One Size Fits None: A Farm Girl’s Search for the Promise of Regenerative Agriculture

“According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, the United States has 2.11 million farms, about 100,000 less than in 2002. A very small number of these farms holds the majority of the land and produces most of our commodities and food crops. About 1.7 million farms—more than 80 percent—did less than $100,000 in farm sales, together representing 5 percent of the total sales. That means about 20 percent of the farms produce 95 percent of the commodities and food.” 

Anderson describes the dilemma that American farm policies since the 1950s have created in this passage. Butz’s “get big or get out” edict destroyed most midsize and small farms because they could not outcompete very large farms. This farm crisis has produced an agricultural system that is top-heavy or dominated by megafarms. This industrial model of farming only considers yield and ignores the harm it is causing to human health, rural communities, the farm family, and land and water resources.

“Farmers aren’t growing for the consumer, but for corporations.” 

Most farmers argue that they respond to consumer demands; however, Anderson strongly disagrees with this belief. From her perspective, agribusiness corporations control every aspect of the food production chain from the farm to the grocery store. For example, one way to combat black spots on radishes is to grow different varieties that are less susceptible to the disease. However, farmers are not able to pursue this option because of the agribusiness push for standardization, which has eliminated all but one radish variety. This example illustrates how corporations and not consumers control the decisions farmers make around what crops to grow.

“In 1942, when the West Coast experienced a wartime labor shortage, the federal government invited Mexican workers to American farms under the bracero program. The government pledged transportation assistance, living expenses, and a return trip to Mexico when their work agreement ended. Growers saw an opportunity to hire a controllable workforce that they could pay a fraction of what they did American workers.” 

World War II marked the start of farm labor in the US being comprised of impoverished foreign workers. Through programs like the bracero program, US growers became addicted to cheap labor. This pushed domestic workers out of agricultural fields and caused devastating poverty among foreign laborers, especially Mexican field hands, who were unable to protest their dehumanizing situation. Life for foreign farmworkers remains dismal today with many being unable to afford to feed themselves, living in overcrowded and decrepit apartments and trailers, and being unable to easily return home. Some foreign farmworkers are even enslaved, sold to farm crews by human traffickers.

“This is the heart of America’s agricultural problem: conventional farmers feel that they have no choice. It’s get big or get out.”

Anderson strongly believes that conventional farmers and ranchers are not bad people who intentionally harm their communities and the environment. Rather, most are good people who are stuck in a bad farm production model. To keep up with consumer demands for cheap food, many conventional growers believe they must continue to expand their farms and follow industrial practices. They were born into this system and do not understand that organic, sustainable agriculture is not simply a buzz word. Anderson concludes Part 1 by emphasizing that conventional farmers must be included in the solution rather than being left behind.

“‘That’s some bare ground that a critter impacted while we were in there,’ Phil says. ‘You can see there are even some seeds lying there on top of the soil. That hoof print is seed to soil compaction. It made a depression so that when we do get a little bit of moisture it’s going to tend to funnel it right along that edge, and that’s where your new plants are going to grow.’” 

This passage describes a photo of a buffalo hoof print that Phil shows Anderson. The photo illustrates how herbivores, like bison, are a key part of the grassland ecosystem. By stirring up the soil with their hooves, bison are naturally preparing the land for seeds. Seeds land in the depressions left behind by bisons’ hooves. This depression helps the seed catch water more easily, fueling its growth. Bison also fertilize the ground through their droppings. This simple photo helps illustrate the intricacy and complexity of the relationship between herbivores and the grasslands.

“Diversity from the micro level to the macro level: that’s what agriculture is all about for Phil.”

Phil supports holistic management because it takes into consideration the grassland’s full ecosystem from the microscopic to very large animal and plant species. The numerous animal and plant symbiotic relationships are what keep the grassland healthy. For example, mites that ride on the backs of dung beetles consume fly larvae that are competing with the dung beetles for space. The dung beetles help move nutrients from bison manure back to the soil, which helps more grass grow. Birds help the bison by eating insects that are a nuisance and cause disease. The bird’s droppings also act as fertilizer. Finally, the bison help plant and water seeds, ensuring greater plant diversity in the Great Plains. Removing any one of these species, as was seen by the near-extinction of bison, has ripple effects throughout the grassland ecosystem.

“The danger of growth hormones lurks under the surface, in some cases underwater.” 

Throughout One Size Fits None, Anderson continuously provides examples of the interconnectedness of the ecosystem. Pumping animals with hormones is one such example. In the US, 80% of beef cattle are injected with hormones. CAFO advocates argue that hormones allow cattle to fatten quicker, saving time and money. However, these hormones do not just stay in the cattle. Rather, they also leak into waters near CAFOs from animal waste. Scientists have found that the hormones disrupt the reproductive behavior of fish and are currently trying to determine if they might cause similar disruptions in humans.

“Super-sized corporations like Kraft, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Dean Foods, and General Mills produce the majority of the processed food labeled USDA Certified Organic.” 

