The Land ReportA publication of The Land Institute | Number 69 | Spring 2001

Friends of the Land— Past, Present and Future

The Land Report 2

Our Mission StatementWhen people, land and communityare as one, all three members prosper;when they relate not as members but ascompeting interests, all three areexploited. By consulting nature as thesource and measure of that member-ship, The Land Institute seeks todevelop an agriculture that will savesoil from being lost or poisoned whilepromoting a community life at onceprosperous and enduring.

Contents

Looking Back on The Land Quarterly

Friends of the Land — Past, Present and Futureby Wes Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Soil Defenseby Henry A. Wallace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Need of Balanceby J.N. Darling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ohio Landscape, 1750 to Dateby Paul B. Sears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Honey Hollowby P. Alston Waring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

An Exchange Over a Cultural Divide:Letters Between Scientist Louis Brownand Writer Wendell Berry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Going to Workby Wendell Berry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

From An Epistle to Lord Burlingtonby Alexander Pope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Man Carrying Baleby Harold Monro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Wes Jackson’s Right Livelihood AwardAcceptance Speech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Deaths Noted:David Brower and Donella Meadows . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Looking Back and Forward: Invitation toThe Land Institute’s 25th Birthday Party. . . . . . . . . . 22

At the Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

About Writers, Photographers andSources in This Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Memorials, Gifts and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Prairie Festival 2000 Audiotape Order Form. . . . . . . 28

Become a Perennial Friend of the Land . . . . . . . . . . 31

The Land Report is published threetimes a year.

Editor: Wes JacksonAssociate Editor and Production:Elizabeth Granberg, Scott Bontz

Graphic Design: Arrow PrintingCirculation Manager: LauraUnderwood

Arts Associate: Terry EvansPrinted by Arrow Printing Company

STAFF: Ron Armstrong, MartyBender, Scott Bontz, Stan Cox,Elizabeth Granberg, StephanieHutchinson, Wes Jackson, JackieKeller, John Mai, Patty Melander,Joan Olsen, Chris Picone, BobPinkall, Steve Renich, AliceSutton, Laura Underwood,David Van Tassel, Ken Warren,Bev Worster

Above: Christopher Picone.A spore of the mycorrhizal soilfungus Scutellospora calospora,from the The Land Institute. Thespore is about 300 microns andspherical, but it has beensquashed on the microscope slide.Mycorrhizal fungi like this onehelp plants to take up nutrients,and they improve soil structure.

2440 E. Water Well Rd.Salina, KS 67401(785) 823-5376, phone(785) 823-8728, faxtheland@landinstitute.orgwww.landinstitute.org

ISSN 1093-1171

BOARD OF DIRECTORS: SallyCole, Terry Evans, Pete Ferrell,Charles Francis, Wes Jackson,Rhonda Janke, Eulah Laucks(Emeritus), Mary Laucks,Conn Nugent, Victoria Ranney,John Simpson, Donald Worster,Angus Wright

Back cover: Christopher Picone.Young wrens in The Land Institute’sworkshop, 2000.

The Land Report 3

The quotation that follows is not about the Friends ofThe Land associated with our organization. This oldergroup disbanded some 15 years before we beganin 1976.

On February 20, 1961, members of Friends of theLand became members of The Izaak Walton Leagueof America. On that day, Friends of the Land, as asociety, was formally dissolved and the Izaak WilsonLeague welcomed the responsibility of servingmembers of the society as members of the League.

This consolidation of Friends of the Land withothers sharing a concern for the “conservation ofsoil, rain and man,” followed a decision of thesociety’s board that the interests of its members andof conservation could be served best by so doing.

The Izaak Walton League salutes Friends of theLand’s great contribution to conservation thinkingand progress during its 21 years of productivehistory. The League warmly welcomes to itsmembership Friends of the Land who made thathistory. The League and those who led Friends ofthe Land believe that these new members will findin the League a continuing opportunity to serveAmerica’s natural resources — its soil, woods,waters and wildlife.

Friends of the Land was founded to help bringto an increasingly urban population an understandingof man’s utter dependence upon the living soil andthe miracle of water, and of man’s responsibilities tothese fundamental life-giving resources.

The Izaak Walton League of America wasfounded on such a principle. Dr. Preston Bradley,dean of the League’s 54 founders, has called this the“moral imperative” of our time.

With this joint background of principle, thisjoining of interest and dedication has created whatthe late Hugh Bennett has called “— a new meaning-ful opportunity for progress in conservationunderstanding and achievement.”

— Alden J. Erskine, National President,The Izaak Walton League of America

— Bryce C. Browning, Co-founder and Director,Friends of the Land

Did Bryce Browning fight back tears as he signedthis brave statement? The Friends of the Land had sunkso low it could no longer sustain itself. Twenty-one yearsearlier, on March 23, 1940, 60 leaders from many walksof life had met in Washington, D.C., to form this organi-zation “devoted to the conservation of soil, rain andman.” Less than a year later, the first volume of their

quarterly journal appeared (see cover). Kate and RussellLord devoted great energy to each issue. LouisBromfield, a famous novelist and famous for his MalabarFarm, about which he wrote a book with the same title,was a pillar. So was Aldo Leopold, author of A SandCounty Almanac (1949). Professor Paul Sears, alreadyfamous for Deserts on the March (1935), was a member.The founding chief of the Soil Conservation Service, theenergetic and imaginative Hugh Hammond Bennett, wasa main spark plug.

