Permaculture-Inspired Farms in Quebec: an Economic and Social Overview

Permaculture-Inspired Farms in Quebec: An Economic and Social Overview

The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters

Citation Bastien, Gabrielle. 2016. Permaculture-Inspired Farms in Quebec: An Economic and Social Overview. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School.

Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33797350

Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA

Permaculture-Inspired Farms in Quebec: An Economic and Social Overview

Gabrielle Bastien

A Thesis in the Field of Sustainability and Environmental Management

For the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts

Harvard University

May 2016

Abstract

Permaculture is a design approach to human settlements that promotes diverse, regenerative and resilient agricultural systems. It appears this movement could play an important role in the transition from industrial to a more ecologically sound agriculture, however it has been the object of very few systematic inquiries, in particular with respect to its economic feasibility. Assessing the financial viability of permaculture systems will be crucial to the widespread implementation of this approach. Moreover, understanding farmer motivations to adopt this form of agricultural management as well as their challenges and perceptions will be useful in guiding future policies that drive permaculture production. The objectives of this study are: (1) to explore, through the case study of Quebec, Canada, the types of agroecosystems implemented by permaculture- inspired farmers; (2) to analyze the profitability of permaculture-inspired agroecosystems;

(3) to assess farmer motivations, challenges and perceptions with respect to permaculture.

I interviewed a total of 35 farmers, selected through a snowball referral sampling approach. Permaculture farms showed high levels of system and income source diversity, systems integration and very low human intervention levels at times. A high proportion of permaculture farms in the sample were profitable. An organic certification, selling value added products and restricting livelihood diversity were linked to greater profitability. No correlation was found between farm size and economic viability. Subjects in this study were highly motivated by conservation, lifestyle and altruistic values, and most challenged by labor and economic constraints. Given the apparent ecological, economic and social benefits of permaculture, I propose some recommendations to Quebec policy makers in order to encourage this approach to farming.

Acknowledgments

I first wish to thank my research advisor Mark Leighton for offering crucial guidance at early stages of the conceptualization of this study and introducing me to field research as a professor. Mark supported my enthusiasm for investigating permaculture systems and introduced me to practitioner Ben Falk, which led to a pivotal summer-long internship on Ben’s farm. I am deeply grateful to Ben for giving me the opportunity to gain hands-on farm experience on his wonderful site. This apprenticeship shaped my understanding of permaculture and was critical to my ability to conduct farmer interviews.

The thoughtful guidance provided by my thesis director Rachael Garrett through all phases of this study was absolutely essential its success. I want to thank Rachael for her extensive availability, as well as her support and reassurance through the various changes of direction of this project, which helped realigning my vision in times of doubt.

I am also very thankful to researcher Rafter Sass Ferguson for making himself available to discuss my study. Obtaining advice from a seasoned investigator conducting multi-faceted research on permaculture systems was highly valuable, to say the least.

Finally, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to the farmer interviewees for being so generous with their time and sharing of information. I was moved to witness the enthusiasm in wanting to participate to this study, despite the inconvenient timing amid busy harvest season. Many agriculture- and permaculture- organization representatives also provided time and information to this project. Thank you all, for this research would not have been possible without your contributions.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments...... v

List of Tables ...... x

List of Figures...... xiii

I. Introduction ...... 1

Research Significance and Objectives ...... 1

Background ...... 2

The Emergence of Agroecology ...... 4

Permaculture and its Potential Role in the Agricultural Transition ...... 5

Lack of Systematic Assessments of the Economics of Permaculture

Production ...... 7

Profitability of Organic and Conservation Agriculture...... 8

Farmer Motivations and Challenges ...... 10

Case Study: Quebec ...... 13

Brief overview of the Quebec agricultural sector...... 13

Joint plans and supply management through quotas ...... 14

Trade union monopoly ...... 17

Permaculture in Quebec ...... 17

Research Questions and Hypotheses...... 18

II. Methods...... 20

Data Collection...... 20

Farm Selection...... 20

vi Farmer Interviews ...... 21

Data Analysis ...... 21

Identification with Permaculture Classification...... 21

Farm Type, Class, Systems and Age...... 22

Source and Availability of Economic Data...... 23

Profitability Classification...... 23

Farm Enterprise Classification and Diversity ...... 24

III. Results...... 26

Description of Farms...... 26

Identification with Permaculture...... 26

Farm Type and Class in Relation to Main Agricultural Activities ...... 26

Functional Systems, Functional Diversity and Systems Integration...... 28

Farm Size, Age and Other Characteristics ...... 30

Very Low Intervention Level...... 32

Farm Economics...... 33

Profitability...... 33

Farm Enterprises and Diversity of Income Sources...... 33

Grants, Labor and Volunteers ...... 39

Motivations, Challenges and Perceptions ...... 39

Motivations to Farm...... 39

Challenges ...... 43

Perceptions of Permaculture Benefits and Drawbacks ...... 45

Desired Changes to the Quebec Agricultural Sector...... 50

IV. Discussion...... 53

vii Characterization of Permaculture Farms...... 53

More Perennials, Yet Annuals Were Still the Most Prominent System.....53

More System Diversity and High Livelihood Diversity ...... 54

Systems Integration and Low Human Intervention Level ...... 55

Profitability ...... 55

Permaculture Farms Are Profitable, Likely Even More than Conventional

Farms...... 55

Value Added Products and Organic Certification Increase Profitability ...56

Too Much Diversity Limits Profitability ...... 57

Going Bigger Does Not Increase Profits...... 58

Seed Farms and Tree Nurseries Yield High Revenues per Acre ...... 59

Motivations and Challenges...... 59

Lifestyle and Altruistic Motivations Explaining Conservation Practices ..60

Labor and Economic Challenges...... 61

Recommendations for Quebec Policy Makers...... 62

Increase Environmental Education and Contact with Nature in the

Educational System ...... 62

Subsidize the Organic Certification ...... 62

Raise Off-Quota Allowances to those of Alberta...... 63

Allow for the Free Choice of Farmer Trade Union...... 63

Limits of this Study...... 64

Recommendations for Further Research...... 65

Conclusion...... 66

Appendix...... 69

viii References...... 71

List of Tables

Table 1 Value of quotas and off-quota allowances in Quebec...... 16

Table 2 Identification with permaculture classification ...... 22

Table 3 Profitability classification...... 24

Table 4 Farm enterprise classification...... 25

Table 5 Farmer identification with permaculture...... 26

Table 6 Farm type according to permaculture identification ...... 27

Table 7 Farm class according to type...... 28

Table 8 Farm class according to permaculture identification ...... 28

Table 9 Size and age of farms ...... 31

Table 10 Other farm characteristics ...... 32

Table 11 Farm profitability ...... 33

Table 12 Gross income by farm enterprise...... 34

Table 13 Gross income from farm products per cultivated acre ...... 36

Table 14 Motivations to undertake the current farming initiative...... 41

Table 15 Farmer challenges...... 44

Table 16 Farmer perceptions of permaculture benefits...... 46

Table 17 Farmer perceptions of permaculture drawbacks ...... 48

x Table 18 Desired changes to the Quebec agricultural sector ...... 51

List of Figures

Figure 1 Functional diversity and identification with permaculture...... 30

Figure 2 Farm age and identification with permaculture...... 31

Figure 3 Total farm income and identification with permaculture...... 35

Figure 4 Profitability and number of farm enterprises ...... 37

Figure 5 Percentage of income from value added products and total income from

farm products...... 38

Figure 6 Organic certification and total income from farm products...... 38

Figure 7 Motivation themes and identification with permaculture...... 43

Figure 8 Challenge themes and identification with permaculture ...... 44

Figure 9 Permaculture benefit themes and identification with permaculture...... 47

Figure 10 Permaculture drawback themes and identification with permaculture ...... 49

xii

Chapter I

Introduction

Increased recognition of the detrimental environmental impacts caused by industrial agriculture has led to the burgeoning of several alternative farming movements.

One that has gained high public interest in recent years is permaculture: a design approach applied to human settlements that focuses on maximizing the interconnectedness between system components for increased efficiency (Hemenway,

2009). Permaculture aims to consciously manage and maintain agriculturally productive ecosystems to provide them with the diversity, stability and resilience of natural ecosystems (Mollison, 1988).

This approach not only seems to have significant ecological and social benefits

(Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Mollison, 1988; Hemenway, 2009), but its rapidly expanding international network has been successful at extending notions of sustainability and ecology to a large community (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014). As a result, it appears permaculture could play an important role in the transition from industrial to a more ecologically sound agriculture.

Research Significance and Objectives

However, this movement has been the object of very few systematic inquiries. In particular, detailed accounts of the economic feasibility of permaculture agroecosystems are lacking in the current literature. Assessing the financial viability of such systems will be crucial to the widespread implementation of the permaculture approach. Moreover,

1 understanding farmer motivations to adopt this form of agricultural management as well as their challenges and perceptions will be useful in guiding future policies that drive this type of farming. My research addresses these shortcomings by analyzing the case study of permaculture-inspired farms in Quebec, Canada.

The objectives of this study are: (1) to explore the types of agroecosystems implemented by permaculture-inspired farmers; (2) to analyze the profitability of permaculture-inspired agroecosystems; (3) to assess farmer motivations, challenges and perceptions with respect to permaculture.

Background

Industrial agriculture practices are causing the exhaustion of soil resources and inhibiting their recovery (Lal, 2004). Indeed, widespread methods such as heavy applications of synthetic fertilizers as well as excessive soil disturbance are inhibiting the natural processes that allow for the sequestration of inorganic atmospheric carbon into soil organic carbon (SOC) (Jones, 2008; Jones, 2010; Killham, 1994; Leake et al., 2004).

In addition, tillage causes the oxidation of current SOC content, releasing large amounts of stored carbon as CO2 (McIntyre et al., 2009; Reicosky et al., 1995). Depletion of SOC, a key indicator of soil fertility, is triggering a reduction in several essential soil functions such as water storage and infiltration, soil structure and aggregation, erosion prevention, nutrient release and retention as well as soil biodiversity (Paustian, 1994; Magdoff, 2007).

This contributes to the spread of desertification: as such, agricultural activities are responsible for 35% of harshly degraded land worldwide (McIntyre et al., 2009).

The implications of soil carbon loss in terms of climate change are numerous.

Indeed, this lost SOC is mostly released in the atmosphere as CO2, contributing to rising

2 temperatures (Lal, 2004). Furthermore, losing the natural soil properties generated by

SOC creates an increased vulnerability to floods, droughts and other extreme weather events, which are enhanced in severity and frequency with climate change (IPCC, 2014).

One of the underlying causes for such input-intensive practices is the shift towards larger, more specialized farms, which implies several ecological consequences itself. This transition to vast monocultures has been reflected in Canada by a fourfold increase in average farm size from 1921 to 2011, and a rising trend in specialization with 53% of farms considered highly specialized in 2011 (i.e. over 90% of their sales were derived from one commodity or commodity group) (Statistics Canada, 2012; Statistics Canada,

2015). Monocultures display almost no complementary interactions between system components, such that cycles – including the nutrient cycle – become open as opposed to closed loops (Altieri & Nicholls, 2005). This creates a need for heavy synthetic fertilizer inputs, and also generates undesired outputs such as nitrogen leachate (Altieri & Nicholls,

2005). Monocultures are also more vulnerable to pests and therefore require intense applications of pesticides, which are instigating the decline of insect, bird, fish and other wildlife populations and are also harmful to human health (Pimentel, 2009). Furthermore, larger farm size has called for a greater reliance on heavy machinery (Dimitri et al.,

2005), which requires the combustion of fossil fuels and therefore emits significant amounts of CO2. An outcome of such intensification is that the energy embodied in crop harvest is often inferior to the amount of energy expended to produce this very yield

(Gliessman, 1998).

As the environmental externalities of feeding a growing population with conventional agriculture practices become increasingly obvious, there is rising interest in alternative agricultural practices that regenerate the ecological health of the land. Indeed,

3 while global food demand is expected to double by 2050 from 20th century levels (Tilman et al., 2002), 24 billion tons of fertile soil disappear each year (UNCCD, 2012). In this context, sustainable practices – practices that merely sustain the pool of natural resources and attempt to minimize the loss of topsoil (Jones, 2003) – will not be sufficient to overcome the challenges of expanding food supplies with scarcer arable lands of reduced functionality. Instead, regenerative practices – practices that replenish soil, water, vegetation and productivity – will be needed to ensure food production in the 21st century context (Jones, 2003). As testimony to the rising awareness of this issue, France recently lauched the “4 pour 1000” program, urging to increase soil carbon by 0.4% yearly in agricultural soils as a way to mitigate climate change and ensure food security worldwide

(Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt, 2015). Pointing in the same direction, the UNCTAD (2013) recently concluded that small-scale, organic farming was the only viable way to feed the world.

