The latest issue of Agriculture and Human Values is in print

TheAHV_10460 latest issue of the academic journal I edit, Agriculture and Human Values, has just been published. This is the official journal of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society. The table of contents to issue 1 of volume 34 is here.

A brief summary of the articles in this issue is as follows: Fouilleux and Loconto examine the conventionalization of organic agriculture through the perspective of tripartite standards regime of governance. Jones et al examine the perceptions of students from developing countries about agriculture as an occupation. Contzen and Forney introduce a typology of farm family configurations in a study of Swiss farming. Mann and Bonanomi offer a framework for assessing the ethical implications of large-scale land acquisitions in developing countries. Papaoikonomou and Ginieis assess the transformative nature of local food systems by focusing on the practices, narratives about and governance characteristics of CSAs in Spain and New York City. Arcari uses discourse analysis to examine how meat and animals are discussed and framed in debates about animal agriculture. Stone and Glover use the lens of embeddedness to examine “rice worlds” of the Green Revolution, Golden Rice and heirloom landrace rice. Kurth and Glasbergen examine the effectiveness of halal certification organizations in a study focusing on the Netherlands. Bellante uses a case study of a local food movement in Mexico to provide a more balanced view of their advantages and limitations. Poulsen examines the degree to which urban farms are able to overcome critiques about civic agriculture. Desmarais et al document changing land ownership patterns in Canada. Zepeda and Reznickova describe the evolution of a Slow Food movement at the University of Wisconsin. Additionally, Jennifer Clapp, S. Ryan Isakson and Oane Visser introduce a collection of four papers on the complex dynamics of agriculture as a financial asset. The issue also contains book reviews and a list of books received.

New issue of Agriculture and Human Values in print

The next issue of Agriculture and Human Values, volume 33, number 4, has just been published. The table of contents as well as links to papers (for those with access rights) is available here. This issue contains twelve regular papers, two discussion papers, the presidential address given at the 2016 meetings of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society, a special symposium, and several book reviews.

The regular papers are summarized as follows: Specht et al identify factors relating to the acceptance by stakeholders of farms in and on urban buildings in Germany. Cederlöf revisits the agroecology versus industrial agriculture debate through a study of low-carbon urban farming in Cuba. Warner studies the ability and willingness of smallholder farmers to adapt to climate change and trade policy changes in Costa Rica. Wairimu et al use a case study from northern Uganda to examine the interplay between humanitarian services and development policies. Jaffee and Howard analyze similarities and differences among four US fair trade certification programs. Schupp uses national, regional and census tract data to evaluate the location of farmers markets in the US. McIntyre et al expand Poppendieck’s Sweet Charity critique of contemporary food banks through a careful review of the literature. Carson et al conduct a study of vendors and patrons of farmers’ markets in order to determine how information exchanges affect consumer purchasing behavior. Robinson et al examine the ability of mobile food markets to address food security needs in a case study from Syracuse, New York. Tobin et al critically evaluate the ability of pro-poor value chains to enhance the food security of participants in their study of farmers in Peru. Gillespie et al examine the reasons U.S. farmers choose to raise goats for meat production. Berry et al assess the agrarian attitudes of Australians through an innovative quantifiable index.

The discussion consists of two papers. Mueller, et al provide a critique of a previously published paper examining the empirical relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and organic farming. McGee, the author of the original paper on greenhouse gas emissions, writes a response to the critique. The 2016 AFHVS presidential address, “Decoding diversity in the food system: Wheat and bread in North America,” is by Phil Howard (from Michigan State University). Lincoln Addison (from Memorial University) and Matthew Schnurr (from Dalhousie University) edit a special symposium of papers on the topic of labor, gender and sources of agrarian change.

Accepting rejection with civility and grace

I have been editing the academic journal, Agriculture and Human Values, for 10 years. I get more than 400 submissions a year, and I publish between 40 and 50 articles each year. If you do the math, that means I reject far more papers than I accept (my acceptance rate is about 12%).

I know it is not easy receiving a rejection letter. As an academic with a responsibility to publish, I get rejection letters, too. I know the feeling a rejection creates. Your heart rate increases and blood pressure rises. Your chest tightens. You want to lash out at the naive editor who made the bad call or the idiot reviewers who are clearly ignorant of what ground-breaking research looks like. If a reason is given for the rejection, then you see only the flaws in its logic; you miss points of genuine concern. If no reason is given, then you get even madder because the rejection now seems arbitrary and without merit.

Occasionally I get a “lashing out” email from authors of papers I rejected. The writers are clearly writing out of emotion. Many of these express unkind things about the editor, the editorial process and the reviewers providing reviews. Fortunately, there is a delete button that safely handles these emails.