Proponents of organic standards suggest that organic certification is one solution to the environmental and ethical concerns of the CAFO system. However, Anderson argues that current US organic policies fall short. As one example, she notes how super-sized corporations, including General Mills, Kraft, and Coca-Cola, produce most organic-labeled food. These large corporations band together to kill legislative bills that would tighten organic standards in the US, like making the labeling of GMOs mandatory. Behavior like this illustrates how much of the organic food industry does not truly believe in the organic philosophy of respect for animals, sustainability, and health.

“Consider today’s food libel laws, sometimes referred to as veggie libel laws. Thirteen states have food disparagement laws that make criticizing food products illegal, including South Dakota, where I grew up, and Florida, where I’m writing this book.” 

One of the key points that Anderson makes in Chapter 10 is that the agribusiness lobby is incredibly powerful in the US. Food libel laws are one example of this. These laws make it illegal to critique food and food companies, even if that critique is evidence-based. The food libel laws further illustrate that mega-size agribusiness companies are pulling the strings of government officials and policies. While their power makes it more difficult to try and transform the agricultural production system in the US, Anderson is still hopeful. Consumers can help drive this change by demanding real food that does not have high environmental and social costs.

“To me, Kevin’s use of plastic seems like a balanced approach to modern regenerative agriculture: use technology that makes sense for your environment, like plastic does in Vero Beach, but rely on time-tested biological methods, such as crop rotations, in most instances.” 

Kevin’s use of plastic supports one of Anderson’s key themes: “one size fits none” (xiv). Regenerative agriculture offers farmers an approach that allows them to tailor their operations to their specific environments and goals. In Kevin’s case, plastic use reduces weeds, keeps fertilizer in place, and prevents water from evaporating. These conditions allow Kevin to save time and money, while still producing incredibly nutritious and flavorful food.

“Kevin records what seedlings are planted when and where. The result is an audit trail stretching from the seeds to the vegetables, ending at where they are delivered for consumption: an invisible thread linking farmer to consumer. And if something goes wrong—a bag of lettuce is contaminated, for example—the problem is traceable.” 

This passage serves as a stark contrast to conventional meat production systems. Anderson notes that the link between farmer and consumer is all but destroyed in conventional agriculture. One example she uses to support this argument is how meat from all different farms is mixed together. When there is contamination, it is difficult to trace the outbreak to a particular farm. In contrast, organic certification requires Kevin to keep precise seed inventories. Thus, if there is an outbreak, it can be traced to particular farms. This results in a stronger link between growers and consumers.

“Scientists who question the safety of GM food are harassed by agribusiness corporations and often find themselves blacklisted in the academic communities.” 

Large agribusiness corporations, like Monsanto, have extreme control over consumers, journalists, politicians, and scientists; a point that Anderson returns to throughout her book. This level of control is something that remains invisible to the general public. GM food is one example that shows the power and control of these corporations. Scientific-backed research demonstrates that GM seeds have tremendous human health and environmental consequences. Yet, the public remains in the dark about many of these consequences, because corporations silence or blacklist scientists who try and speak out against lab created seeds. Anderson notes the irony of this situation considering Americans live in a country that supposedly values free speech.

“He seems…happy. Happy in a way farmers and ranchers aren’t in places like South Dakota today.” 

Through this passage, Anderson illustrates how farmers and ranchers can get back more by converting to regenerative agriculture. The “get big or get out” edict still drives farming families today. Most live in constant fear of being outcompeted by larger farms. They constantly work to expand their farms. This expansion continuously impedes their ability to prioritize family over work, which is the case with Anderson’s own father. Yet, Kevin’s story illustrates that farmers can be happy, still make a profit, and still spend time with their family. Regenerative agriculture not only nourishes the land, but also farming families in a way that conventional agriculture does not.

“The most troubling issue is how agribusiness influences the outcome of university research, known as the “‘funder effect.’” 

Anderson proposes that the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) is one way to transform the US farm system from conventional to regenerative. However, she emphasizes that this will be an uphill battle, in part because of the control large agribusiness corporations have on the CES. One way they exert this control is through how they influence the research that ends up in this program. Land-grant universities oversee the CES, but these institutions are themselves under the influence of agribusiness. Agribusiness companies provide financial support to researchers at land-grant colleges. This funding comes with strings attached. Specifically, some university scientists report changing their results or methodologies to support the agribusiness funders, which is known as the funder effect. Anderson finds the funder effect extremely troubling.

“This is what’s coolest to me, though: Kevin isn’t doing something that the average American couldn’t also do with a little start-up capital, research, perseverance, and a real desire to produce health food and preserve the soil.”