The Emergence of Agroecology

In response to this need for a drastic change of agricultural methods, agronomists and ecologists began joining forces to create the field of agroecology (Gliessman, 1990) -

“the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems” (Gliessman, 1998). Broadly defined, agroecology is a more ecologically and socially sound approach to agricultural management than conventional agronomy (Altieri, 1987). It adopts a wider lens in analyzing the agricultural system and in fact views it as a dynamic ecosystem, a community of interacting plants and animals that is managed by humans – the agroecosystem (Altieri & Nicholls, 2005; Gliessman,

1990).

4 Major concepts of agroecology include designing biodiverse systems that mimic nature, and emphasize synergistic interactions between system components in order to promote biologically mediated soil fertility and pest management as well as reduce reliance on agrochemical inputs (Altieri, 1987; Gliessman, 1998). Diversified farming systems present significant advantages from an ecological standpoint. Compared to conventional agricultural systems, they have been found to sponsor greater biodiversity, soil quality, carbon sequestration, energy-use efficiency, water-holding capacity in surface soils and climate change resistance and resiliency (Kremen & Miles, 2012). They also improve pollination services as well as the control of weeds, pathogens and some pests in comparison to conventional monocultures (Kremen & Miles, 2012).

This recent wave of interest for agroecology has led to the burgeoning of several alternative agriculture movements or networks. The value of these social networks in extending agricultural knowledge through experiential learning and in promoting the adoption of best management practices among farmers is increasingly recognized

(Hoffman et al., 2015; Lubell et al., 2014; Prokopy et al., 2008; Warner, 2008; Kroma,

2006).

Permaculture and its Potential Role in the Agricultural Transition

Permaculture is one such agroecological network that has generated much interest in recent years. Although its name comes from a contraction of the words “permanent agriculture,” permaculture is actually a holistic philosophy rather than strictly agriculture- related (Mollison, 1988). Indeed, it is ultimately a systems-thinking design approach for human settlements based on ethics and ecology-derived principles, that can be applied to

5 agricultural systems (Mollison, 1988; Holmgren, 2002). For a closer look at permaculture principles, see Appendix 1.

Founded in Australia in the 1970s by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren, permaculture drew inspiration from J.R. Smith’s Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture

(1929), P.A. Yeomans’ integrated water management approach or keyline design

(Yeomans, 1954; 1958; 1973), and Fukuoka’s nature-inspired no-till gardening (Fukuoka,

1978). As a result, when applied to agricultural systems, emphasis is put on mimicking nature to develop diversified agroecosystems with a focus on perennial species and water management, using strategic design to facilitate beneficial interconnections between components (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Mollison, 1988). Permaculture adopts a long- term vision with the objective to increase resiliency and to facilitate an agriculture that can be sustained indefinitely (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Mollison, 1988). Given that permaculture does not prescribe specific crops or agricultural methods per se, but rather promotes developing solutions adapted to one’s land and climate, the application of its principles can result in widely different agricultural systems.

Permaculture may play an important role in the agroecological transition. The grassroots movement has been effective at spreading across the world in just a few decades, with projects now established on all inhabited continents (Ferguson & Lovell,

2014). Moreover, permaculture has successfully popularized sustainability concepts and made notions of ecology accessible to a large crowd, mobilizing an intricate network of practitioners, communicators, educators and students around the world (Ferguson &

Lovell, 2015b). The permaculture approach is also being increasingly acknowledged as a regenerative and resilient solution to agricultural systems (Rhodes, 2015).

6 Lack of Systematic Assessments of the Economics of Permaculture Production

Published literature in permaculture to date is largely intended for a popular audience, with little peer-reviewed work and almost no publications with an experimental design and statistical analysis (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014). The permaculture literature has also mostly focused on personal, small-scale agricultural systems as applicable to homesteads and gardens, and therefore fails to address solutions for production-oriented farms (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Mollison, 1988; Hemenway, 2009; Falk, 2013).

More specifically, the current documented literature lacks a substantial body of economic data on permaculture systems. Achieving financial viability through permaculture is commonly addressed in a qualitative manner. For instance, renowned permaculturist Mark Shepard highlights prioritizing perennial cultures as a strategy to make a profit by reducing labor costs (2013). He claims that when designed properly, a conversion to a permaculture farm can mean an increase in income (Shepard, 2013).

Similarly, Joel Salatin touches upon the profitability of his herds, but does not support these claims with quantitative data (1998). Other permaculturists imply the potential economic viability of permaculture agroecosystems through the mention of increased system self-sufficiency, although no concrete numbers are shown (Falk, 2013;

Toensmeier & Bates, 2013; Lawton, 2016).

In France, a recent study on an organic farm – Bec Hellouin – aimed to evaluate whether a permaculture-inspired vegetable farm without motorization could be economically viable (Morel et al., 2015). Estimations based on real values from 2013 and

2014 resulted in the conclusion that 0.26 acre (1061 m2) could yield between 10,779 € and 18,849 € of net yearly revenues (Morel et al., 2015), or between $106,062 and

$159,453 per acre at a 1.463 exchange rate (xe.com, March 7, 2016; all dollar values in

7 this paper are in Canadian dollars). Although hypothetical, these values point to the great potential for economic viability of such systems.

One recent assessment investigated the economics of permaculture agroecosystems in more detail. In this study, 36 self-declared permaculture farms in the

United States were analyzed based on the type and diversity of their sources of income

(Ferguson & Lovell, 2015b). Gross farm revenue in this sample ranged from $2,000 to

$800,000, with a median of $43,700. Seventeen out of 27 farms (63%) had positive net farm revenue, demonstrating the potential economic viability of permaculture systems.

The sample also revealed high livelihood diversity, with a median for farm-based enterprises of 3.6, and with 63% of farms getting over 25% of their income from off-farm enterprises. The five most frequent enterprises overall in this study were annual vegetables (17 farms), on-site adult education (12), pork (11), consultation (8) and tree fruit (8) (Ferguson & Lovell, 2015b).

Profitability of Organic and Conservation Agriculture

Despite this lack of economic data on permaculture systems, several studies assess the profitability of organic agriculture. These usually conclude that organic systems generate greater profits than conventional systems despite lower yields, due in part to higher output prices for organically-produced foods (Cavigelli et al, 2009; Nemes, 2013;

Pimentel et al., 2005). For instance, economic analysis of the Rodale Institute Farming

Systems Trial, that compared organic and conventional grain-based farming systems for

22 years, found that when price premiums were applied, organic systems were more profitable for grain and soybean rotations than their conventional counterpart (Pimentel et al., 2005). In a comparative analysis of organic and non-organic farming systems in

8 which over 50 economic studies were analyzed, the organic systems were also more profitable than non-organic ones in the majority of cases, due mainly to higher market prices or lower production costs, or both (Nemes, 2013). Similarly, a paper comparing the long term economic performance of organic and conventional corn and soybean rotations found that cumulative present value of net returns for organic systems were always considerably greater than for the conventional, when organic price premiums were taken into account (Cavigelli et al, 2009). Slightly different results were found by an assessment of the economic performance of organic farms in Europe. In a sample drawn from all EU states and three non-EU countries, profits for organic farms were mostly in the +/- 20% range that of non-organic farms (Offerman & Nieberg, 2000). Total operational costs for organic systems were on average slightly lower than for conventional systems, and higher output prices for organic products contributed substantially to profit margins (Offerman

& Nieberg, 2000).

Another area of a more ecologically sound agriculture for which profitability literature exists is conservation agriculture (CA), which is based upon minimal soil disturbance, crop residue retention and crop rotation. In an analysis of rice-wheat rotation systems of Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia, CA systems achieved higher grain yields and net returns over conventional tillage systems after two to three years only (Jat et al., 2014). A study conducted on Malawi smallholder maize-based systems also found improved crop productivity and economic gains in CA systems over conventional

(Ngwira et al., 2012).

It therefore appears that ecologically-driven approaches to agriculture can be profitable, and in some cases even more so than conventional systems. However, it remains unclear what factors have the greatest impact on farm economic viability. A

9 recent analysis reviews the findings of 16 studies to evaluate which factors influence farm profitability (Tey & Brindal, 2015). Among other results, the authors conclude that large- scale farms are able to achieve greater profits due to economies of scale (Tey & Brindal,

2015). Moreover, farms charging higher output prices for their products tended to have greater profitability in most studies (Tey & Brindal, 2015). However, findings regarding the relationship between diversification and profitability were mixed in the literature (Tey

& Brindal, 2015). The authors hypothesized that economies of scope would lead to diversified systems being more profitable, however only a few studies in the review found such a positive significance (Tey & Brindal, 2015). Several papers instead concluded that specialization increased profitability, and other studies found no significance between diversification and economic viability (Tey & Brindal, 2015).

Farmer Motivations and Challenges

It remains uncertain to what extent profitability is a motivating factor for the adoption of permaculture-inspired practices. Instead, lifestyle and conservation values may be more important. Farmer motivation research – including papers with a focus on sustainable farming – extensively reports lifestyle as a major reason for farmers to choose agriculture as an occupation (Sassenrath et al., 2010; Grover, 2013; Ahnström et al.,

2008; Muzzi & Morisset,1987; Parent, 2004). Some widespread lifestyle-related motivations include a desire for independence, and a wish to work outside, close to nature

(Sassenrath et al., 2010; Grover, 2013; Ahnström et al., 2008; Muzzi & Morisset, 1987;

Parent, 2004). Farmers also commonly see agriculture as a vocation: through their family heritage from having grown up on a farm or from the actual inheritance of the family farm; or, due to a deeply rooted passion for this trade, whether it is related to family

10 tradition or not (Grover, 2013; Sassenrath, 2010). From the parents’ perspective, raising their children with this healthy farming lifestyle and having a productive piece of land to pass on to them appears as a frequent motivation to farm (Grover, 2013; Parent, 2004;

Tondreau et al., 2002).

In terms of motivations to adopt conservation practices, land stewardship – i.e. an attachment to the land as well as a desire to improve the landscape – is quite prevalent

(Ryan et al, 2003; Farmer, 2011; Grover, 2013; Sassenrath et al., 2010; Ahnström, et al.

2008). As a matter of fact, it appears that farmers with strong intrinsic motivations such as lifestyle, conservation or land attachment tend to adopt conservation practices (Greiner et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 2003). More broadly, environmental awareness and positive environmental attitudes are perhaps unsurprisingly usually positively related to adoption of conservation best management practices, according to a review of 55 studies conducted in the United States (Prokopy et al., 2008). Interestingly, the utilization of social networks is also highlighted as a factor associated with adoption in that review (Prokopy et al.,

2008). A commitment to community has been linked to sustainable practice adoption as well, especially when sales are made close to the farm (Sassenrath et al., 2010).

Economic drivers and a concern for profitability also play a role in farmer motivations (Bowman & Zilberman, 2011; Sassenrath et al., 2010; Grover, 2013), although these may or may not be tempered by conservation values. In an Australian study, financially motivated subjects would not adopt conservation practices in the absence of external incentives (Greiner et al., 2009). Likewise, perception of a conservation practice’s long term profitability can be a determining factor for adoption

(Cary et al., 2007; Napier et al., 2000; Roberts et al., 2004). It nonetheless appears that some farmers are willing to sacrifice profits for land stewardship (Chouinard et al., 2008),

11 and that adoption of conservation practices is sometimes more defined by intrinsic values

– such as a farmer’s attachment to their land – rather than economic drivers (Ryan et al.,

2003).

In terms of challenges, a study on small-scale farmers in Indiana found that subjects seemed most concerned by the economic sustainability of their farm (Grover et al., 2013). Namely, market constraints including consumer willingness to pay for their products, ensuring effective marketing as well as market competition appeared as important barriers to sustainable farming practices (Grover et al., 2013). Other barriers mentioned in this paper were regulations, time and labor – including finding skilled workers – as well as the risks inherent to weather variability (Grover et al., 2013). A paper on the economic factors affecting diversified farming systems (DFS) similarly found that consumer willingness to pay for DFS products was a constraint for farmers

(Bowman & Zilberman, 2011). A lack of technologies and machinery specifically designed for diversified systems also appeared as a challenge that DFS farmers faced

(Bowman & Zilberman, 2011). In a study on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in Maine and Alabama, the resistance to change of older generations that were participating on the farm was cited as a barrier to adoption (Sassenrath et al., 2010). Pest control was also mentioned as a challenge in this study, as well as the cold climate and short growing season Maine producers were confronted to (Sassenrath et al., 2010).

