The site visits were designed to provide researchers with a
first-hand sense of each of the participating farming operations; their extent, what they
actually looked like, how they were managed and how domestic birds were incorporated into
the overall farm plan. It was felt that direct observation would serve to contextualize
each farmer's bird use decisions and document what was happening at particular points in
time on the farm. Site visits gave researchers an opportunity to witness (and occasionally
participate in) the flow of farm activity. They also provided regular opportunities for
researchers and farmers to discuss more fully their observations and frustrations relative
to bird use, participation in the research project, and the conditions that defined and
constrained sustainable agriculture.
Bimonthly farm site visits were originally planned, but did not materialize. Scheduling conflicts on the part of farmers, several family emergencies and an ambivalence, again on the part of farmers, about their role in the research project were largely responsible for this shortcoming. (These issues are discussed in greater detail in the farm description and synthesis sections.) Nevertheless, between two and six visits were made to each of the six farms/farmers throughout the 1996 and 1997 growing seasons. These visits lasted anywhere from 1-5 hours and involved the researcher in farm and farm-related chores, meals, and in-depth conversation with participating farmers, members of the farming household and share members in the case of CSAs. The visits combined participant observation with directed, open-ended interviews. Discussion topics ranged from the use of birds and the electric poultry fencing to family history and farming background, to attitudes toward nature, economics, science and technology, social responsibility and sustainablity.
Extensive field notes were taken during these visits and provided the basis for the development of descriptive farm summaries. They were invaluable for sensitizing researchers to many of the variables (within and external to the farming operation) that influence small farm management and viability.
The field visits were essential for establishing baseline farm profiles and for exploring the interaction among the material, social and ideological dimensions of each farming operation. It became apparent that despite a firm belief in sustainable, and especially organic, agriculture, these small, diversified operations were quite vulnerable. Labor was a constant problem as was sufficient farm income to compensate this labor. As a result, family and household members were relied on as an omnipresent source of unpaid labor, responsible for daily farm chores (e.g., feeding animals, weeding) as well as critical production activities (e.g., haying, harvesting). Off-farm employment not only subsidized farming activities in every case, but often stressed the physical endurance of the farmer collaborators.
What this meant was that farm and farm family resources, were used in multiple, and often conflicting, ways, there being few institutional supports within the wider community to off-set or minimize the operational burden (e.g., skilled labor, low-interest loans, local markets, protection from land development). This tight interdependence permitted little redundancy within the system. Thus, an illness, a competing family responsibility, or a change in off-farm employment had the potential to create major destabilizing effects on the entire farming operation
Given this situation, two things became apparent.
First, the project's farmer-collaborators had little discressionary time, energy or
resources to devote to a formally constituted research project. While committed in theory,
they needed real and immediate incentives -- financial support or contributed labor -- to
enable them to follow through in practice. Second, attempts to research and increase
biological activity and production diversity on-farm cannot ignore the larger social and
political realities that define small farm viability. The adoption of an ecologically-
sound set of farming practices becomes rather unimportant when the farming operation is
faced with unmanageable sewer assessments, zoning restrictions, or chronic income and
labor shortages -- the case with many of the farms in this study.