But on even rarer occasions I get an email from an author of a rejected paper thanking me for the opportunity to consider their work and expressing appreciation to the reviewers for their helpful comments and insights. Wow. How amazing it is to find someone who is civil and gracious in rejection!

I received such a message yesterday shortly after my sending the dreaded rejection letter. The writer said this: “Thank you for the thoughtful response regarding this manuscript submission. While I am disappointed at the final decision, I very much appreciate the care with which the reviewers considered the manuscript as well as your commentary regarding your decision.” The writer continued with a request that I let the reviewers know that the author was grateful for the comments and suggestions they provided.

It is encouraging to know that there are scholars of integrity out there, especially those who are able to see rejection for what it is–an opportunity to improve one’s research and to demonstrate that they are a person of character.

Potash peril

Potash refers to a variety of compounds that contain potassium. Plants require potassium (chemical label is K) for their development, along with Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P). These three chemicals are the key ingredients of fertilizers and are thus widely used in plant agriculture.

The largest potash producer in the world in terms of production capacity and market value is Potash Corporation of Canada. It has a market value of roughly $14 billion and controls 15 percent of global production and 19 percent of production capacity, according to the company’s website. There are larger companies in minerals and mining (e.g., the UK’s Rio Tinto Group), but none dominates potash production like Potash Corp.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that Potash Corp is merging with Agrium, also a Canadian fertilizer company, the combination of which will be a company with $21 billion in annual revenue and controlling 23 percent of global potash production capacity but 60 percent of capacity in North America. The two companies justify the merger as we might expect–stabilizing prices, lowering production costs, accessing other markets, etc.

Now, if US farmers want to buy fertilizer, they will likely have to get if from the combined company. Farmers are concerned, as they should be. According to the WSJ, “The deal likely would sow further unease among North American farmers wary of reduced competition and higher prices as top seed and pesticide developers pursue their own tie-ups. Already grappling with a three-year slide in major crop prices, some farmers are concerned that mergers between some of the world’s largest farm-supply companies will consolidate pricing power among fewer players and lead to higher costs at a time when farmers are scrimping to eke out profits.”

Efficiency is good, as are lower costs. But as I noted in a previous post, so is choice. Where do we draw the line when struggling with efficiency versus choice? Will the combined company pass on the cost savings to farmers by lowering prices of fertilizer? I hope so. But then I hope for $100 bills to rain on my home, too.

Consolidation in the agricultural seed and chemical industry

The Wall Street Journal reported that German company Bayer increased its share-price offer for the purchase of Monsanto. If (or when) the merger happens, the combined company will dominate an already-concentrated agricultural seed and chemical industry. I don’t have current figures on global industry concentration ratios, but the main players in agricultural seed and chemicals are Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow Chemical, BASF and Bayer. According to the WSJ article, Monsanto previously tried taking over Syngenta but failed, DuPont and Dow Chemical are merging, and China’s National Chemical is buying out Syngenta. Monsanto is also seeking an alliance with BASF.

These companies are already tightly aligned. For example, all participate in cross-licensing agreements with each other in a host of technology sharing arrangements, most notably in genetically-engineered seed traits. Phil Howard, a sociologist at Michigan State University, graphically documented these relationships in 2013 (see his cross-licensing agreements and seed industry structure graphics). The Farm Journal provides a similar report (here), with graphics for the top five seed companies in each year from 2010 to 2014.

Many economists support mergers like these in the name of increased efficiency. Often there are economies of scale associated with the development and distribution of technologies, such as genetically modified crops and agricultural chemicals, which can lower costs for firms and, in theory, for buyers of the companies’ products. This is a good thing. But when choice is reduced in the name of efficiency, I wonder whether it is always worth it. Having options is powerful. Limiting choices has the potential to create dependencies and redistribute power. Are farmers’ and consumers’ interests really served by having fewer companies serve them? Some may say that choices and options will not be affected, since the products offered by the companies would still be available. But when they are offered by one firm rather than many, is that really the same?

Efficiency is good, but so is choice. Can we seek a balance of efficiency and choice?

Another three-peat

Continuing the theme of my previous post, a former doctoral student of mine, Heidi Stallman, has had the third essay of her three-essay dissertation published online. Heidi’s essay, “Farmers’ Willingness to Cooperate in Ecosystem Service Provision: Does Trust Matter?” was just published in the journal Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. Her other two essays, “Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: Determining Suitability for Provision by Collective Management,” and “Determinants Affecting Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Cooperative Pest Control,” were published in the journal Ecological Economics. Congratulations, Dr. Stallman!