In brief, farmer motivations to adopt conservation practices as well the constraints they may perceive are numerous, and vary according to specific conditions and geographic locations (Knowler & Bradshaw, 2007). An understanding of the local conditions and motivations of farmers is crucial in developing appropriate programs to

12 encourage conservation agriculture adoption (Knowler & Bradshaw, 2007; Greiner et al.,

2009).

Case Study: Quebec

This analysis is focused on one case study region: Quebec. The French-Canadian province makes an interesting case to analyze given it has a peculiar agricultural sector system that imposes unusual challenges to small diversified farms, yet several permaculture projects have emerged in the area in recent years. No systematic research focusing on permaculture farms in Quebec was found in the literature. Below is a quick overview of the Quebec agricultural sector, of its management of supply system, of its farmer trade union monopoly as well as of permaculture in the province.

Brief overview of the Quebec agricultural sector. The number of farms in Quebec has dropped drastically since its peak at 154,669 farms in 1941 (Statistics Canada, 2012). The latest estimate by the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du

Québec (MAPAQ; translates to “Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of Quebec”) was 28,600 farms in 2014, an 82% decrease since 1941. Mean total farm size was of 280 acres in 2011, a steady rise since its 117-acre level in 1941 (Statistics Canada, 2012).

Cultivated acres were on average 206 per farm in 2011 in the province (Statistics Canada,

2012). As far as yearly revenues, Quebec farms grossed on average $458,198 in 2014, or

$272,421 for crop-based farms and $642,495 for livestock-based operations (Statistics

Canada, 2015b).

A major turning point toward fewer and larger farms was the Héon report in 1955, which favored large-scale, specialized producers that had invested a lot in capital

(Lamontagne, 2015). Through an increase in quality standards and sanitary security that

13 were too expensive for small producers to keep up with, 54% – or 73,000 – of the farming operations closed down between 1951 and 1971 (Statistics Canada, 2012).

Livestock is the predominant production in the Quebec agricultural sector, representing about two thirds of the $8 billion revenues generated in this sector in 2014

(MAPAQ, 2014). Corn, soy and field vegetables are the main crops grown, whereas dairy, pork and poultry are the most important livestock enterprises in the province

(MAPAQ, 2014).

Although unavailable for Quebec specifically, some statistics on farm profitability were found for Canada. In 2006, only about 56% of farms in the country were profitable, i.e. their gross receipts were greater than their operational costs (Statistics Canada, 2014).

For farms grossing less than $25,000 annually, only 29% had positive net revenues in

2006 (Statistics Canada, 2014).

Joint plans and supply management through quotas. Subsequent to the Héon report, a so- called “joint plans” program (loose translation of the French program name: “plans conjoints”) was introduced. Through a joint plan, producers of a same product can come together and collectively negotiate the marketing conditions of this product. Once a plan is voted by farmers (in theory, by as little as one third of producers), it applies to all producers of this product, and prevents the creation of independent COOPs (Lamontagne,

2015). The associated producer organization, or federation, then regulates its sale and buys all of the product to sell it to the various markets (Lamontagne, 2015). There exist

17 joint plans in Quebec: for milk, pork, bovine, poultry, eggs for consumption, eggs for incubation, sheep, goat, rabbit, grains, apple, potato, vegetables for transformation, tobacco, Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean blueberries and privately-owned forest timber (Pronovost,

2008).

14 Certain joint plans are characterized by a management of supply – system which is in place for all of Canada – whereby producer federations regulate the total supply of a product through quotas and restrict foreign competition through the imposition of high custom fees (Lamontagne, 2015). Milk, chicken, eggs and turkeys are regulated by this system, with varying quota values according to each province. The objectives of this approach are to stabilize consumer prices and protect producers from the fluctuations of the market (Girouard, 2014). Frequent agricultural surpluses were apparently the reason to initiate this system, since they would trigger declines in market prices and farmer revenues, and therefore would cause the government to expend large sums to buy them back (Poirier, 2010). Quotas were therefore distributed for free to producers in the late

1960s as a right to produce, to balance supply as a function of the current demand

(Poirier, 2010). Given they were the only way to produce, however, the value of quotas quickly increased as a result of free market dynamics, although the initial aim was to protect farmers from the free market (Girouard, 2014). Table 1 presents the most recent values found as per the price of quotas in Quebec. Note that the value of the quota only includes the right to produce, and does not include the cost of the livestock itself.

As displayed in Table 1, the high value of quotas is largely prohibitive for aspiring farmers wanting to start a livestock operation with these products, so much so that the only entities able to afford new quotas are often times existing industrial farms. This is well-illustrated by the egg industry: there were as few as 104 egg farms in the entire province of Quebec in 2014, for this $150 million industry, or a production of 1.2 billion eggs annually (Girouard, 2014). In 1954, before the quota system existed, 90,000 farmers were producing 64 million eggs in the province (Héon et al., 1956). Moreover, the space- based poultry quotas favor concentrated animal feeding operations, as opposed to farms

15 that put more emphasis on animal welfare and environmental health. Indeed, according to research, no quota chickens are produced on pasture (Girouard, 2014). Some other barriers are caused by this system: for instance, if a farmer wants to sell quota chickens on their farm, they would have to first buy them back from their federation. Moreover, many sectors do not emit new quotas, therefore one would only be able to buy some if a current producer is willing to sell theirs (Girouard, 2014).

Table 1. Value of quotas and off-quota allowances in Quebec.

Commodity Value of quota Off-quota allowance Milk $25,000 per kg/day of fat produced (about one cow) None Chicken $900 per m2 of floor space (estimated to 50 chickens per 100 chickens year) Eggs $245 per laying hen 100 laying hens Turkeys $450 per m2 of floor space 25 turkeys

Most recent values found for quota prices and off-quota allowances in Quebec (Girouard, 2014). Off-quota allowances are the levels of production allowed without owning quota.

Off-quota allowances are the lowest in Quebec in comparison to other provinces.

For example, a British Columbia farmer is allowed to produce 2,000 chickens yearly without owning quota, as opposed to only 100 in Quebec; and an Alberta producer can generate up to 50 litres of milk per day off-quota, whereas no milk can be produced off- quota in Quebec (Girouard, 2014). The absence of justification for these off-quota levels and their variance between provinces reveals they may be set arbitrarily (Girouard, 2014).

Opponents of the management of supply system – such as Union Paysanne – claim that this approach has distanced itself from the social vocation it was meant to have, and decry the standardization and reduced diversity of products resulting from this so-

16 called “cartelization” of the agricultural sector (Girouard, 2014). This organization claims that raising off-quota levels to those of Alberta (2,000 chickens, 300 laying hens, 300 turkeys, 50 L/day of milk) would not undermine market shares of quota producers and would drive rural economy (Girouard, 2014).

Trade union monopoly. Since 1972, the Quebec government only recognizes one trade union in the agricultural sector, the Union des Producteurs Agricoles (UPA; Translates to

“Agricultural Producers Union”). To be eligible for a tax refund, farmers are therefore obligated to adhere and pay contributions to the UPA (Gouvernement du Québec, n.d.).

This relating of a public finance matter to a non-governmental entity is rather anomalous; in fact, some authors argue it reflects the subservience of the government of Quebec to a private-interest group (Lamontagne, 2015).

The agricultural trade union monopoly is a situation unique to Quebec that is criticized by certain farmers. Indeed, opponents question its legitimacy and its potential to represent all members (Lamontagne, 2015; Silvestro, 2006).

Permaculture in Quebec. Within this unusual agricultural context, Quebec has seen an emergence of permaculture-related activities in recent years, particularly with respect to educational events and media. Namely, a Permaculture Convergence took place in the town of Frelighsburg in both 2013 and 2014. One of the recurring questions following these convergences was the economic viability of permaculture systems (Henry, J.-L. conversation with on August 27, 2015).

17 Research Questions and Hypotheses

This paper constitutes exploratory research about permaculture-inspired farms in

Quebec, to begin building up a body of data about such agroecosystems. The following research questions were explored:

• What types of production systems have permaculture-inspired farmers adopted in

Quebec?

• How diversified are their agricultural production systems?

• How diversified are their overall livelihood strategies?

• Are permaculture-inspired farms in Quebec profitable?

• What factors influence their profitability?

• What motivates people to undertake permaculture-inspired farming projects in

Quebec?

• What main challenges do they face?

• What are farmers’ perceptions about permaculture?

I hypothesize that permaculture agroecosystems will have a stronger focus on perennials, given the inspiration drawn from tree crops and the emphasis on perennial species in the literature. These systems will be highly diversified in terms of their agricultural production systems as well as their farm enterprises, due to permaculture proponents’ recommendation to implement biodiverse systems.

Given the reduced costs and increased efficiency generated by permaculture systems, as well as the existing literature on the profitability of organic and conservation agriculture systems, I hypothesize that permaculture farms can be profitable. In terms of factors influencing profitability, it seems reasonable to estimate that larger farms will be

18 more economically viable according to existing literature. Moreover, I hypothesize that certified organic farms as well as farms that offer value added products will be more profitable, given the higher prices they can charge for both these types of products.

Finally, I expect that permaculture-inspired farmers will be highly motivated by conservation values, given permaculture’s focus on ecological benefits and the fact that environmentally motivated subjects tend to adopt conservation practices. It seems likely they will have strong lifestyle motivations as well, according to the literature on sustainable farmer motivations. In light of the studies on small-scale and DFS farmer constraints, I hypothesize that permaculture-inspired farmers will feel most challenged by the economic viability of their farm.

Chapter II

Methods

Data Collection

The methods related to collecting the data necessary for this study comprise two main components: farm selection and farmer interviews.

Farm Selection

I used a snowball referral sampling approach to select permaculture-inspired farms in Quebec: I started by contacting permaculture- and agriculture- related organizations in the province, who referred me to farmers they perceived had some relationship to the permaculture movement. These subjects then recommended other farmers for me to interview.

Given the study’s focus on farm economics, one selection criteria was for the farms to be at least partially commercial operations, i.e. to get part of their income from the produce they cultivated or animals they raised, as opposed to strictly educational or subsistence farms. The farmer’s identification with permaculture was not a criteria of selection; the farm’s relationship to the permaculture movement was therefore subjective to the perception of the people who referred them to the investigator. As a result, farmers who did not identify with permaculture were also interviewed, in order to have responses to contrast to those of permaculture/permaculture-inspired farmers.

20 Farmer Interviews

I interviewed a total of 35 farmers over the months of September and October

2015. Interviews were conducted mostly in person at the farm, aside from a few phone interviews due to distant geographic location. Farmers were asked about their crops and livestock; their fertilizer, pesticides, mulch, feed and irrigation practices; the different functional production systems on their site; whether they lived on the farm; as well as the age and size of their farm. In terms of farm economics, they were asked about the profitability of their operation; their farm enterprises; their associated gross revenue as well as their total gross revenue; whether they received off-farm income; whether they owned or rented the land; and about their paid and volunteer labor. Finally, subjects were asked whether they considered their farm as corresponding to permaculture principles; their perceptions of permaculture benefits and drawbacks; the motivations that led them to undertake this farming initiative; their challenges; and what changes they would like to see in the Quebec agricultural sector.

Data Analysis

Analyzing the data gathered required creating classifications for different variables to allow for comparisons. Some statistical analysis was also conducted.

Identification with Permaculture Classification

Different levels of self-identification with permaculture were revealed among farmers in the sample. Table 2 outlines the four different types of responses to the question “Do you consider your farm as corresponding to permaculture principles?”, which translated in three permaculture identification levels: “full”, “moderate” and “null”.

21 Table 2. Identification with permaculture classification.

Response ID level Description code Full Yes Consider their farm is a permaculture farm Consider that parts of their farm correspond to permaculture Parts Moderate principles Partially Consider their farm is partially inspired by permaculture principles Null No Do not consider their farm is a permaculture farm

Farm Type, Class, Systems and Age

Each farm was attributed one of twelve farm type categories according to its main agricultural enterprises, as listed below:

• Annual vegetables • Orchard • Livestock • Dairy • Seeds • Nursery • Mushroom • Woody perennial • Herbaceous perennial • Mixed annual / perennial • Mixed annual / livestock • Mixed annual / perennial / livestock

For example, if a farm grew and sold mainly apples, pears and nuts, it was attributed the “woody perennial” type. For a farm that grew and sold vegetables and raised and sold livestock, the type “mixed annual/livestock” was assigned.

Given the high number of farm types and low occurrences within each, I grouped farms into four higher level classes to allow for comparisons: “annual/fungus,”

“perennial,” “livestock” and “propagation.” Each farm was placed into a class according to its most prevalent farm enterprise in terms of income. For example, a “mixed

22 annual/perennial” farm could be placed in either the “annual/fungus” class or the

“perennial” class, depending on which was its most important farm enterprise.

