Use of conservation practices by women farmers in the Northeastern United States. Renew Agric Food Syst 29:65–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742170512000348
Baumgart-Getz A, Prokopy LS, Floress K (2012) Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: A meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J Environ Manag 96:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006
Bergefurd B (2011) Assessing extension needs of Ohio’s Amish and Mennonite produce auction farmers. Master’s Thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus
Berry W (1981) Seven Amish farms: In the gift of the good land: Further essays cultural and agricultural. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA
Blackburn D (1989) Foundations and changing practices in extension. University of Guelph, Guelph, ON
Blake K, Cardamone E, Hall S, Harris G, Moore S (1997) Modern Amish farming as ecological agriculture. Soc Nat Resour 10:143–159
Boeni M et al. (2014) Organic matter composition in density fractions of Cerrado Ferralsols as revealed by CPMAS C-13 NMR: Influence of pastureland, cropland and integrated crop-livestock. Agric Ecosyst Environ 190:80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.09.024
Brock C, Barham B (2009) Farm structural change of a different kind: alternative dairy farms in Wisconsin - graziers, organic and Amish. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24:25–37
Brock C, Barham B (2015) Amish dedication to farming and adoption of organic dairy systems. In: Freyer B, Bingen J (eds) Re-Thinking organic food and farming in a changing world. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 233–255. 10.1007/978-94-017-9190-8_12
Brock C, Reschly S (2016) Anabaptist communities. In: Riney-Kehrberg P (ed) The Routledge history of rural America. Routledge Press, Florence, KY, pp 230–242
Cates J (2014) Serving the Amish: A cultural guide for professionals. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MY
Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychosoc Meas 20:37–46
Cross JA (2014) Continuity and change: Amish dairy farming in Wisconsin over the past decade. Geogr Rev 104:52–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2014.12004.x
Cross JA (2015) Change and sustainability issues in America’s Dairyland. Focus on. Geography 58:173–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/foge.12060
Donnermeyer JF, Anderson C, Cooksey EC (2013) The Amish population: County estimates and settlement patterns. J Amish Plain Anabapt Stud 1:72–109
Dunlap R, Van Liere K (1978) The new environmental paradigm: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary result. J Environ Educ 9:10–19
Dunlap RE (2008) The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. J Environ Educ 40:3–18
Franz N, Piercy F, Donaldson J, Richard R, Westbrook J (2010) How farmers learn: Implications for agricultural educators. J Rural Soc Sci 25:37–59
Franzluebbers AJ, Paine LK, Winsten JR, Krome M, Sanderson MA, Ogles K, Thompson D (2012) Well-managed grazing systems: A forgotten hero of conservation. J Soil Water Conserv 67:100A–104A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.67.4.100A
Gardner W (ed) (1995) On the reliability of sequential data: Measurement meaning and correction. In Gottman JM (ed) The analysis of change. pp 339–359. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, IL
Greenhalgh T, Taylor R (1997) How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ 315:740–743. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7110.740
Hockman-Wert D (1998) The role of religion in motivating sustainability: The case of the Old Order Amish in Kishacoquillas Valley, PA Masters of Art. University of Oregon. MA Thesis, University of Oregon
Hoorman J, Spencer E (2001) Engagement and outreach with Amish audiences. J High Educ Outreach Engagem 7:157–168
Jackson M (1988) Amish agriculture and no-till: the hazards of applying the USLE to unusual farms. J Soil Water Conserv 43:483–486
Javier EQ (1989) Recent approaches in the study and management of the linkages between agricultural research and extension. ISNAR Staff Notes 89–63
Jepsen SD, Mann AD (2015) Efforts to improve roadway safety: A collaborative approach between Amish communities and a professional engineering society. J Amish Plain Anabapt Stud 3:151–174
Kline D (2010) Letters from larksong: An Amish naturalist explores his organic farm hardcover. Wooster Book Company, Wooster, OH
Kogelmann WJ, Bryant RB, Lin HS, Beegle DB, Weld JL (2006) Local assessments of the impacts of phosphorus index implementation in Pennsylvania. J Soil Water Conserv 61:20–30
Kraybill D, Johnson-Weiner K, Nolt S (2013) The Amish. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MA
Lanyon LE, Arrington KE, Abdalla CW, Beegle DB (2006) Phosphorus budgets for Pennsylvania cropland: 1939 to 2002. J Soil Water Conserv 61:51–58
Logsdon G (1988) Amish economy. Orien Nat Q 7:22–33
Lutz M (2017) Explaining Anabaptist persistence in the market economy: past paradigms and New Institutional Economics Theory. J Amish Plain Anabapt Stud 5:239–257
Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA
Mogensen L, Kristensen L, Thamsborg S (2005) Productivity, economy, and nutrient balances on organic dairy farms using different types of home-grown concentrated feed for winter feeding. Paper presented at the NJF-Seminar 369. Organic farming for a new millennium—status and future challenges, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences
Napier TL, Sommers DG (1994) Correlates of plant nutrient use among Ohio farmers - implications for water-quality initiatives. J Rural Stud 10:159–171
Nolt S, Meyers TJ (2007) Plain diversity: Amish cultures and identities. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
Nowak P (1987) The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociol 52:208–220
Padel S (2002) Conversion to organic milk production: the change process and farmers’ information needs. PhD-Thesis. University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Pampel F, van Es JC (1977) Environmental quality and issues of adoption research. Rural Sociol 42:57–71
Parker JS (2013) Integrating culture and community into environmental policy: community tradition and farm size in conservation decision making. Agric Human Values 30:159–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9392-8
Parker JS, Moore R, Weaver M (2009) Developing participatory models of watershed management in the Sugar Creek Watershed (Ohio, USA). Water Altern 2:82–100
Penn CJ, Bryant RB (2006) Application of phosphorus sorbing materials to streamside cattle loafing areas. J Soil Water Conserv 61:303–310
Perry-Hill R, Prokopy L (2015) Improving environmental management on small-scale farms: Perspectives of extension educators and horse farm operators. Environ Manag 55:31–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0376-x
Perry-Hill R, Prokopy LS (2014) Comparing different types of rural landowners: Implications for conservation practice adoption. J Soil Water Conserv 69:266–278. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.69.3.266
Piñero JC, Quinn J, Byers P, Miller P, Baker T, Trinklein D (2015) Knowledge and use of Integrated Pest Management by underserved producers in Missouri and the role of Extension. J Ext 53 [On-line]. Research in brief. http://www.joe.org/joe/2015june/rb3.php
Prokopy LS (2011) Agricultural human dimensions research: The role of qualitative research methods. J Soil Water Conserv 66:9A–12A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.66.1.9A
Prokopy LS, Floress K, Klotthor-Weinkauf D, Baumgart-Getz A (2008) Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. J Soil Water Conserv 63:300–311. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.63.5.300
Prokopy LS, Mullendore N, Brasier K, Floress K (2014) A typology of catalyst events for collaborative watershed management in the United States. Soc Nat Resour 27:1177–1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918230
Reid J (2015) Old Order Mennonites in New York: cultural and agricultural growth. J Amish Plain Anabapt Stud 3:212–221
Rogers E (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. The Free Press, New York, NY
Rotz CA, Karsten HD, Weaver RD (2008) Grass-based dairy production provides a viable option for producing organic milk in Pennsylvania. Forage Grazinglands. FG-2008-0212-2001-RS
Rust NA et al. (2017) Quantity does not always mean quality: The importance of qualitative social science in conservation research Soc Nat Resour 30:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1333661
Saltiel J, Bauder JW, Palakovich S (1994) Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices - diffusion, farm structure, and profitability. Rural Sociol 59:333–349
Singh A, MacGowan B, Ulrich-Schad J, O’Donnell M, Klotz H and Prokopy L (forthcoming) J Soil Water Conserv
Sommers DG, Napier TL (1993) Comparison of Amish and Non-Amish farmers—a diffusion farm structure perspective. Rural Sociol 58:130–145
Stinner DHP, Stinner MG (1989) In search of traditional farm wisdom for a more sustainable agriculture: a study of Amish farming and society. Agric Ecosyst Environ 27:77–90
Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
Trauger A, Sachs C, Barbercheck M, Kiernan NE, Brasier K, Findeis J (2008) Agricultural education: Gender identity and knowledge exchange. J Rural Stud 24:432–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.03.007
Ulrich-Schad JD, Brock C, Prokopy LS (2017) A comparison of awareness, attitudes, and usage of water quality conservation practices between Amish and Non-Amish Farmers. Soc Nat Resour 30:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1364457
Vanclay F (2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Aust J Exp Agric 44:213–222
Vanclay F, Lawrence G (1994) Farmer rationality and the adoption of environmentally sound practices; A critique of the assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. Eur J Agric Educ Ext 1:59–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892249485300061
Viera A, Garretr J (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Fam Med 37:360–363
Vonk M (2011) Sustainability and quality of life. A study on the religious worldviews, values, and environmental impact of Amish, Hutterite, Fransiscan and Benedictine Communities. Vrije University, Amsterdam, Holland
Welsh E (2002) Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the participating farmers and the many conservation agents, Extension agents who participated in interviews. We would also like to thank, Rebecca Oliver, for editorial assistance. Some of this research was funded by Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brock, C., Ulrich-Schad, J.D. & Prokopy, L. Bridging the Divide: Challenges and Opportunities for Public Sector Agricultural Professionals Working with Amish and Mennonite Producers on Conservation. Environmental Management 61, 756–771 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-0998-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-0998-5