Knowing the historical reality and reading the wordsof those who were trying to put a positive spin on themerger, one has to ask, “Why did they have to merge?”William A. Riaski, in the May 1961 issue of OutdoorAmerica, described how these friends once “sponsoredand organized more than 100 national conferences andforums conducted in all parts of the country. They heldannual clinics on watershed management, institutes onsoil, food and health, country living, progress in conser-vation and tours of areas where conservation strodeahead.” They acquired Bromfield’s Malabar Farm tomake it a living conservation museum. Once the owner-ship was relinquished to the Malabar Farm Foundation,they dedicated themselves to seeing that the farm wouldbe continued in accordance with the objective Bromfieldhad initiated. Riaski’s sympathetic explanation of thedissolution follows:

The Friends of the Land board decided, in the Fallof 1959, that there were still too many conservationorganizations in the field; that it would contributemore effectively to the conservation cause if Friendsof the Land were to disband as an organization,throwing their weight behind a strong and vigorousgroup, such as the League.

Among my treasured possessions are the back issuesof the group’s fine old publication. I own them becauseof a few gifts and two expensive purchases from tworare-book dealers. Oklahoma State has a set, and so doesYale. Kansas State had already rid that institution of itsvolumes when I checked 25 years ago.

What is the point of all of this? What are we to makeof this history?• Given that 38 percent of the soils of the world are in adegraded condition and that each issue of that journalhad a section called “Other Lands,” should not theconversations have continued?

• It had poems written by farm wives — good poems,too. Where do they publish now?

• As mentioned earlier, it carried articles by Secretary ofAgriculture Henry Wallace, a great defender of rural

Friends of the Land — Past, Present and FutureWes Jackson

The Land Report 4

America, a great defender of soil conservation. (Hispiece from the first issue appears again here.) Wheredoes the secretary of agriculture submit articles tothese days?

• What about those clinics, those institutes, those fieldtours?I hope that our Friends of the Land know that we

are carrying on some of the work that the defunct groupfeatured. I was ignorant of the former organization untila few months after we began our operation nearly 25years ago, not until a local farmer from whom we hadpurchased our first wind generator came by with severalcopies of the quarterly journal. Once I started reading, Icouldn’t quit until through them, and I immediately setout to learn where I might see the rest. That is when Idiscovered what universities still had them.

You might ask, “What did that now-defunctorganization do wrong?” More than anything, I suspect,the times did it in. The seeming successes in agricultureduring the ’50s were the beginning of the problemsfacing us now. The fertilizer and pesticide industries werecranking up. Tractors had almost completely replaceddraft animals on the farm, which also added to the cost ofproduction, which in turn contributed to the exodus ofpeople from the land to the cities, which turned foodincreasingly into a commodity rather than the staff oflife, which in turn … which in turn … which in turn.

What about the future of The Land Institute and ourFriends of The Land? Lucky for us, we have never beenhealthier, financially, with an annual budget now nearly$1.2 million. We have a team of fine researchers andexpect to add two more in the next fiscal year. Ourfellows program will expand.

I think we will succeed because we have anorganizing paradigm, nature as measure, featuringevolutionary biology and ecology behind our researchagenda. Because of the broad research and developmentbase we are building, the current leadership can effort-lessly pass the torch. Our strong research and supportstaff will be there to see to it that the full spectrum ofresponsibilities gets met. We have no debt. We haveabout 12 months of cash reserves. We own 380 acres. Wehave a young and spirited staff. And for now, our stock isup. I am totally confident that those old Friends of theLand would be proud of us for building on their efforts,and that our efforts and those they inspired means thattheir efforts should not be read as a failure.

A Land Sampler and its AuthorsExamples of writing from The Land quarterly’s first yearare featured in the next eight pages. Henry Wallaceserved as both vice president and secretary of agriculturein the Roosevelt administration. J.N. “Ding” Darling wasa Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist for the Des MoinesRegister. Paul B. Sears authored several books, mostnotably Deserts on the March (1935). He served inseveral institutions of higher education, including theUniversity of Oklahoma, Ohio State and OberlinCollege, and founded the conservation program at Yale.P. Alston Waring was a farmer-subscriber to the journal,Morris L. Cooke president of the Friends of the Land,Jonathan Daniels an active member, and the Rev. VincentJ. Ryan a Catholic priest.

Right: Ted Sidey. Two Trees,Greenfield, Iowa, 1999.

The Land Report 5

We need to defend our soil from those who, inheedlessness or ignorance, do it harm from within aswell as from those who would seize upon it from with-out. We must formulate a new working philosophy ofAmerican land husbandry, one which emphasizes notonly the security of the soil itself as our basic resourcebut the ultimate security of all who live on this soil nowand for all the generations to come. Soil decadence,such as may now be seen on many once-powerful landsof this earth and over a depressingly large part of ourown country, is almost inevitably followed by social andpolitical decadence. We must guard and restoreAmerican soil as our great basic source of all productionand as a place of permanent and settled abode.

When Columbus first saw the eastern fringes of thiscontinent he found “the fields very green, and full of aninfinity of fruits.” And gold, he wrote, was everywhere,in the streams, at the very roots of the trees. The sameexcitement, the same greed and wonder, amountingoften to a natural intoxication, were expressed again andagain by explorers and hunters, by woodsmen andherdsmen, by trappers, speculators, and pioneer miners,merchants and farmers as the great white American soilrush swept West.

The excitement and the scrambling greed of our firstconquest of this soil was expressed not only in words, insongs, in brags, but also in action. Our pioneers hacked,burned and skinned great stretches of a wide, rich andwondrous land. They hurt our country badly, here andthere. But they did not have the power or the machinesto punish great stretches of good earth as terribly as wemodern farmers and developers did in the name ofpatriotism during the First World War.