Eight functional systems categories were used to describe farm system diversity: annuals, tree crops, shrubs, other perennials, mushrooms, pasture, forest and livestock.

Farm age was attributed in two ways. Total age of the farm represents the number of years since the current owner or their parents started farming their site. Years since new practices is either equal to total age of farm, or smaller, in the case that there was a drastic change of farming practices (e.g. became organic; became grass-fed; transitioned to permaculture) or a transfer of ownership to children.

Source and Availability of Economic Data

Total yearly gross revenue as well as per enterprise gross revenue was self- reported by the interviewee. Most subjects recalled approximations for these values that they claimed were accurate, whereas some subjects preferred referring to their financial records (e.g. Excel spreadsheets, tax records, etc.).

Economic data was gathered for 29 out of the 35 interviewees only. The six remaining farms were under special circumstances that made economic analysis irrelevant to this research.

Profitability Classification

Due to the variability in economic data availability among farmers, especially in terms of costs and expenses, farm profitability was ranked by certain categories (Table 3).

There were four different types of farmer responses to the question “Is your farm profitable?”, which constituted two profitability groups: profitable, and not profitable.

23 Table 3. Profitability classification.

Profitability Response code Description Yes Revenues exceed costs Profitable Yes, except for land Idem, except for land or infrastructure investments No salary Revenues equal costs; farmer does not have a salary Not profitable No Revenues are inferior to costs

Farm Enterprise Classification and Diversity

Farm enterprises were grouped into income source types, which were associated to two major enterprise categories: farm products and farm-related services (Table 4).

Table 4. Farm enterprise classification.

Category Type Enterprise Farm products Plant and fungus products Annual vegetables Perennials Maple syrup Non-timber forest products Mushrooms Livestock products Meat Eggs Milk Propagation products Seeds Nursery Value-added products Edible Cosmetics Farm-related services Cultural services Education Consults and design Material services Machinery Resale Restaurant Catering Storage Custom grazing

24 Two variables were used to describe farm enterprise diversity. The number of farm enterprises per farm, including farm-related services, was used as a measure of enterprise richness. To account for evenness of enterprises, the Simpson index of diversity (D) was calculated with income values for each farm enterprise (i) versus total farm income (I). The formula used was:

D = 1 - Σ ( i / I )2

Motivations, Challenges and Perceptions

For farmer motivations, challenges, perceptions of permaculture benefits and drawbacks, a qualitative analysis was conducted by assessment of recurring themes in subject responses. Those themes were grouped into categories, and I used stacked bar charts to illustrate the proportion of responses of each permaculture identification group in the different theme categories. I also inquired about farmers’ desired changes to the

Quebec agricultural sector, as an additional perspective on their challenges.

Statistical Analysis

The software R was used for statistical analysis between different variables.

Analysis of variance tests were conducted to assess the significance of the relationship between a categorical variable and a numerical variable, or between a categorical variable and an ordinal variable rendered numerical. Tukey tests were then used when the analysis of variance test was performed with a variable of over two categories, to establish which pairings displayed the most significant differences. Linear regressions were conducted to analyze the statistical significance of the relationship between two numerical variables.

Chapter III

Results

Description of Farms

This section presents results that describe the following aspects of this sample’s farms: their identification with permaculture; farm type and class; functional systems; size, age and other characteristics; and human intervention level.

Identification with Permaculture

Out of the 35 subjects interviewed, 16 fully identified with permaculture, 12 had a moderate level of identification with permaculture and 7 did not identify with the movement at all (Table 5).

Table 5. Farmer identification with permaculture.

Count % of ID level Response (/35) farms Full Yes 16 46% Moderate 12 34% Parts 6 17% Partially 6 17% Null No 7 20%

Farm Type and Class in Relation to Main Agricultural Activities

The sample was highly diverse in terms of the agricultural activities practiced on each farm, as reflected by the 12 farm types outlined among respondents (Table 6). The

26 most common farm type was mixed annual/perennial (8), followed by annual (4). Other common types were livestock (3), seeds (3), tree nursery (3), woody perennial (3), mixed annual/livestock (3), and mixed annual/perennial/livestock (3). A high proportion of mixed farm types is revealed in the sample, with 40% of farms in the mixed annual/perennial, mixed annual/livestock and mixed annual/perennial/livestock categories.

Table 6. Farm type according to permaculture identification.

Count by permaculture Total Farm type identification group count % of farms Full Moderate Null (/35) Vegetable 0 0 4 4 11% Orchard 1 1 0 2 6% Livestock 3 0 0 3 9% Dairy 1 0 0 1 3% Seeds 1 2 0 3 9% Nursery 3 0 0 3 9% Mushroom 1 0 0 1 3% Mixed woody perennial 0 3 0 3 9% Mixed herbaceous perennial 1 0 0 1 3% Mixed annual / perennial 5 3 0 8 23% Mixed annual / livestock 0 1 2 3 9% Mixed annual / perennial / livestock 0 2 1 3 9%

In the fully permaculture identified group, the most frequent farm type was mixed annual/perennial (5), livestock (3) and nursery (3). Note that all strictly annual-based farms (4) did not identify with permaculture.

In terms of farm class (Table 7), annual/fungus was by far the most frequent among the sample (15), followed by perennial (7), livestock (7) and propagation (6). As shown in Table 8, no farms of the perennial and propagation classes were in the non- permaculture identified group.

27 Table 7. Farm class according to type.

Count % of Farm class Farm type (/35) farms Annual/fungus 15 43% Annual 4 11% Mixed annual / perennial 7 20% Mixed annual / livestock 2 6% Mixed annual / perennial / livestock 1 3% Mushroom 1 3%

Perennial 7 20% Mixed woody perennial 3 89% Orchard 2 6% Mixed herbaceous perennial 1 3% Mixed annual / perennial 1 3%

Livestock 7 20% Livestock 3 9% Mixed annual / perennial / livestock 2 6% Mixed annual / livestock 1 3% Dairy 1 3%

Propagation 6 17% Seeds 3 9% Nursery 3 9%

Table 8. Farm class according to permaculture identification.

Count by permaculture identification Total count % of Farm class level (/35) farms Full Moderate Null Annual/fungus 5 4 6 15 43% Perennial 3 4 0 7 20% Livestock 4 2 1 7 20% Propagation 4 2 0 6 17%

Functional Systems, Functional Diversity and Systems Integration

The vast majority of farms had forest on their land (27) and grew annual crops

(26). Several grew tree crops such as apple, pear, black walnut or heartnut (24); many had shrubs like sea buckthorn, blueberry or raspberry (21); and other perennials were also

28 very common, such as herbaceous perennials, vines or perennial vegetables (17). Pasture land was part of the site in the case of several respondents too (14), and only very few grew mushrooms (2). Over half of the farms raised livestock (18), including laying hens

(14), sheep (6), beef cows (5), pork (4), meat chickens (4), duck (2), goats (2), turkeys

(2), dairy cows (1), boar (1), guinea fowl (1) and geese (1). Almost all of the fully permaculture identified farms (87%) had tree crops, shrubs and/or other perennials as functional systems, the only exceptions being livestock-based farms.

Farms in the sample demonstrated a high level of functional diversity, as expressed by the number of functional systems per farm. On average, farms interviewed had 4.5 functional systems, ranging from 1 to 7. The median was five functional systems per farm, with a standard deviation of 1.6. Non-permaculture identified farms included on average a significantly lower number of functional production system types than the two other groups (p = 0.04) (Figure 1), with the most significant difference between non- permaculture farms and fully self-identified permaculture farms (adjusted p = 0.03).

Among the farms that had both annual and perennial species, about 57% integrated both kinds in the same production system in at least part of their site. Similarly, among the farms that had both woody and herbaceous species, about 58% integrated both in at least a portion of their site. All (100%) of the farms that raised livestock showed some level of integration of their livestock with other parts of their system, i.e. either the animal manure was applied to their annual or perennial crops as fertilizer, and/or the animals were fed at least partially on pasture or from the crops or insects on the farm.

Figure 1. Functional diversity and identification with permaculture.

Farm Size, Age and Other Characteristics

Mean total farm size in acres was 137 with a median of 59 (Table 12). About two thirds of farms (65.7%) were below 100 acres in total. Out of 34 farmers for whom this data was available, 28 owned the land and 10 rented the land, with six farmers combining both owned and rented land. Two farmers’ sites were on land trusts that were owned by separate parties.

Mean age of farms was 15 years, with a minimum of 1.5, maximum of 48.5 and a median of 11.5 (Table 9). Years since new practices were on average 10.6, with a minimum of 1.5, maximum of 25.5 and median of 8.5. Farms fully identified with permaculture were on average younger than farms from the other groups, both in terms of the total age of the farm and of the years since new practices or ownership transfer

(Figure 2).

30 Table 9. Size and age of farms.

Size (acres) Age (years) Trust Total age Years since Owned Rented owned Total Cultivated of farm new practices Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 Mean 94.2 37.5 8.0 137.1 47.9 15.0 10.6 Median 32.5 0.0 198.0 59.0 15.0 11.5 8.5 Max 810.0 950.0 0 950.0 380.0 48.5 35.5 Std dev 156.8 163.8 35.9 216.3 87.9 12.5 9.9 Count 28 10 2 all 32 35 35 Missing 1 1 1 0 3 0 0

Figure 2. Age of farm and identification with permaculture, according to: (a) total farm age; and (b) years since new practices.

Other farm characteristics worth noting are presented in Table 10. Sixteen farms were certified organic; two were certified biodynamic; five qualified as biointensive; five were COOPs; seven were considered communities; four were or were part of a project collective or incubator; and four were on land trusts, either owned by the farmer or a separate entity. Moreover, 26 had their main residence on the farm.

31 All of the non-permaculture identified farms in the sample were certified organic

(7), whereas only very few (3) fully permaculture identified farms were.

Table 10. Other farm characteristics.

Count % of Characteristic (/35) farms Certified organic 16 46% Certified biodynamic 2 6% Biointensive 5 14% COOP 5 14% Community 7 20% Collective / incubator (or part of) 4 11% Land trust 4 11% Live on farm 26 74%

Very Low Intervention Level

Six interviewees distinguished themselves through the particularly low human intervention level that they applied to their farm. The four that were plant-based farms, from the categories annual/fungus, perennial and propagation, did not irrigate their crops at all; applied no pesticides (even organic) at all; and applied either no fertilizer at all, or very little amounts of organic materials from their own site. For the two livestock-based farms, this very low intervention level translated into the animals being 100% pasture- raised, and fed either fully by on-site grasses or with little off-site supplement. All of the very low human intervention level farms fully identified with permaculture, and almost all of them (five out of six) were profitable.

32 Farm Economics

In this section, the following results are presented: farm profitability; farm enterprises and livelihood diversity; as well as grants, labor and volunteers.

Profitability

Out of the 29 farms for which economic data was available, 22 were considered profitable, and seven were non-profitable (Table 11). Eleven of the fully permaculture identified farms were profitable, and three were not.

Table 11. Farm profitability.

Count by permaculture Total identification level count % of Profitability Response code Full Moderate Null (/29) farms Profitable 11 6 5 22 76% Yes 5 6 5 16 55% Yes, except for land 6 0 0 6 21% Not profitable 3 3 1 7 24% No salary 2 0 0 2 7% No 1 3 1 5 17%

Farm Enterprises and Diversity of Income Sources

The summary data for gross income by farm enterprise for the last year of available data is presented in Table 12. Total farm income ranged from $11,615 to

$717,500, was on average $171,562, with a standard deviation of $170,431 and a median of $75,000. Most farms (55.2%) had their total farm income below $100,000. Note that minimum, maximum and median values for farm enterprises were omitted from Table 12 to avoid the identification to specific farms.

33 Table 12. Gross income by farm enterprise.

Count % of Farm enterprise Mean Std dev (/29) farms FARM PRODUCTS $151,140 $167,341 29 100% Plant and fungus products $70,522 $116,527 23 79% Annual vegetables $63,665 $118,617 21 72% Perennials $4,662 $12,997 8 28% Maple syrup $405 $1,261 3 10% Non-timber forest products $548 $2,950 1 3% Mushrooms $1,241 $6,685 1 3% Livestock products $23,487 $52,966 10 35% Meat $17,785 $46,171 8 28% Eggs $271 $880 5 17% Milk $5,431 $29,247 1 3% Propagation products $20,355 $65,495 8 28% Seeds $14,379 $54,366 5 17% Nursery $5,976 $16,188 6 21% Value-added products $36,776 $136,254 6 21% Edible $12,603 $47,971 5 17% Cosmetics $24,172 $129,980 2 7% FARM-RELATED SERVICES $20,423 $35,083 20 69% Cultural services $11,070 $29,933 15 52% Education $7,989 $17,750 14 48% Consults and design $3,080 $14,317 5 17% Material services $9,353 $21,893 11 38% Machinery $2,181 $10,755 5 17% Resale $1,414 $4,571 4 14% Restaurant $1,828 $9,282 2 7% Catering $2,000 $9,350 2 7% Storage $345 $1,857 1 3% Custom grazing $1,586 $8,542 1 3% TOTAL FARM INCOME $171,562 $170,431 29 100%

Farmers who didn’t identify with permaculture had on average a significantly higher total farm income than the two other groups (p = 0.07) (Figure 3), with the most difference between the fully and non identified groups (adjusted p = 0.09). Note that no significant difference was found between permaculture identification groups in terms of their farm products income per cultivated acre, however.