Anderson uses Kevin’s story to show that just about anyone can be a farmer. Kevin, in contrast to Ryan, did not have several generations of farmers in his family lineage. He also did not start farming as a young man, like Ryan or Phil. Instead, Kevin switched to farming mid-career. He also only grows food on 10 acres of land, which is much smaller than Ryan or Phil. Yet, Kevin produces quality food, makes a profit, and enjoys his work. Anderson suggests that treating farming as a respectable career and showing individuals of all ages that it can be funny, rewarding work might be one way to help transform our food production system.

“Fidel sees the lack of education about food—and the lack of wholesome, nutritious food available to all regardless of socioeconomic status—as an injustice.” 

To Fidel, farmers need to better educate consumers about the health, environmental, and societal benefits of regenerative and organic food over conventional food. Many consumers still do not realize how destructive conventional farming is to communities, the environment, and human health. He also recognizes the tie between food and poverty. Organic food is currently more expensive than conventional food, making it challenging for individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to afford it. To him, this is a great injustice, because all it takes is just one person to start to change a family, a community, and a society towards becoming more sustainable. If everyone could equitably afford organic and regenerative food, then the US would be well on its way to being a sustainable country.

“This is what we need nationwide: a regenerative agriculture happening in the city as well as the country as part of the broader commitment to responsible living.” 

Anderson repeatedly drives home the point that regenerative agriculture welcomes young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural. It is not a strategy confined to large corporations, like conventional farming. By supporting an inclusive future, regenerative agriculture will ensure that individuals, families, communities, and society all commit to responsible living.

“‘I hear it so often. People want to be sustainable, sustainable, sustainable. That’s the cliché word; everybody wants to be sustainable,’ he says. ‘But why do you want to sustain a degraded resource? We need to be regenerative. If we are going to have healthy food and healthy soils for the next generation, and generations to follow, we got to build our soils back.’” 

This passage summarizes Gabe’s mission, which is to build back soils so that farmers and ranchers can sustain communities for generations to come. He argues against the concept of sustainability, questioning why we would want to sustain already degraded environmental resources. Instead, Gabe is a strong advocate for regenerative agriculture, which works to heal the land through natural processes to produce healthier food.

“Soil is one of the most complex substances on Earth, if not the most complex.” 

Soil is home to billions of organisms: A literal handful of healthy soil contains more organisms than humans on the planet. Because of this complexity, scientists only understand a small fraction of what is happening underground. Yet, soil is likely one of the most important natural resources, because it makes plant, animal, and human life possible. Because of this link between soil, human health, and the environment, regenerative farmers care deeply about the health of their soil.

“So an acre of land on regenerative farm utilizing stacking produces more food per acre with fewer input costs than on a conventional farm. This is true efficiency, the real answer to feeding a growing population.” 

Large agribusiness corporations have convinced farmers that they can only grow one or two crops on their land with the help of expensive inputs. Yet, regenerative farming illustrates that this is far from true. An acre of land on a regenerative farm with multiple enterprises (known as stacking) produces more food with fewer input costs. To Anderson and Gabe, stacking is how one can not only successfully feed the growing global population, but also reinvigorate rural communities. Right now, large farms own huge swaths of land. But with stacking, more families could live in rural communities and make a living.

“‘We graze through two feet of snow all the time, it’s no problem at all,’ he says. ‘They learn. The cattle I had ten years ago, could they do it? No. How we started this is, we just didn’t feed and they learned. If they couldn’t handle it, obviously we didn’t let them die; we sold them and went on to the next one.’” 

Gabe does not feed his cattle hay during the winter, part of his hands-off farming approach. His cattle, instead, graze on open pasture and unharvested cover crops. Conventional farmers often argue that cattle cannot dig through snow, but Gabe finds this ludicrous. To him, conventional cows might not dig through snow because eating hay is easier, but ranchers just need to remind cattle that they can dig through snow.

“Gabe seeks not to conserve the native prairie he has, but to create more of it—regenerating a resource, not sustaining a degraded one. North Dakota is a great place to start, since about 80 percent of the state’s native prairie is gone, with the remaining portions mostly in the arid western part of the state. The national picture is more dismal: just 3 percent of America’s original 167 million acres of tallgrass prairie remain intact.” 

The statistics in this passage highlight the horrifying reality that conventional farming, especially wheat farming, has destroyed most of the grassland in the US. The prairie’s true wealth lies in its underground root system, which, when healthy, protects the soil from drought, flooding, and erosion. The destruction of this system is partly why the Great Plains is facing serious desertification issues, which will only be magnified as the planet heats up. To remedy this, Gabe is seeking to create more of the grasslands. Over the last four years, he has turned 1,100 out of 2,000 acres of farmland to native grasses.

“Farmers are now dependent on the sprawling food system they helped create and lack the power to feed themselves.” 

Anderson reiterates throughout her book how conventional farming has divorced farmers from the fruits of their labor. Despite being food producers, most farmers do not actually consume their own products. In rural communities where conventional farming is the norm, there are rarely farmers’ markets, grocery stores, or restaurants that sell local food. Instead, farmers are eating the processed form of their own labor. Because of this, their diets are often poor, which has health impacts.