It is useless to single out any one set of Americans— the farmers, the bankers, the land speculators, theagricultural teacher or scientist — and blame one groupor all of them for what has happened. We have all had ahand in it. It becomes us all to approach with a certainhumility the truly terrifying consequences and thechanged pattern of farming and living now required.Soil despoliation, or damage to water sources, or thedesecration of landscape by unsightly signs and struc-tures, is not brought about by deliberate malice of socialthugs. It is done with no thought of harm. We woundour country and threaten its future by thoughtless

actions which are in part a response to needs, but moreparticularly the product of an inherited way of thinking— or not thinking — about land.

We used to think that unless rills and gulliesappeared on the face of the land, the soil was still there,with no serious damage from accelerated erosion. Earlyin the present century Hugh Bennett, then of our Bureauof Soils, showed that smooth land may become barren.He detected and described this “sheet erosion” all theway from Virginia to Oklahoma.

We thought in the past that even if good land fell offin yield it could rather quickly be made rich again withmanures and commercial fertilizers. We know this is nottrue now — not when the “run-down” condition stemsnot simply from the removal of plant food by crops, butalso from soil erosion. Erosion removes not onlynitrogen, phosphorus, potash, and so on; it removes theliving soil itself. Jay A. Bonsteel, now of our SoilConservation Service, found this out and pointed it outbefore a Farmers’ Institute talk at Ithaca, NewYork, aquarter of a century ago. He had been looking at theground on the uphill and downhill sides of old stonefences in that part of the country. “The soil from thehigher-lying portions of the field,” he said, “has washeddown and has become lodged against the upper side ofthe fence to the depth of a foot or more; the soil hasbeen washed away from the lower side to the depth ofseveral inches.

“The man is cultivating a soil totally different fromthe one which covered that field eighty years ago. …Erosion (both by water and wind) is one of the agenciestotally destroying the validity of the hypothesis of soildeterioration as a result of the removal and sale of crops.… Wind alone, removing a thin layer, one-sixteenth ofan inch thick, each year from the surface of tilled landwould remove more mineral plant food per acre thanwould be taken away in a 35-bushel crop of oats or a tonand a quarter of hay.

“Isn’t it time to revise, somewhat, our preconceivednotions with regard to plant food removal by cropping;to look at the wind and the waters as the active agenciescausing soil deterioration? …”

Bonsteel said this on November 4, 1904. We havesomewhat revised our preconceptions since, but veryslowly and incompletely. At a number of our agricultural

Soil DefenseHenry A. Wallace

The Land, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1941)

The Land Report 6

experiment stations long-term measurements of soildepletion under different methods of cropping havebeen made meaningless by accelerated erosion.Experimenters have gone on for years noting the poundsof nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash removed by crops,without regard for the fact that on bald knolls especially,and through the field in varying measure, the topsoilthey were regarding as a fixed resource had literally runout on them. It is off in some other field now, or part ofa river-bed, or buried in the sea.

By the dawn of this century soil deterioration wasrather widely accepted as a fact. In Iowa and elsewheremen like Henry Wallace, my grandfather, and “TamaJim” Wilson, and Seaman A. Knapp, cried out against“soil mining” and prescribed more careful and diversi-fied farming as a stay against ruin. Their cure was, ingeneral, right. In the light of all that we know now, thesurest way to save soil is to get away from single-cropsystems, and to farm with an eye to the natural lay ofthe land, along its contours, with the steeper lands keptunder the binding cover of trees or grass. “The key,”said Dr. Thomas C. Chamberlin, before a Conference ofGovernors at the White House in 1908, “lies in due con-trol of the water which falls on each acre. … The high-est crop values will usually be secured where the soil ismade to absorb as much rainfall and snowfall as practi-cable. … This gives a minimum of wash to foul thestreams, to spread over the bottom lands, to choke thereservoirs, to waste the water power, and to bar up thenavigable rivers. The solution of the problem … essen-tially solves the whole train of problems running fromfarm to river and from crop production to navigation.”

The newborn Forest Service labored mightily tomake the public erosion-conscious, and in some part theeffort succeeded. But there was still little understandingof the subtler devastation wrought on open farmland bysheet erosion. This sort of erosion is rare in forests;most of the agitation was against a visible gashing andcrumbling of denuded hills and mountainsides. It wasnot generally known at the time that even so-called “flatlands” with long, slight slopes, as on the plains andprairies, was also going out on us at an alarming rate.

Topsoil, then, is not immovable or static. It is asemi-fluid, forever moving, forever changing its form.The wind whips at the drier parts above and even inhumid parts moves topsoil. Even more insistently andseriously the push of water drawn downward by gravita-tion keeps topsoil moving and changing. And oncetopsoil is drowned, in a stream or lake or river or inshoals under the sea, it is dead soil, lost to farming. Forsoil like man must breathe air and receive sunshinedirect to stay alive and produce issue ashore.

In the uplands where floods … teach a lesson bythrowing across practically every foot of land underforest or natural grass cover an interlacing system of

tiny dams. A dead leaf, a blade of grass, or a root tanglecan stop a raindrop from running, hold it back; andfloods are made of raindrops, infinitely multiplied.