Figure 3. Total farm income and identification with permaculture.

All farms in the economic analysis earned revenues from farm products, for an average value of $151,140 and a standard deviation of $167,341 (Table 12). Sixty-nine percent (69.0%) of respondents obtained income from farm-related services, for an average value of $20,423 and a standard deviation of $35,083. When considering farm product revenues per cultivated acre, the mean value was $15,901, with a median of

$8,190, standard deviation of $20,794, minimum of $259 and maximum of $72,000

(Table 13). In the case of fully permaculture identified farms, the mean value was

$12,122, with a median of $7,123 and a standard deviation of $18,764.

35 Table 13. Gross income from farm products per cultivated acre.

Permaculture identification Full Moderate Null Overall Min $259 $438 $2,685 $259 Mean $12,122 $15,279 $25,650 $15,901 Median $7,123 $6,470 $19,470 $8,190 Max $72,000 $68,400 $61,754 $72,000 Std dev $18,764 $21,979 $24,046 $20,794 Count 14 9 6 29

Eleven out of 34 farms (32.3%) received off-farm income. Subjects who supplemented their revenue with off-farm income were generally not profitable, whereas farmers who did not resort to off-farm income were generally profitable. In effect, a significant relationship was found between profitability and off-farm income (p = 0.05).

No significant differences were found between the three permaculture identification levels with regards to earning off-farm income.

The most frequent enterprise among farms in the sample was annual vegetables

(21), followed by education (14), then perennials (8) and meat (8). Note that the fully permaculture identified group was not found to have a higher percentage of their income from education or farm-related services than other groups.

The average number of enterprises per farm – according to the enterprise types as displayed in Table 12 – ranged from 1 to 7, with a mean of 3.4, a median of 3 and a standard deviation of 1.5. Profitable farms had significantly less farm enterprises than their non-profitable counterparts (p = 0.02) (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Profitability and number of farm enterprises.

The average value for the Simpson diversity Index was 0.322 and ranged from 0 to 0.728, with a median of 0.336 and a standard deviation of 0.237. This reveals that despite farm enterprises being diverse on average in the sample, they were relatively uneven in terms of income weight.

Farms with a higher percentage of their income originating from value added products had a significantly higher farm product income (Figure 5) (equation: income from farm products = 119768 + 362025 * percentage of income from value added products; n = 29; p = 0.002; r2 = 0.28). Similarly, total income from farm products was significantly higher in subjects that had an organic certification (Figure 6) (equation: income from farm products = 54168 + 187479 * organic certification (1=yes, 0=no); n =

29; p = 0.001; r2 = 0.3).

Figure 5. Percentage of income from value added products and total income from farm products.

Figure 6. Organic certification and total income from farm products.

38 Grants, Labor and Volunteers

Out of the 29 subjects for which economic data was available, 22 had received grants or subsidies at some point for their farming operation. The average number of full- time equivalent workers per farm was 3.4, with a minimum of 0.5, a maximum of 9, a median of 2.6 and a standard deviation of 2.3. Eight (8) farms were highly reliant on volunteers, which means that volunteers made up a significant enough proportion of their staff that they would not be able to get the necessary work done without them and/or would not be economically feasible if they had to pay them. Five of these farms fully identified with permaculture, whereas none of the non-permaculture identified farms highly relied on volunteers.

Motivations, Challenges and Perceptions

Below are the different recurring themes found in subject responses with regards to their motivations, challenges, perceptions of permaculture and desired changes to the

Quebec agricultural sector.

Motivations to Farm

Farmers in this sample expressed a vast array of motivations for their current farming project (Table 14), although they were particularly motivated by lifestyle (71%) and conservation (68%) values. Notably, raising their children in a healthy, natural setting and passing them on this legacy – both in terms of a productive piece of land, and of the experience of growing food – was a frequent lifestyle-related response among interviewees (29%). Other common lifestyle motives included working outside (24%), wanting to be healthy and to eat foods that they grow (24%), and the independence that

39 farming allows, namely through increased self-sufficiency and being their own boss

(24%). A desire to accomplish something concrete, through hands-on participation in the alternative farming movement, was also cited (9%).

In terms of farmer responses that suggested conservation values, several stated a general desire to protect or regenerate the natural environment (29%) or a love of biology and living beings (21%), whereas some evoked more specifically the concept of land stewardship and connection to their land (18%), wanting to enhance biodiversity (9%) or to conserve rare genetics (6%).

Another prominent motivation theme was to give back to the community (32%).

Some respondents mentioned the desire to be a producer as opposed to a consumer, in order to increase the availability of quality foods in their region (15%). Others stated social values as motivators, including wanting to bring the community together (12%); to provide land for aspiring farmers who might not be able to afford it, through either a land trust or project collective (9%); and to provide local jobs (6%).

Farming also revealed itself as a vocation among about one third of respondents

(32%). Some mentioned a strong passion for the trade, sometimes even a “visceral calling” pushing them to practice agriculture as an occupation (18%). Others actually

“inherited” this vocation, from either having grown up on a farm, been in contact with farms while growing up, or taken over their family farm (18%). Interestingly, only one interviewee mentioned both farming as heritage and explicitly stated a love for the trade, showing that a strong passion for agriculture does not only come to those having grown up in an agricultural context.

40 Table 14. Motivations to undertake the current farming initiative.

Theme Subtheme Description Count % of (/34) farms Lifestyle 24 71% Children For their children to grow up with this lifestyle, for 10 29% them to have access to this land later in life Outdoors Loves working outside 8 24% Health Includes eating healthy food they grow 8 24% Independence Includes self-sufficiency and being their own boss 8 24% Concrete To do something concrete 3 9%

Conservation 23 68% Environmental To protect or regenerate the natural environment 10 29% Love of nature For the love of living beings, of microbiology, of 7 21% plants and trees Land Connection with the land, attachment to land 6 18% stewardship Biodiversity To conserve or enhance biodiversity 3 9% Genetics For the conservation of rare genetics 2 6%

Community 12 35% Provide food To increase availability of good food 5 15% Social For social values, to bring community together 4 12% Provide land To provide land to people who might not be able to 3 9% afford and want to farm Jobs To provide jobs 2 6%

Vocation 11 32% Love of the Passion for growing food or raising animals 6 18% trade Heritage Took over family farm, grew up on a farm or grew 6 18% up in contact with farming

As a demonstration 10 29% Model To serve as a model, to channel a message 8 24% Education To educate people about alternative farming 4 12% Economic To demonstrate that a farming business can be 3 9% viability economically viable

As an opposition As a rebellion against the current system; away 6 18% from conventional farming; for a detox from the digital world.

41 Several farmers in this sample undertook their current farming endeavour to serve as a demonstration for the public (29%). Indeed, some expressed wanting to serve as a model for others, to show how farming could be done in an ecological way or to channel a message (24%). Others mentioned a motivation to educate the public about alternative agriculture (12%). Some of the farmers who wanted to serve as a model specifically expressed a desire to demonstrate that a farming business could be economically viable

(9%).

Finally, some interviewees highlighted a motivation to oppose themselves to the current system (18%). These motives included: as a rebellion against the system; wanting to move away from conventional farming; for a detox from the digital world; and due to a dissatisfaction with the current model.

Only two interviewees (6%) explicitly mentioned economic reasons as a motive for farming, mainly expressed as a need to earn a living. The only other economics- related motivation was, as described above, wanting to demonstrate the potential economic viability of a farming business. However, this response was articulated as a desire to serve as a model for others, as opposed to a personal motivation to financial gain.

The distribution of permaculture identification groups across the different motivation themes seems weighted relatively proportionally (Figure 7). The only two notable particularities are the low proportion of fully permaculture identified farmers in the community theme, and the absence of non-permaculture identified farmers in the opposition motivation.

Figure 7. Motivation themes and identification with permaculture.

Challenges

Challenge themes among farmer responses were less diverse than those of motivations (Table 15). Almost half of the respondents reported labor-related challenges

(46%), such as finding qualified candidates, staff retention or managing volunteers. The economic viability of their operation was the second most mentioned constraint among interviewees (34%), including the challenges imposed by high land prices in Quebec.

Management-related concerns were also prominent in this sample (26%). Indeed, farmers reported feeling challenged by having to handle the multiple facets of a farming business, such as production, sales and accounting, and having difficulty managing their time doing so. Pest and insect pressures (17%) as well as the challenges related to a cold climate and climate variability (11%) were also mentioned by farmers. Finally, market constraints such as competition and marketing (9%) were expressed by some respondents.

43 Table 15. Farmer challenges.

Theme Description Count % of (/35) farms Labor Retention, recruiting qualified candidates, volunteer 16 46% management, transfer to future owner Economics Being economically viable. Including: high cost of land in 12 34% Quebec Management Managing the multiple facets of a farming enterprise 9 26% (production, sales, marketing, accounting, etc.) and finding the time to do so Pests Pest and insect pressures 6 17% Climate Cold climate, climate variability 4 11% Markets Marketing, competition 3 9%

In terms of the distribution of permaculture identification groups within the various challenge themes cited, it appears that a disproportionately high number of non- permaculture farmers reported labor-related challenges (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Challenge themes and identification with permaculture.

44 Perceptions of Permaculture Benefits and Drawbacks

Perceived benefits of permaculture among this sample were grouped into three main categories: economics (54%), environmental (46%) and quality of life (40%) (Table

16). While monetary savings were only mentioned specifically by very few respondents

(9%), economic benefits were mostly expressed as perceived improvements in system efficiency (40%). Among other observations, these farmers felt permaculture was advantageous from an efficiency standpoint due to diminished maintenance requirements, a reduced need for inputs and the fact that it promotes self-balancing systems. Some farmers also mentioned benefitting from the recent trend attached to the permaculture brand, given it helped them attract volunteer labor (9%). Perhaps unsurprisingly, a very low proportion of non-permaculture identified farmers reported economic benefits to permaculture (Figure 9).

With regards to perceived environmental advantages, farmers mentioned ecological benefits such as healthy soils, clean waterways, clean air, atmospheric carbon capture, reduced impacts of droughts and floods as well as balanced ecosystems (40%).

The long term sustainability and resiliency of permaculture agroecosystems was also reported (14%).

Many farmers felt that practicing permaculture led to an improved quality of life

(40%). Interestingly, these were all fully or moderately permaculture identified farmers

(Figure 9). Some perceived an increased wellbeing due to an attention to people care, as well as the fact that this approach to agriculture is gratifying for the farmer (11%). Others mentioned a heightened capacity to observe and notice particularities in the landscape, due to a closer relationship with the land and with nature in general (11%). Increased

45 equity (11%), health (9%) and self-sufficiency (9%) were also reported as benefits to permaculture.

Finally, a few interviewees – logically, all fully or moderately permaculture identified farmers – saw only benefits to permaculture when first prompted.

Table 16. Farmer perceptions of permaculture benefits.

Theme Subtheme Description Count % of (/35) farms Economics 19 54% Efficiency Including: low maintenance, self-balancing 14 40% systems, less need for inputs Economic Seen as cheaper due to savings 3 9% benefits Brand Interest due to trend helps getting volunteers 3 9%

Environmental 16 46% Ecological 14 40% Long term Includes resiliency 5 14% sustainability

Quality of life 14 40% Wellbeing People care, quality of life, gratifying for farmer 4 11% Observation See more things as closer to the land, affects the 4 11% way the farmers see their land, includes human rel to nature Equity Includes integrity 4 11% Health 3 9% Self-sufficency 3 9%

Sees only benefits at first 3 9%

Figure 9. Permaculture benefit themes and identification with permaculture.

Interestingly, despite economics-related responses being the most frequently reported benefits – mostly as increased efficiency –, they were also the most commonly mentioned drawbacks (69%) (Table 17). For instance, farmers expressed inefficiencies linked to permaculture, including the perception that it was time- and labor- intensive

(34%). It should be noted that 11% of total respondents mentioned both efficiency benefits and inefficiency drawbacks, which reveals peculiar contradictions within farmer perceptions of permaculture. Many farmers were concerned by the economic viability of permaculture systems, and either thought that starting such a project would not be profitable in the beginning, that it required relying on off-farm income, or felt worried that its commercial viability had not been proven yet (31%). Certain farmers saw permaculture agroecosystems as less productive, some even mentioning they thought it could not feed the world (14%). Another economics-related drawback that was reported

47 was the risk of losing a large portion of their harvest, given a perceived diminished level of control due to reduced human intervention with the permaculture approach (11%).