Wise land use is simply an adaptation of nature’sconservation and flood-control methods to the condi-tions of advanced cultivation. Instead of leaving fieldssmooth and bare, inviting erosion, the idea is rather toroughen the surface, turn the earth itself and the plantsthemselves into impediments to run-off, protectors ofthe soil. By the simple device of plowing and cultivatingaround the hill, on the contour, instead of up and downthe hill, each furrow, each harrow scratch, becomes ineffect a small dam or terrace. On steeper slopes some-what more elaborate methods may be needed, but theprinciple of all of them is simple: To make runningwater walk, or creep, to store a far greater part of it inthat greatness of all fresh-water reservoirs — the soil;and to do this by making the soil and its crops provideas impediments to run-off millions of natural little dams.Agriculture cannot offer a substitute for flood-waterfortifications downstream; but it can offer a multitude ofreinforcements upstream, where the raindrop falls uponthe land.

A specialty, Huxley remarked years ago, should notbe a door between the specialist and all the rest of life,but a window through which he may view the spectacleas a whole and grow in wisdom. To agriculturists — allof them, from soil physicists to anthropologists and fieldworkers for Farm Security — this observation offersurgent challenge. Natural life outdoors is all of a part.So again, all of a part with outdoor processes is themore artificial life in cities. To cover the earth withcement, to strike the foundations of great stone or steeltowers down to bedrock does not cut NewYork City orChicago or Boston or San Francisco out of the naturalcycle. The soil of great cities is mainly sealed from theweather. There is no soil erosion there; erosion takesother forms. And surely there is a connection between alapse of faith and spirit in great metropolitan centers andtorn, partly wasted lands outside. The torn land providesa diminished sustenance not only for the people whowork it, but also for these millions who have removedand sealed themselves apart from and above bare, yield-ing earth. No less than the farmer the city man is livingon soil and its products. And when the uncovered soiland its products diminish, the cities feel it too. Aneroded soil leads to an eroded spirit all along the line.

Conservation is not something which can simply beordered and paid for. Conservation is a way of life;people have to change their minds, their attitudes, theirways. “We must educate, we must educate” — so ran asentence in McGuffey’s Fifth Reader— “or we perish inour own prosperity.” It takes time; and a first require-ment is that the educator face changed conditions andchange his own mind and ways. We must think in terms

The Land Report 7

of a living unity before our paper plans of coordinatedorganization can amount to much. By thinking in termsof “a living unity” I intend to suggest nothing mysticalbut only a foundation fact. Everything is made of ourMother, the Earth. Man is part of the living landscape,made of the same materials, molded by the same naturalprocesses and laws. His body, his thoughts and his spiritare a product of that landscape, that sun, soil, wind andair. We are slowly learning to think in terms of a newscience called ecology, in terms of inevitable relation-ships — to recognize that all things under the sun —the clouds, the rocks, the soil, the streams; and thepeople and the spirit of the people — are all of the samegoing concern.

It would sometimes seem that tobacco, corn andcotton, all plants that we took from the Indians when wetook their continent, have taken a rather horrible revengeon us under our clean-culture, straight-line methods oftillage. There are not many parts of even so-called flatland which can be farmed on the square and the soilremain stable. Central Illinois has some such land; buteven there it would be safer not to impose straight fur-rows upon it. Contour plowing and cultivation would besafer, both to prevent soil displacement and to make thatsoil absorb more water. And on straight-plowed corn-land that looks equally level in southern Illinois, ArthurMason discovered serious sheet erosion more than 20years ago. From many places on fields not 50 yearscultivated he found that half or more of an 18-inchtopsoil had washed away. “Agricultural regions withcloudy streams,” Mason announced, “are, must be,temporary. Agricultural regions with clear streams are,must be, permanent. Is the United States a permanentcountry like North Europe? Is there any type ofagriculture which will prevent or substantially retard thisslow bleeding to death?” The answer, he felt, was toabandon clean-tilled corn culture altogether, mat theprairie with a solid sward of leguminous grass and feedthat to livestock, dehydrated.

When at Versailles statesmen disputed; even as thegreat powers buried their dead, known and unknown;and American boys returned from the battlefields ofFrance to resume civilian occupations, Mason issued acall for a new kind of warfare. “How cheerfully ouryoung men went into a great war for posterity’s sake,”he cried, “how languidly they hear of this more terribleenemy, insidious, undramatic, draining the nation’sblood, the soil — the body of the soil itself, away tothe sea!”

And speaking more quietly in a book, The HolyEarth, published as the First World War was raging, thatgreat agriculturist and prophet of earth, Liberty HydeBailey, declared the wickedness of wounding land, andthe awful consequences. “We come out of the earth,”said Dr. Bailey, “and we have a right to the use of thematerials; and there is no danger of crass materialism ifwe recognize the original materials as divine. … We arenot to look for our permanent civilization to rest on anyspecies of robber economy. … One does not act rightlytoward one’s fellows if one does not know how to actrightly toward the earth.”

Dr. Bailey made plain what we all know to be true,instinctively; that there is such a thing as the ethics ofagriculture, and a morality of agricultural statesmanship;also, that in the First World War our record as farmersand statesmen was, on the whole, bad. It is bothastonishing and humbling to look back now andconsider how, with even as much as then we knew aboutaccelerated erosion, we farmers and agricultural peopleconsented to the plowup of unsuitable acreage, thedeforestation and cropping of unsafe slopes, a generalheadlong over-cropping, both during the war and in thepumped-up boom days afterward. It was all done amidexcitement and for the most part heedlessly. We skinnedour land and piled the crops overseas. We reducedconsiderable areas thousands of miles from the battlelines to the appearance of battlefields, blasted andpitted; and what in the end did we have to show for it?Paper payments, and pretty soon most of the paperwent bad.

We know better now and we have new equipment.We have machine equipment. It has helped tear soildown, but may also be turned, we see now, to the task ofdefense, to build soil up again. We have new humanequipment, young people with trained minds and a newconcept of serving the land and democracy. And wehave new human organizations, new social implementsafield.