Almost all (6 out of 7) non-permaculture identified farmers saw economic disadvantages to permaculture (Figure 10).

Table 17. Farmer perceptions of permaculture drawbacks.

Theme Subtheme Description Count % of (/35) farms Economics 24 69% Inefficiency Including takes more time, more labor intensive 12 34% Economic Includes economics in the beginning, perceived need 11 31% viability for outside income, unproven commercial viability Less Including can't feed the world 5 14% productive Risk Less intervention seen as less control and potential 4 11% loss of harvest

Novel and radical 14 40% movement Perceptions Public perceives permaculturists as “hippies” or 5 14% “freaks” Lack of The philosophy is still new and therefore unknown or 4 11% understanding misunderstood by public Dogmatic Interviewee feels some permaculture proponents are 3 9% too dogmatic Knowledge Lack of scientific knowledge-base 3 9% Resources Lack of resources 1 3%

Sees no drawbacks at 5 14% first

Figure 10. Permaculture drawback themes and identification with permaculture.

The second major theme of perceived permaculture drawbacks was the novelty of this movement and the fact it is seen by some as radical (40%). Indeed, certain interviewees reported that permaculture was perceived as extremist by some, and felt proponents of the movement were sometimes associated to “hippies” or “freaks” (14%).

Given this philosophy is still relatively new, some farmers mentioned that it was still fairly unknown or misunderstood by the public (11%). Certain respondents also thought that some permaculture proponents were too dogmatic, and felt this contributed to marginalizing the movement (9%). All of these perception-related drawbacks with regards to permaculture being novel and radical were expressed by fully or moderately permaculture identified farmers. Finally, farmers mentioned the novelty of permaculture

49 meant a lack of scientific knowledge-base to gather best management practices from and actual environmental impacts (9%), as well as a lack of experts to resort to (3%).

Finally, a few respondents saw no drawback to permaculture when first prompted

(14%), all from the fully or moderately permaculture identified group.

Desired Changes to the Quebec Agricultural Sector

When asked what they would change about the current agricultural sector in

Quebec if they had the possibility to do so, farmer answers revealed three major recurring themes (Table 18): a desire for a more ecological agricultural landscape in general (53%), for changes in the subsidies programs that would encourage such farming (44%), and for changes in the centralized management of supply and trade union systems in Quebec

(38%).

With regards to transitioning to ecologically sound agriculture, respondents expressed their desire to see more small and diversified farms, as well as less large monocultures (26%). Chemical pesticides were also a concern among the sample (18%).

Some farmers felt that it was sometimes difficult to sell or buy local produce, and mentioned they would like to see proximity sales more encouraged (9%). An interesting suggestion coming from some interviewees was to have dedicated regions for organic agriculture (6%), to avoid pesticide or seed contamination from neighboring conventional farms. Some respondents also reported hoping GMOs could be banned in the province

(6%).

50 Table 18. Desired changes to the Quebec agricultural sector.

Theme Subtheme Description Count % of (/34) farms More ecological agriculture 18 53% Size and diversity More small and diversified farms, less large monocultures 9 26% Pesticides Less or no chemical pesticides 6 18% Proximity Encourage proximity agriculture (local sales) 3 9% Alternative More organic agriculture, permaculture, agriculture agroforestry 3 9% GMOs Ban GMOs 2 6% Organic region Dedicated areas for organic agriculture 2 6%

Subsidies 15 44% Organic Subsidize organic farming and certification 11 32% Conventional Conventional agriculture should have to pay 3 9% Diversified Subsidize diversified and innovative agriculture 3 9% Follow ups More follow up on grants for startups 2 6%

Centralized system in Quebec 13 38% Quotas Quota system should be more flexible, allow for more off-quota 11 32% UPA Farmers should have the choice of their trade union 5 15% Joint plans There should not be joint plans for direct sales 2 6%

Land access and affordability 3 9%

Research 3 9%

The single most frequent response to the changes in the Quebec agricultural sector question was the desire to have more subsidies for organic farming, particularly for the certification itself (32%). In fact, organic farmers have to expend considerable sums of money every year for this certification (between about $700 and $2,000 among participants of this study, depending on their yearly sales). This expense is not even partially reimbursed by the government, like it is in other places in the world.

Interviewees expressed the irony of having to pay to justify having agricultural practices that are less harmful for human health and the environment, and some (9%) even claimed

51 that it should be conventional farmers who have to pay a premium, to justify methods that are more damaging for the earth and human beings. Other subsidies-related responses included to have more financial incentives for diversified and innovative agriculture

(9%), as well as more follow up on grants for startup farms (6%). Indeed, at this time,

Quebec farmers can enjoy certain subsidies the first year that they farm, however there is little follow up help for subsequent years.

The other most frequent response was a desire to have the Quebec management of supply system through quotas be more flexible (32%). Notably, raising the off-quota limits would help small farmers diversify their income and drive a market for niche products without harming the demand for large-scale farms. Some interviewees also mentioned hoping to have the choice of trade union to represent them, as opposed to the current UPA monopoly (15%). Then, the joint plans program was also reported as something that could change, namely the fact that they should not be imposed for direct sales (6%).

Finally, respondents expressed a desire to have land be more accessible and affordable for farmers (9%), as well as more innovative agricultural research to inform practitioners about best management practices (9%).

Chapter IV

Discussion

Characterization of Permaculture Farms

The results validated the initial hypotheses that permaculture farms had more perennials than other farms, and that they were highly diverse in terms of functional systems and livelihood strategies. They also revealed that permaculture farms displayed high systems integration and particularly low human intervention at times.

More Perennials, Yet Annuals Were Still the Most Prominent System

Results show that permaculture farms had a stronger focus on perennials than non- permaculture farms, which is in line with the emphasis on perennial crops in the permaculture literature (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Shepard, 2013). Promoting the permaculture approach on a larger scale could therefore contribute to increasing the use of perennials in agriculture, which are valued for system efficiency and resiliency

(Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Shepard, 2013). The long period of establishment before some perennial species start yielding may have been a reason for non-permaculture farmers not to integrate them in their systems, or perhaps even not to adhere to permaculture principles in the first place, especially if they had a need for short term profitability.

Annual vegetables were still the most frequent and important farm enterprise in this sample, including for fully permaculture identified farms, which is similar to the results found in the United States assessment on permaculture systems (Ferguson &

53 Lovell, 2015b). It seems that despite the emphasis on perennials in permaculture systems, annuals still play an important role, both for self-sustenance and commercial purposes.

The main systems and enterprises implemented by farms in this study differed from the trend in Quebec, though, which is focused primarily on livestock, and where corn and soy are the most prominent crops (MAPAQ, 2014). Larger farms do have a competitive advantage in crops that require mechanization, whereas labor-intensive vegetable production can be more suited to small farms. One could also conclude that small diversified farms attribute more importance to community sustainability and therefore tend to opt for vegetables, rather than commercial crops.

More System Diversity and High Livelihood Diversity

Permaculture identified farms in this sample were significantly more functionally diverse than other groups – despite the overall sample already being highly diverse – in accordance with polycultures being such a prominent theme in the permaculture literature

(Mollison, 1988; Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Hemenway, 2009; Jacke & Toensmeier,

2005). Given the value of diversified systems for pest resistance, system interactions that reduce the need for external input, and climate resilience (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978;

Shepard, 2013), promoting permaculture could encourage these ecosystem services in the

Quebec agricultural landscape.

Livelihood diversity was also high in this sample, with a median of three enterprises per farm according to this study’s classification, similarly to the findings of the recent United States assessment on permaculture farms (Ferguson & Lovell, 2015b).

Note that these enterprise categories were broad, too, and that each one therefore likely

54 encompasses several enterprises (e.g.: “meat” could comprise pork, beef and chicken;

“education” could comprise tours, workshops and conferences; etc.).

Systems Integration and Low Human Intervention Level

In accordance with the promotion of system interconnections and self-sustenance by the permaculture philosophy, permaculture farms in this study displayed a high level of integration between production systems, and some had a particularly low level of human intervention. The relationship between system integration and profitability is yet to be seen. The fact that a very high proportion of low human intervention farms were profitable calls for deeper analysis of the practices on these farms in order to determine a set of best management practices.

Profitability

This study’s results validate the hypotheses that permaculture farms can be profitable, and that value added products as well as an organic certification contribute to economic viability. However, the hypothesis that larger farms would be more profitable was rejected by this study. Enterprise diversity was also found to limit profitability, and it seems propagation-based farms may be more likely to be profitable.

Permaculture Farms Are Profitable, Likely Even More than Conventional Farms

This study reveals that permaculture farms – more specifically, those that get at least part of their income from the products they farm – can indeed be profitable.

Comparing this study’s results to the Canadian farm profitability data seems to point in the same direction as the organic and conservation agriculture literature, whereas these

55 ecologically-driven approaches are even more profitable than conventional operations

(Cavigelli et al, 2009; Nemes, 2013; Pimentel et al., 2005; Jat et al., 2014). Although this study’s results do not allow to see whether permaculture farms are profitable at a greater degree than conventional farms, we do know that a higher percentage of permaculture farms in this sample were profitable in comparison to Canadian farms in general

(Statistics Canada, 2012). The reason why such a large proportion of non-profitable

Canadian farms stay in business may be due to subsidies. From that standpoint, and in light of the results of this study, permaculture farms might in fact be preferable for

Canada from a broad economics perspective.

The significantly lower average income for fully permaculture identified farms in comparison to non-permaculture farms in this sample could have pointed to their lower profitability, however the results for per acre revenues showed that these differences could have been due to larger farm size for non-permaculture farms. The fact that fully permaculture identified farms were younger could also explain these differences; similarly to conservation agricultural systems, economic benefits might take some years to be fully achieved (Jat et al., 2014).

The per acre gross income from farm products for fully permaculture identified farms was much lower than that found in France (Morel et al., 2015), however this could be explained by several factors, including the very small surface area on which that study was conducted as well as the longer growing season in France.

Value Added Products and Organic Certification Increase Profitability

A few different factors seemed to influence profitability in this sample. First, farms that had a higher percentage of their income from value added products as well as

56 certified organic farms both earned significantly greater revenues from farm products, validating my hypothesis. The higher output prices of organically-produced goods as well as transformed products allows farmers to achieve greater profitability, in accordance with the documented superior economic viability of farms able to charge a premium (Tey

& Brindal, 2015). Interestingly, however, certain interviewees believed that an organic certification was not always necessary to charge higher prices, e.g. in the case of direct sales, assuming the consumer would know the farm’s practices and trust the higher quality of the product. It remains to be seen, though, whether a certification would allow to attract more consumers who are willing to pay this premium, even in such a case.

Unequivocally, respondents of this study who had an organic certification expressed it was worth it for them, given it allowed them to sell all of their produce at a higher price, and that it fostered transparency with their customers.

Too Much Diversity Limits Profitability

Although the literature documenting the impacts of diversification on farm profitability was mixed, the higher profitability for farms with reduced livelihood diversity found in this study is similar to the results of certain papers that conclude in specialization being linked to greater profits (Tey & Brindal, 2015). This is in accordance with a perception shared anecdotally by a few farmers during the interviews: that diversity (i.e. biodiversity and enterprise diversity) is beneficial to a certain extent, but that too much diversity leads to losses in efficiency. Indeed, each species farmed might require different harvesting methods, different expertise, different marketing channels, etc. Certain farmers who had a particularly high level of diversity therefore reported noticing benefits from narrowing down their farm enterprises to some extent. However,

57 farmers should keep in mind that livelihood diversification helps reduce risk, and biodiversity in production systems can increase climate resilience, resistance to pests, soil quality and energy-use efficiency (Kremen & Miles, 2012). Producers should therefore strategically choose a limited number of crops and/or livestock, as well as farm enterprises, in order to maximize symbiotic interactions and to develop enough expertise in each commodity as to not compromise efficiency.

Going Bigger Does Not Increase Profits

The absence of correlation between farm size and profitability or income in this sample differs from the trend in the literature, which usually demonstrates greater profits for larger-scale farms (Tey & Brindal, 2015). This study’s results could be due to the fact that farms in the sample were not highly mechanized operations that benefit from economies of scale. In fact, a few interviewees reported noticing that “going bigger” did not necessarily mean earning greater profits, and also usually meant lesser quality of life.