It is not too much to say that many years from now,when the last one of us who remembers the World Warof 1914-1918 is gone, sizable parts of our country, andthe people there, will still be suffering in some measurefrom the wounds that war dealt American soil. Let usnever make that mistake again. If we are looking for “amoral equivalent for war” this may be one of the basiccommon causes in which we all can join.

The Land Report 8

We have already more conservation organizations thanwe have conservation. They have failed in the pastbecause of general habit of bird specialists talking onlyto bird conservationists, forestry experts talking only tothose who are tree conscious, soil technicians talking tothose interested in land, and water conservationists, ifany, talking in terms of hydraulic power and urban usesto people whose chief interest lies in exploitation ofnatural resources rather than balanced management.

There is still a great need for organization in thefield of conservation. May Friends of the Land succeed,where the others have failed, in arousing an apatheticand self-satisfied nation to a realization of the tragicconsequences which are certain to follow the continueddebauchery and ignorant mismanagement of ourcontinental resources.

No nation was ever more criminally wasteful and nopeople were ever more heedless of its consequences.

No subject is more vital to our national welfare thanan intelligent and comprehensive national conservationpolicy. It is more important than the political bickerings

of either major party, for certain it is that the best oftheories of government, sociology, and economics breakdown when natural resources are exhausted and pull thestandards of living down with them.

Europe is furnishing us a conspicuous object lessonin this most discouraging period of modern civilizationwhen international covenants are worthless and thewhole world has turned to international brigandry overthe possession of sufficient natural resources to sustaintheir swollen populations.

We will be worse than stupid if in this country wedo not take warning and intelligently conserve our ownnatural resources before the margin of our humandistress gets too wide to handle.

“Grapes of Wrath” need not have been writtenif Friends of the Land had been successfully organizeda hundred years ago and this nation had heededits message.

I fervently hope for our success and will do all inmy power to aid.

The Need of BalanceJ. N. Darling

The Land, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1941)

Sheet and gully erosion andsilting in Illinois during the firsthalf of the 20th century.From Soil Conservation.

The Land Report 9

I have just finished a study of conservation in my ownstate of Ohio. This study will be buried in more or lesselaborate if not recondite publication. But it has turnedup some facts which seem to me quite interesting andimportant enough to be placed where they may do moregood. I shall have to take our Editor at his word, andpass these facts along in the form of a brief personalcommunication, for I do not have time to organize anddress them in more pretentious fashion.

If we use the word land in its broadest meaning, itseems to me that the whole business of conservation canbe boiled down to three factors: (a) land, (b) population,and (c) pattern of living. Since 1750 the land area ofOhio has not changed. New resources have come tolight, for example, coal and oil. Many of the originalresources have disappeared; others have been seriouslyimpaired. Population has grown from about 10 thousandto about 7 million — that is, it has increased 700-fold. Ilike to get some idea of what this means by imaginingthe 6 dogs on our two city blocks increased to 4200 inthe same area.

While these changes have been going on, the patternof living in Ohio has changed from a simple economy ofhunting, gardening and barter to a highly developedneotechnical and financial pattern of urban life. For eachIndian there were about 2500 acres apiece; for each oneof us today, there are fewer than 4 acres.

When Ohio was settled, it was over 90 per centforest. Today there is not more than 17 per cent forest,which recent surveys show to be less than 50 per centefficient. Ohio now consumes 10 times as much timberas she furnishes. In 1880 with perhaps a quarter of thestate still forested, there were about 3000 factories,exclusive of sawmills, which were using wood as a rawmaterial. By 1929 these factories decreased to 526.About 1880, a group of men from Cincinnati andColumbus tried to interest the state in a forestry policy.Instead of doing anything, the State voted a thousanddollars and forgot the matter for several decades. Hadthese men been listened to, 60-year-old logs inabundance would now be rolling to the mills. When Itold a steel man the other day what this means in termsof raw materials for essential industries, he could hardlybelieve it.

With the help of Professor C. M. Finfrock ofWestern Reserve Law School, I have been able to goover all of the legislation of the State which has to dowith conservation. Until 1850 the only concern of thelawmakers so far as trees were concerned was to preventthieves from stealing valuable trees which did notbelong to them. Between 1850 and 1900 there was nolegislation of importance except the brief flurry soonafter 1880, which included a petition to the FederalGovernment to reduce the duty on imported timber soour own factories could get it more cheaply. Since 1900,beginning with the establishment of Arbor Day, therehas been a good deal of legislation, much of it moreinspired by the Federal Government than by localinitiative. We are not yet facing the problem in anyserious or honest way.

Ohio Landscape, 1750 to DatePaul B. Sears

The Land, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1941)

Above: Paul Sears visitsWes Jackson in 1977.

The Land Report 10

As the forest fell below a level of 25 per cent of theState’s area, legislation on weeds, briars, pests, and plantdiseases began to appear. This was indubitable evidenceof a profoundly disturbed landscape. Even here the law-makers lumped together all sorts of growth and requiredthe farmer to “clean up” his line fences and highwayboundaries. In doing so, of course, cover and food forgame animals was destroyed on top of the destruction offorest. Frantically our sportsmen spend nearly a milliondollars a year, much of it in the forlorn hope that ourexcellent Conservation Department can conjure gamebirds and animals back on to a landscape which will notsupport them.

Laws on wildlife have mushroomed since the daysof the Civil War. Before that time they were mainlyconcerned with protecting the fur trade and killing offwolves. But since our forest area has dropped below 50per cent, as it did just before the Civil War, everysession of the Legislature sees some new and futileeffort to legislate wildlife back to life. Wild pigeonswere not protected until 1876, just a short time beforethe last great roost was blasted to pieces near Petosky,Michigan.

No less interesting is the legislation on water andfish. Previous to the Civil War, the main concern of theLegislature seemed to be drainage, but thirty years laterthan the first drainage law came the first of a flood offlood legislation, which has continued since. Just abouta generation after that came laws looking toward thesaving of water, and those laws are still going strong.The past half century has seen many laws on streamsanitation but the most of our rivers are still opensewers, muddy and flooded in spring, often dry andstinking in midsummer. As with wildlife, so with fish,each session of the Legislature since Civil War days hastried to make it possible by vote to bring fish back intostreams robbed of their waters by drainage, unprotectedby forest, and contaminated by increasing urban pollu-tion. Yet we laugh at the incantations of the primitiveshaman who, by his magic, is supposed to insure goodhunting and fishing for his tribe.

All that I have said sounds like a gloomy picture. Itwould be possible to point out that since 1900 andespecially since 1930 there has been an increase inorganizations, in state parks and forests, in reservoirs,and in cooperation with the Federal Government. Ohiois by no means a backward state. It ranks high in wealth,literacy, and civic pride. But it is fair to say that it hasdone little more to date than make polite gestures in thedirection of conservation. So far as soil is concerned, itdoes not yet have a real provision for organizing soilconservation districts. It has to be content with what soilconservation can be dragged in as individuals cooperatewith the A.A.A. program. The southeastern part of thestate has suffered heavily from soil erosion. Much ofthis area has been complacently written off as lost to

agriculture by the happy farmers in the rich rollingagricultural area of central, northern, and western Ohio;but anyone who knows their country well sees that it toohas suffered enormously by sheet erosion and will someday pay the penalty for its neglect.

I think these facts may be of interest to some ofyour readers, not as an indictment of my wonderfulstate, but as a reminder that even in the most prosperousand advanced parts of the country the damage has beenfar greater and the peril to the landscape remains morereal than most of us are willing to concede.

Notes from The Land’sFirst Issue

Nobody expects as much excitement now overa gully as over a gun. Certainly conservation is notcompeting with preparedness. But it is time peoplebegan to realize that conservation is a part ofpreparedness. … Once war is here we cannot stopto count the consequences of cutting down the pinetrees — to weep for the washing of our hills intoour rivers. But we can recognize that in anyintelligent program of preparedness that ourstrength is still in our earth.

— Jonathan Daniels, in The Nation,August 31, 1940

We are going to publish The Land, ourmagazine, as a quarterly review, supplemented byintervening news letters. … We are going to workagain, and work hard. … We would be derelict inour duty if we did not, at any personal sacrifice,resume an active program. We ask yourearnest support.

— Morris L. Cooke

The National Catholic Rural Life Conferenceis striving to restore rural living the dignity andrespect which belongs to it. … In almost everysection of the Nation one observes progressive lossof ownership, and an emergent proletariat of farmlaborers, share croppers, and even tenants. … Ablight has fallen upon the land which tends todestroy everything that is beautiful to behold. …The farm provides the conditions for wholesomefamily life. The city on the other hand has becomethe graveyard of the family. … To be a Christian oran agrarian is to believe that people can be inducedto follow the course necessary to preserve ourcivilization.

— Most Rev. Vincent J. Ryan

The Land Report 11

Honey HollowP. Alston Waring, Pennsylvania

The Land, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1941)

Honey Hollow is a little watershed of the DelawareValley. I farm one of its six adjacent farms.

We are only six men and we farm only about 900acres all told, a very small effort to be sure. But I thinkwe have discovered something as we have worked,which may be of general interest, and it is about thisthat I want to write to you rather than to relate howmuch run-off we have checked by our strip cropping orterraces or whether we have increased yield per acre byour changed methods. Quite frankly we don’t know theanswers to these things as yet. But we do know that bygetting together, the six of us, and by thinking of ourproblem on a watershed basis we have made a realbeginning on a conservation job which may in the longrun bear some real results.

When we first saw the map of our watershed, whichthe Soil Conservation Service helped prepare, I thinkmost of us were struck by the boundary line which cutoff our farms from the surrounding countryside. It was aboundary line which we had never seen on any map ofour township because, of course, it never had beendrawn before. It was not just the boundary of two ormore or even six of our farms. Here was a new area asfar as our thinking about it was concerned, the areacreated by our stream. All the land within that boundarysloped into Honey Hollow Creek, and all of us wholived within it had something in common. Up to nowour farms had been just six separate parcels of land.Now they were of a piece, belonging together. Here wasa new thought, and it took a map to drive it home.

Naturally six men, accustomed to farming their ownfields, did not suddenly jump into cooperative methodsbecause of a map. But we did see that there was arelationship between our fields, created by the stream,and we began to see that this relationship meant that weought to do certain things according to a plan, at least asfar as erosion control work was concerned.

If you should come to visit us some day and walkup to the crest of the hill on my neighbor’s farm youcould look out over a hill-side and valley where most ofthe fields follow the contour of the land in alternatingstrips of fall and spring crops. There are two sets ofterraces on our watershed, also, and we are developingsome sod-ways which cut across boundary lines. Wehave only been at this about a season and a half, butalready the plans on our maps are getting established on

the land and more conviction as to their rightness in ourminds. Perhaps it will take three good years or evenmore before we get completely shifted over to thisnewer way of doing things, and then maybe we’ll go onadjusting our rotations to different factors as we learnthem. The thought, I believe, which we are graduallygetting is that we are not just trying to hold moisture oreven soil in order to get better yields. We are doing this,but we are also slowly building a permanent agricultureon our farms, an agriculture which, as far as the land isconcerned, will be secure for us and for our children.