In the case of small no- or low- mechanization operations, farmers have little to no employees and do most activities with hand tools. To upscale, they would need to hire more employees and/or purchase expensive machinery, therefore incurring substantially greater costs. This would also impose spending more of their time managing employees, doing administrative work to coordinate sales and deliveries, and operating machines, whereas small-scale farmers usually most enjoy spending time in the field. The permaculture approach to agriculture therefore appears as a viable option for smaller farms.

58 Seed Farms and Tree Nurseries Yield High Revenues per Acre

Aside from these conclusions related to my initial hypotheses, another observation can be made as per ways that allow greater farm profitability. It appears that propagation farms – namely, seed farms and tree nurseries – may constitute a business model that is more prone to being economically viable. Although no significant relationship was found between the percentage of income from propagation and profitability or total farm income, looking into the data offers different insights. Five of the six propagation-based operations in this sample were profitable; the only one that was not able to provide a salary to the farmer was established in 2014, and was on its way to profitability within the next year or two. These types of operations indeed tend to yield greater revenues per acre and therefore require less land surface area to generate profits. For example, one tomato’s seeds can be worth between $18 and $28, in comparison to approximately $1 to $1.50 for a medium-sized tomato meant for consumption. Moreover, saplings can be grown between about 1 to 4 per square foot depending on the species, and generally sell for $10 to $15 a piece. I therefore pose the hypothesis that seed farms and tree nurseries have the potential for being more profitable than other farms. Obviously, though, a greater proportion of production farms is necessary for ensuring community sustenance.

Motivations and Challenges

As per my initial hypothesis, lifestyle and conservation motivations were strong in this sample, along with other altruistic values. Farmers felt most challenged by labor- related issues, negating the hypothesis that economic viability would be their main challenge, although economics still represented a major constraint among the sample.

59 Lifestyle and Altruistic Motivations Explaining Conservation Practices

The strong conservation and lifestyle motivations from farmers in this study are in accordance with current literature, given this overall sample’s diversified and ecological agricultural practices. Positive environmental attitudes, environmental awareness, land stewardship, conservation values, as well as lifestyle motivations have indeed been related to adoption of conservation practices (Greiner et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 2003;

Prokopy et al., 2008; Farmer, 2011; Grover, 2013; Sassenrath et al., 2010; Ahnström, et al. 2008). Increasing conservation and lifestyle motivations among potential farmers in our society could therefore encourage the adoption of ecologically-driven approaches to agriculture, including permaculture. Given the small percentage of farmers in this sample that had agriculture as a family tradition, it seems these efforts should be directed to a wider audience, as opposed to current farmers only. Implementing environmental education as well as more time spent outside at each level within our educational system could increase conservation and lifestyle values among the next generation.

The “as a demonstration” motivation theme appears as a peculiarity from this sample that does not feature in the literature. Together with the “community” theme and most of the “conservation” motivations, it denotes a frequent occurrence of altruistic motives in this study, including for permaculture farmers. It seems these subjects were highly motivated by contributing to the greater good as opposed to personal interests only.

Interviewees motivated to undertake this project “as an opposition” also highlight a particularity from this sample, and constituted mostly fully permaculture identified farmers. Given permaculture’s holistic approach that provides solutions to more than strictly agriculture, one could suppose that permaculture farmers are particularly

60 dissatisfied with our current system and are attempting to find a viable model for society in a broader sense.

It is also interesting – and divergent from most of the farmer motivation literature

– that farmers in this study did not enunciate economic motivations, aside from two subjects that mentioned the need to provide for their family (Bowman & Zilberman,

2011; Sassenrath et al., 2010; Grover, 2013). Lifestyle, environmental and demonstrative motives therefore seem more important for permaculture farmers, and these might be willing to sacrifice profits for land stewardship, such as the documentation on sustainable agriculture adoption relates (Chouinard et al., 2008).

Labor and Economic Challenges

Although not a motivation to farm in the first place, it was clear that economic viability was a major concern for farmers in this study, including permaculture identified subjects. The literature places similar emphasis on economic constraints for farmers

(Bowman & Zilberman, 2011; Grover et al., 2013), although usually expressed as market- related challenges, which were not as prominent in our sample. Interestingly, the potential profitability of permaculture systems was demonstrated in this study, therefore economic concerns might not be as well-founded as was believed by these subjects. Continued efforts to clarify best management practices enabling permaculture systems to be economically viable, along with education, are therefore needed to reduce these concerns among potential farmers.

Labor-related challenges seemed more prominent in this sample than what is reported in the literature. Perhaps this is related to local particularities, whereby in

Quebec it would be especially challenging to recruit and retain qualified farm labor. In

61 2011, 81% of the population in the province lived in urban centers, which could contribute to this situation (Statistics Canada, 2013). A disproportionate number of non- permaculture farmers mentioned labor as a constraint. One could hypothesize that farms with a stronger business and production focus – i.e. most non-permaculture farms in this sample – have more labor-related challenges due to skill requirements.

Recommendations for Quebec Policy Makers

In light of the findings of this study, I propose the following recommendations to

Quebec policy makers to encourage permaculture-inspired farming.

Increase Environmental Education and Contact with Nature in the Educational System

At the basis of conservation agricultural practice adoption are environmental and lifestyle motivations. Integrating environmental science at the core of the educational system in Quebec, as well as increasing time spent in nature at school, would foster positive environmental attitudes as well as lifestyle values among the next generation, setting the stage for farming approaches such as permaculture to be adopted in the future.

Subsidize the Organic Certification

Broadly speaking, applying permaculture principles results in producing organic foods. However, only three self-declared permaculture farms in this sample had an organic certification. Many expressed believing it would not be worth it for them, given the high cost of the certification and the time requirements for filling out the paperwork.

Nevertheless, this study revealed that certified organic farms earned significantly more income than others. Subsidizing the organic certification would encourage more

62 permaculture-inspired farmers to get certified and could help them charge higher output prices for their products, enabling them to earn more substantial revenues and reducing their concern for economic sustainability. This would also allow for greater transparency towards consumers and facilitate better-informed purchase decisions.

Raise Off-Quota Allowances to those of Alberta

While the management of supply system had a commendable basis when first instigated – that is, of protecting producers from market fluctuations – it has now resulted in prohibitive quota values due to free market dynamics. Moreover, the low off-quota allowances in Quebec prevent from starting an off-quota farm enterprise that would be substantial enough in terms of revenues. Raising off-quota levels in Quebec to match those of Alberta, i.e. 2000 chickens, 300 laying hens, 300 turkeys and 50 L/day of milk

(Girouard, 2014), would enable farmers in the province to supplement their income substantially from these farm enterprises. Doing so would also diversify the current supply and fulfill market demands for niche products that are virtually inexistent at this time in the province, such as pasture-raised chicken, pasture-raised eggs, grass-fed milk and grass-fed cheese. Moreover, this would not penalize quota producers, given off-quota market shares would still be insignificant in comparison to the current total supply

(Girouard, 2014).

Allow for the Free Choice of Farmer Trade Union

Permaculture-inspired farms are different than the average Quebec farm in terms of size, type of crops and livestock, system and livelihood diversity as well as agricultural practices. For these reasons, current and aspiring permaculture farmers may feel like the

63 UPA – being a unified trade union for all producers in Quebec – does not represent their needs as well as it could. Having the free choice of farmer trade union would foster more diversity and equity in the Quebec agricultural landscape, and impose less barriers to current or aspiring permaculture farmers.

Limits of this Study

This study constitutes exploratory research about permaculture-inspired farms in

Quebec. Its results are therefore not necessarily representative of all permaculture farms in the province, nor of the rest of the world.

Indeed, the small size of the overall sample and of the different subgroups (i.e. permaculture identification groups, profitability groups) limits the applicability of the results to a larger population. Moreover, the fact that these subgroups were of uneven size constrains the relevancy of the comparative analysis. Some bias might also be linked to the snowball referral method for farm selection, due to the fact that this may have favored farms that were familiar to the public, which may not be representative of the overall permaculture-inspired farm population.

Furthermore, permaculture identification was subjective to the interviewee, and potentially not always descriptive of reality. For instance, a farm that identifies itself as permaculture might not actually fully apply permaculture principles, and vice versa. This may have hindered the comparative analysis between permaculture identification groups.

It should also be noted that the non-permaculture identified group was used as a point of comparison to the fully permaculture identified farms, but that they were still generally small diversified farms, and therefore not representative of the average farm in Quebec.

64 Time and resource restrictions in conducting this study put a limit on the level of detail gathered during data collection, and led to certain variables needing to be grouped into higher level categories (e.g. “perennials” and “meat” counted as one farm enterprise each although they might have encompassed numerous ones; “tree crops” counted as one functional production system although it may have been several; etc.). This also limited the possibilities of comparison and could be improved in further research.

The level of precision and availability of economic data varied widely across study subjects and was often quite restricted, which imposed some limitations to the economic analysis as well. In particular, data about costs and expenses was generally unavailable or quite vague; when it was available, the costs associated to specific enterprises was often unknown. I was therefore unable to deduct which enterprises were most profitable, or why they were. Also for this reason, profitability was merely categorized, in such a way that farms with a 40% profit margin were placed in the same category as farms with a 5% profit margin, for example. A higher level of detail would enable a more profound analysis and perhaps more useful conclusions. It should also be noted that the year of economic data gathered differed among farms interviewed, once again due to availability limitations. Had the year been the same for all farms, results may have been different.

Recommendations for Further Research

Further research is required to deepen understanding of the economics of permaculture-inspired farms, of the types of system they represent and of the motivational factors surrounding such projects. Collecting sociodemographic data – such as gender, age and level of studies – on the farmers undertaking these initiatives would provide

65 additional insights to this analysis. Moreover, a longer period for data collection would allow distribution of an online questionnaire in advance to a larger pool of potential candidates, in order to assess their self-identification with permaculture and to get a larger sample. This advance notice might allow farmers to have a higher level of detail of their costs and expenses during the interview, per enterprise if possible; or, the online preliminary questionnaire might enable the selection of farms that do have more cost data.

This would allow for a more nuanced economic analysis. In addition, if more time per interview was a possibility, using a mapping tool to record the spatial arrangement of production systems would provide further understanding of farm practices and of relative importance of systems in terms of surface area.

There also appears to be a need to elucidate some contradictions within perceptions of permaculture: is it really more efficient, or rather more labor intensive as some suggest? A way to shed light on this question could be to conduct a comparative analysis, in which permaculture and non-permaculture farms with similar crops would log in their hours doing different kinds of activities on the farm for an entire season.

Otherwise, taking the very low human intervention farms in this study that were also profitable, and analyzing them in more detail, could allow to come up with a set of “best permaculture practices” that promote efficiency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, permaculture farms can be economically viable, potentially even more so than conventional farms. These agroecosystems are diverse, display high systems integration, and have a greater focus on perennials than other farms, which are all aspects

66 that provide beneficial ecosystem services. Some permaculture farms have very low levels of human intervention yet are still profitable, hinting to system efficiency benefits.

This study reveals that organic certification and selling value added products could help farms achieve greater economic viability. Results also show that limiting diversity to a certain extent could contribute to farm profitability, and that operations do not need to get larger in size to become more profitable. The permaculture approach thus seems like a viable option for smaller farms.

Subjects in this sample were highly motivated by conservation, lifestyle and altruistic values. Promoting these in our society could therefore contribute to spreading the permaculture approach. In addition, interviewees felt most challenged by finding and retaining qualified labor as well as the economic viability of their farm. Efforts to clarify and educate farmers about best management practices that promote profitability in permaculture systems are therefore needed to reduce these concerns among potential producers.

Given the apparent ecological, economic and social benefits of permaculture- inspired farms, and in light of the findings of this study, I suggest for Quebec policy makers to encourage this approach to farming by achieving the following: (1) increasing environmental teaching and contact with nature in the educational system; (2) subsidizing the organic certification; (3) raising off-quota allowances to those of Alberta; and (4) allowing for the free choice of farmer trade union. A different set of rules is needed for small diversified farms such as permaculture farms, therefore it is incumbent upon policy makers to adapt the rules in order to facilitate these approaches to farming.

As Wendell Berry once said: “What we do to the land, we do to ourselves”. It is our choice as a society whether we wish to promote diversity, equity and health through

67 our agricultural sector. We are now witnessing a shift, a rise in motivated youth seeking to farm with ecological and community-oriented motives. Removing the barriers that restrain these aspiring farmers will benefit us all.

Appendix

Permaculture Principles

Reworded from Holmgren, 2002

Ethics

1. Earth care: Provision to ensure the continuation and multiplication for all life

systems.

2. People care: Provision to allow people to access resources necessary to their

existence.

3. Fair share: Setting limits to population and consumption to allow for the return of

surpluses to further the above principles.