When some soil auger tests were made on ourwatershed we were right deeply impressed by the speedwith which soil can move away and be lost and whatthis might mean for our security and the security ofwhoever might farm this land after us. We knew that thiscountryside had been farmed since it was opened up toagriculture in the early eighteenth century, and becausefarming generally in this part of our state has alwaysbeen considered of high grade we suspected that littleerosion had taken place during the years. We are dairy-men and poultrymen and general farmers, and we rotatecrops and return manure and grow grass and do most ofthe things considered good farming practice. But ourwatershed test showed that more than half of ouracreage had already suffered from 25 to 75 percent topsoil loss. And when we looked it up we discovered thatthis corresponded with the figures for the whole state ofPennsylvania where around half of the rural land hasfrom 25 to 75 percent loss of top soil. This was startlingindeed, and I think the knowledge has spurred us on tomore effort.

Of course, we had our worries about whetherconservation methods, no matter how important or howeffective, weren’t just too disruptive of our old and wellestablished ways of doing things. And we didn’t want toget into anything which was going to cost a lot or into amethod of farming our fields where our machinerywould not work. We wondered about plowing andharvesting on the contour, we dreaded point rows incorn, we were told that our farms would get cut up intoa lot of little patches, and that there were left smallcorners hard to get at which resulted in land lost toproductive crops.

We went into soil conservation with a good deal ofquestioning and some reservations, but as time has gone

The Land Report 12

by we have learned that the change was not sodisruptive as we had feared and that it is not more costlyto farm on the contour than on square fields or that wecan’t use our same machinery. Perhaps if I tell you thestory of my neighbor, Charlie, and his potato field, youwill get some idea of the conviction we are getting thatwe are on the right track.

Last fall we were husking corn in adjoining fieldsand stopped to talk about this conservation we werebeginning to practice. I asked him how he was liking it.

After a bit Charlie stopped husking and dumped abasket of corn in the wagon. “I like it,” he said, andsounded more positive than I had expected. “I think it’sreal good.”

Ordinarily this is about all Charlie would have said,but somehow he seemed full of his subject. While wehusked together he went on. “You know that slopingfield behind the house where I planted the potatoes thisyear? Well, I planted it on the contour, and I wasn’t sureat all whether it was going to do any good or not. Alongin June a gullywasher hit us, the only soaking rain wehad all summer. I reckon you remember it?”

I remembered it all right. It was one of those rainsyou don’t easily forget, drenching, with wind behind it.

“Well,” said Charlie, “in the middle of that rain Ihad to see what was going on, I just had to. So I ran outof the house to look at my potatoes, and all those curvedfurrows between the spuds were standing in water, and

the water was clear! After a while the rain stopped, butthe water kept standing in those furrows until it soakedin the ground. If you’d have walked out in that field as Idid you’d have seen that there wasn’t a wash in it, andnot a plant covered.”

“I’m just as sure as anything,” Charlie added as Iwas leaving, “that that rain and those curved furrowsmade my potato crop. We didn’t get any more goodrains that summer and I figure there wouldn’t have beena crop if the water had not been caught and held whereit was.”

Shortly after I heard that another one of ourneighbors who does not live in our watershed had toldCharlie that he couldn’t afford to do conservation workbecause you wasted too much land in corners. Charlie’sanswer was: “I’d rather waste a few square feet of landnot planted and make a good harvest than the other wayaround.” Looking at Charlie’s potatoes roll out this fall Ishould say there is no answer to that argument.

The men here in Honey Hollow are beginning to geta new idea about their farming. It seems to me they arebeginning to develop a permanent agriculture. We mighthave a long way to go to really do all the things whichwould make our farming so sound and good and durablethat our families could go on living here successfullyand happily for many years to come. We might havemuch to do, but we know it now. We have the idea, andwe are working on it.

Contour cultivationand strip croppingin Coryell County,Texas, May 1938.From SoilConservation.

The Land Report 13

An Exchange Over a Cultural DivideLetters Between Scientist Louis Brown and Writer Wendell Berry

August 11, 2000Washington, D.C.

Dear Professor Berry,

Thank you for your letter of 8 August, which I readwith great interest. In many respects I think we havemore regions of agreement than controversy. As is usualin these things, so much turns on the meanings andinterpretations placed on words. I hope this reply doesnot cause you to regret having answered me, butcertainly your one letter went beyond what courtesyrequired, and you certainly know how to dispose oftroublesome letters.

First, let me take care of the simplest questions youraised. I am 71 and do not feel old in any way exceptthe all-too evident signs of mental deterioration thatseem to be the consequences of age. I do feel old when Iencounter the prevailing culture, which seems by defaultto be that of the very young and which I avoid as muchas possible. Unlike some of my friends, who see in it theend of civilization, etc., I do not get particularly workedup about it; indeed it rather amuses me, but it is notmine, so I feel old. It is definitely the culture of themany young people I know at work and it fits them. Weget along well together, but in many respects it is similarto living in a foreign country in which one knows thelanguage but is still a foreigner.