Design

1. Observe and interact: Taking the time to understand and engage with nature

allows to design suitable solutions.

2. Catch and store energy: Developing systems that collect and store resources at

peak abundance to use them in times of need.

3. Obtain a yield: Ensuring that the work done is providing useful rewards.

4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback: Discouraging inadequate activity to

ensure the good functioning of systems.

5. Use and value renewable resources and services: Making the most of nature’s

abundance to reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources.

69 6. Produce no waste: The output of one system can be reused as the input of another.

7. Design from patterns to details: Using patterns in nature and our society as the

backbone of our design, and filling in with details as we go.

8. Integrate rather than segregate: Promoting connections between system

components so that they work together and support each other.

9. Use small and slow solutions: Small and slow systems are easier to maintain,

make better use of local resources and generate sustainable outcomes.

10. Use and value diversity: Diversity decreases vulnerability to threats and is a

reflexion of the unique nature of the local environment.

11. Use edges and value the marginal: The junction between elements is often the

most valuable, diverse and productive areas of the system.

12. Creatively use and respond to change: Change is inevitable – by working with

nature as opposed to against it, we can use change as an opportunity and have a

positive impact on the outcome.

References

Ahnström, J., Höckert, J., Bergea, H. L., Francis, C. A., Skelton, P., & Hallgren, L. (2008). Farmers and nature conservation: What is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(1), 38–47.

Altieri, M. A. (1987). Agroecology: The scientific basis of alternative agriculture (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.

Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2005). Agroecology and the search for a truly sustainable agriculture. Mexico: United Nations Environment Program.

Bowman, M. S., & Zilberman, D. (2013). Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology and Society, 18, 1–15. doi:10.5751/es-05574-180133

Cary, J. W., & Wilkinson, R. L. (1997). Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 48(1), 13–21.

Cavigelli, M. A., Hima, B. L., Hanson, J. C., Teasdale, J. R., Conklin, A. E., & Lu, Y. (2009). Long-term economic performance of organic and conventional field crops in the mid-Atlantic region. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(2), 102–119. doi:10.1017/S1742170509002555

Chouinard, H. H., Paterson, T., Wandschneider, P. R., & Ohler, A. M. (2008). Will farmers trade profits for stewardship? Heterogeneous motivations for farm practice selection. Land Economics, 84(1), 66–82.

Dimitri, C., Effland, A., & Conklin, N. (2005). The 20th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Information Bulletin (Num. 3).

Falk, B. (2013). The resilient farm and homestead. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Farmer, J. R., Knapp, D., Meretsky, V. J., Chancellor, C., & Fischer, B. C. (2011). Motivations influencing the adoption of conservation easements. Conservation Biology, 25(4), 827–834.

Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2014). Permaculture for agroecology: Design, movement, practice, and worldview. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34, 251–274. doi:10.1007/s13593-013-0181-6

71 (a) Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2015). Grassroots engagement with transition to sustainability: diversity and modes of participation in the international permaculture movement. Ecology and Society, 20(4), art39. doi:10.5751/ES-08048-200439

(b) Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2015). Permaculture as farming practice and international grassroots network: A multidisciplinary study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.

Fukuoka, M. (1978). The one-straw revolution: An introduction to natural farming. Rodale Press, Inc.

Girouard, B. (2014). Vers une gestion de l’offre 2.0 au Canada. Lachute, Québec: Union Paysanne.

Gliessman, S. R. (1990). Agroecology: Researching the ecological basis for sustainable agriculture. Ecological studies series (78th ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gliessman, S. R. (1998). Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Michigan: Ann Arbor Press.

Gouvernement du Québec. (n.d.). Loi sur le ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation. Retrieved January 16, 2016, from http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type= 2&file=/M_14/M14.html

Greiner, R., Patterson, L., & Miller, O. (2009). Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agricultural Systems, 99(2-3), 86–104.

Grover, S. (2013). Exploring motivations and perceptions of small-scale farmers: Considerations for sustainable agriculture in East Central Indiana (Unpublished Master of Science Thesis). Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

Hemenway, T. (2009). Gaia’s garden: A guide to home-scale permaculture (2nd ed.). White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Héon, G. H., Marion, J.-A., & Larue, A. (1956). Rapport du comité d’enquête pour la protection des agriculteurs et des consommateurs.

Hoffman, M., Lubell, M., & Hillis, V. (2015). Network-smart extension could catalyze social learning. California Agriculture, 69(2), 113–122. doi:10.3733/ca.E.v069n02p113

Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainability. Hepburn: Holmgren Design.

IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Summary for policymakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

72 Jacke, D., & Toensmeier, E. (2005). Edible forest gardens. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Jat, R. K., Sapkota, T. B., Singh, R. G., Jat, M. L., Kumar, M., & Gupta, R. K. (2014). Seven years of conservation agriculture in a rice – wheat rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Yield trends and economic profitability. Field Crops Research. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2014.04.015

Jones, C. (2003). Recognise relate innovate. (Rangelands Report). Armidale: Department of Land & Water Conservation, New South Wales Government. Jones, C. (2008). Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised. Australian Farm Journal, July 2008, 15–17.

Jones, C. (2010). Soil carbon - Can it save agriculture’s bacon? The Permaculture Research Institute.

Killham, K. (1994). Soil ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2007). Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy, 32, 25–48. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003

Kremen, C., & Miles, A. (2012). Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4).

Kroma, M. M. (2006). Organic farmer networks: Facilitating learning and innovation for sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 28(4), 5–28.

Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304, 1623–1627. doi:10.1126/science.1097396

Lamontagne, D. (2015). La ferme impossible. Montreal: Éditions Écosociété.

Lawton, G. (2016). Permaculture for profit. Retrieved on March 15, 2016 from http://geofflawton.com/videos/permaculture-for-profit/

Leake, J., Johnson, D., Donnelly, D., Muckle, G., Boddy, L., & Read, D. (2004). Networks of power and influence: the role of mycorrhizal mycelium in controlling plant communities and agroecosystem functioning. Canadian Journal of Botany, 82, 1016–1045. doi:10.1139/b04-060

Lubell, M., Niles, M. T., & Hoffman, M. (2014). Extension 3.0: Managing Agricultural Knowledge Systems in the Network Age. Society and Natural Resources, 27(10).

Magdoff, F. (2007). Ecological agriculture: Principles, practices, and constraints. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22, 109–117.

73 MAPAQ. (2014). Statistiques production. Retrieved December 20, 2015, from http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/Fr/Productions/md/statistiques/production/pages/prod uction.aspx

McIntyre B. D., Herren H. R., Wakhungu J., & Watson T. R. (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads (Synthesis Report). International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Ministère de l’Agriculture de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt. (2015). Contribution de l’agriculture à la lutte contre le changement climatique : lancement d’un projet de recherche international : le « 4 pour 1000 ». Paris.

Mollison, B. (1988). Permaculture: A designer’s manual. Tyalgum: Tagari.

Mollison, B., & Holmgren, D. (1978). Permaculture one: A permanent agricultural system for human settlements. Tyalgum: Tagari.

Morel, K., Guégan, C., Léger, F. (2015). Une ferme maraîchère biologique viable sans motorisation? Le cas d’une approche holistique inspirée par la permaculture. Retrived on September 23, 2015 from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal- 01200636v2

Muzzi, P., & Morisset, M. (1987). Les facteurs de réussite ou d’échec de l'établissement en agriculture au Québec. Québec: Groupe de recherche en économie et politique agricoles.

Napier, T. L., Tucker, M., & McCarter, S. (2000). Adoption of conservation production systems in three Midwest watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55(2),123-134.

Nemes, N. (2013). Comparative analysis of organic and non-organic farming systems: A critical assessment of farm profitability. (Trade and environment review 2013). Geneva: United Nations Publication.

Ngwira, A. R., Thierfelder, C., & Lambert, D. M. (2012). Conservation agriculture systems for Malawian smallholder farmers: Long-term effects on crop productivity, profitability and soil quality. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 28(4), 350– 363. doi:10.1017/S1742170512000257

Offermann, F., & Nieberg, H. (2000). Economic performance of organic farms in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, 5.

Parent, D., Ouellet, E., Perrier, J.-P., & Gagné, M. (2004). Établissement en agriculture de la relève agricole non familiale: trajectoires et facteurs de succès et d’insuccès. Québec: Traget Laval.

74 Paustian, K. (1996). Modelling soil biology and biochemical processes for sustainable agriculture research. In C. E. Pankhurst, B. M. Doube, V. V. S. R. Gupta & P. R. Grace (Eds.), Soil biota: Management in sustainable farming systems (pp. 182-193). Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO.

Pimentel, D. (2009). Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. In Integrated Pest Management: Innovation- Development Process (pp. 89–111). Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-8992-3_4

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55(7), 573. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2

Poirier, L. (2010). De l’histoire et de la politique agricole au Québec à l’émergence d’une agriculture soutenable (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC.

Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Klotthor-Weinkauf, D., & Baumgart-Getz, A. (2008). Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63(5), 300–311.

Pronovost, J., Dumais, M., & Tremblay, P. (2008). Rapport de la Commission sur l’avenir de l'agriculture et de l'agroalimentaire québécois. Retrieved from http://www.caaaq.gouv.qc.ca/documentation/rapportfinal.fr.html

Reicosky, D. C., Kemper, W. D., Langdale, G. W., Douglas, C. L., & Rasmussen, P. E. (1995). Soil organic matter changes resulting from tillage and biomass production. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 50(3), 253-261.

Rhodes, C. J. (2015). Permaculture: Regenerative – not merely sustainable. Science Progress, 98(4), 403–412. doi:10.3184/003685015X14467291596242

Roberts, R. K., English, B. C., Larson, J. A., Cochran, R. L., Goodman, W. R., Larkin, S. L., Marra, M. C., Martin, S. W., Shurley, W. D., & Reeves, J. M. (2004). Adoption of site-specific information and variable-rate technologies in cotton precision farming. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36(1), 143-158.

Ryan, R. L., Erickson, D. L., & De Young, R. (2003). Farmers motivations for adoption conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(1), 19–37.

Salatin, J. (1998). You can farm: The entrepreneur’s guide to start & succeed in a farming enterprise. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Sassenrath, G. F., Halloran, J. M., Archer, D., Raper, R. L., Hendrickson, J., Vadas, P., & Hanson, J. (2010). Drivers impacting the adoption of sustainable agricultural

75 management practices and production systems of the Northeast and Southeast United States. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 34, 680–702.

Shepard, M. (2013). Restoration agriculture. Austin: Mark Shepard.

Silvestro, M. (2006). L’histoire du syndicalisme agricole au Québec: un chantier déjà très balisé? Recherches Sociographiques, 47(1), 121–137.

Smith, J. R. (1929). Tree crops: A permanent agriculture. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Statistics Canada. (2012). 2011 Census of Agriculture. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/fra/ra2011/index

Statistics Canada. (2013). Population, urban and rural, by province or territory (Quebec). Retrieved February 27, 2016, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum- som/l01/cst01/demo62f-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2014). The financial picture of farms in Canada. Retrieved February 16, 2016 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ca-ra2006/articles/finpicture-portrait- eng.htm#A5

(a) Statistics Canada. (2015). Data quality, concepts and methodology: Glossary. Retrieved March 4, 2016, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-208- x/2012002/technote-notetech5-eng.htm

(b) Statistics Canada. (2015). Detailed average operating revenues and expenses of farms, by farm type, incorporated and unincorporated sectors, Canada and provinces. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&id=20044

Tey, Y. S., & Brindal, M. (2015). Factors influencing farm profitability. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 15, 235–255.

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418, 671–677.

Toensmeier, E., & Bates, J. (2013). Paradise lot: Two plant geeks, one-tenth of an acre and the making of an edible garden oasis in the city. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Tondreau, J., Parent, D., & Perrier, J.-P. (2002). Transmettre la ferme familiale d’une génération à l'autre: Situation au Québec et regard sur le monde. Québec: Agri- Gestion Laval.

UNCCD. (2012). Desertification, land degradation and drought: Some facts and global figures. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/WDCD/DLDD Facts.pdf

76 UNCTAD. (2013). Trade and environment review 2013: Wake up before it is too late. Geneva: United Nations Publication. doi:UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2012/3

Warner, K. D. (2008). Agroecology as Participatory Science: Emerging Alternatives to Technology Transfer Extension Practice. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(6), 754–777. doi:10.1177/0162243907309851

Yeomans, P. A. (1954). The Keyline Plan. Sydney: P.A. Yeomans.

Yeomans, P. A. (1958). The challenge of landscape : The development and practice of keyline. Sydney: P.A. Yeomans.

Yeomans, P. A. (1973). Water for every farm: A practical irrigation plan for every Australian property. Sydney: P.A. Yeomans.