Your description of young scientists as “a group sohighly privileged and paid” would certainly startle them.My generation had it much better than the youngscientists of today, but still I was 40 years old before Ihad tangible assets equal to a month’s pay. My wife andI are now comfortably fixed, primarily the consequenceof having had no children and living modestly withoutdebts. When I got my appointment with Carnegie in1961 it was on the basis of a meeting and a handshake.For the same postdoc position today — for which Iwould certainly not be selected — a committeeexamines about 100 applicants, picking the very goodfrom the very good. Those accepted immediately beginhunting for the next job, one they desperately hope willlead to something with stability. In far too many casesthey have the complications of a two-profession, evenworse, a two-scientist marriage. It is much more of abuyer’s market than when I left graduate school in 1958

and wages reflect it. Our department now employs fourtechnicians with Ph.D.s in science from good schools.The director paused long before allowing it, but theyprefer that to the alternatives, which is some high-techcompany in the suburbs. This is true for any work thatreally satisfies the soul. This was behind my statementthat “they like their world and are not afraid of it.” Minewas much easier, but then I never went through schoolas a continual competition. What I would do today wereI young, I do not know, but then I am not young andconsequently do not see matters from a young pointof view.

A second clarification. I find science moredependent on the industrial revolution than the reverse.The industrious mechanics who made that revolutionwere from an engineering culture that dated fromclassical times. Other parts of Western culturedisintegrated during the Middle Ages but engineeringcontinued to develop. Learning to work large amountsof iron with cookbook metallurgy finally allowed themechanical revolution. I spent much of the last decadeexamining the history of radar and learned to myastonishment that science contributed very little otherthan the electronics that filled the engineers’ handbooks.Physicists are, unfortunately, willing to take the credit;that is even a main thesis in a chapter of a prize-winningbook by Kevles entitled The Physicists. Radar grewdirectly out of the technology that had been developedfor television and as such may be the only militarytechnology that has risen out of a civilian one — it hasalso been of greater benefit to humanity than the civilianone from which it came.

By lumping science and technology together youare, of course, justified in the usual approach (I do somyself where the context calls for it), but the differencebetween your 4,000-year-old hunter-gathers along withmy intelligent mechanics and engineers is that thescience of the last 400 years has provided us with anunprecedented understanding of where we stand in theuniverse. And it is an understanding that has very muchknocked the arrogance out of our species! Prior to thattime the entire Western culture assumed withoutquestion that we were the kings of the universe. Godhad made us in His image (quote Mark Twain: “Nowwho do you suppose thought that up?”). That we werehere to rule the lesser races was seldom questioned evena century ago. Two centuries ago slavery was rarelyopposed; it had survived through all previous humanistic

The Land Report 14

teaching, which seldom even condemned it. A centurybefore that the lowest stations in Europe had almost norights. The human race has indeed become vastly more“humane” since the Renaissance, something not evensuggested in any previous part of our history nor in anynon-Western culture of importance. This has come aboutbecause science — as opposed to cookbook experience— has shown us our true place in the universe, and it isan insignificant one.

Your letter and book tell me of your affection forfarming, of the love of a farmer for his land, plants andanimals. There is satisfaction in doing such work. Thatis something I can completely understand, not with theagricultural part but with the satisfaction of doing animportant piece of work well. (My father was a westTexas sheep rancher, who died when I was six, afterwhich his sister ran the place and I spent summers there.I loved my father dearly but could never understand whyhe wanted to do that when he could have run an engineon the railroad. My aunt and I broke over my directionin life.) This destruction of time-honored work troublesme more than environmental worries, which havegripped a growing fraction of humanity and will forcesolutions. (I suspect you disagree.) Forty years ago mywife and I were passengers on freighters for a total offive weeks and saw the last vestige of one of the oldestand proudest professions of human existence. It is gone.Seamen are now industrial workers, having finally lostto electronics their proud abilities to find their way uponthe waters. Ships have crews to make repairs and tosatisfy insurance companies for fire dangers. What achange from just a century ago, when boys still ranaway to sea. I gather the modern farmer has sufferedalmost as severely. Then there are the people who lovedrunning their small, independent stores. And then thereare … . The most important thing in life is to be able tolook back over a day’s work and feel satisfied, and themodern world seems to offer fewer opportunities.

Yet I still prefer the industrial age. Many of myschoolmates had no shoes. The poor of my time wouldhave envied the poor of today as being rather well off.In Washington we must import labor for low-payingjobs. Central America is well represented in the repair ofour streets. I duck the question of the degree to whichprosperity improves life, but keep the German saying inmind: “Money doesn’t make you happy but it calmsyour nerves.” That huge fractions of humanity livehealthier, longer lives is a direct consequence of thetechnological revolution. My wife would no longer bewith me, had it not been for modern surgery. My greatlymissed father might have lived much longer hadmedicine been about 30 or 40 years more advanced.

It is not hard to find serious problems growingfrom the advances technology has had on our lives,but the problems can generally be traced to the great

wealth available to a previously non-existent middleclass, a class that wants to buy, as if to satisfy cravingsthwarted since the beginning of civilization. Thiscraving imposes a terrific political and social demandthat will not be stopped, at least not for a fewgenerations, and the corporate world is only fulfilling it,not creating it as many would like to have it. Yet there isanother side of the issue. It is becoming ever clearer thaton reaching this station the relevant populations nolonger expand. The great editorial horror of my youthwas the population explosion caused by modernmedicine. We now see the answer to that previouslyunsolvable problem: relieve people of the fear of beingabandoned in old age, give them toys of civilization —especially the great polluter of all, the automobile —and they will not produce children by the dozen. Havingreplaced the older population control of disease andfamine with middle-class existence, we are left with newproblems with which we now occupy ourselves andwhich we are capable of solving, solutions that areprobably unsuspected but which will not come byturning off science or invention, definitely not in biologyand medicine. Of course, it will certainly make a worldeven less to the liking of Berry and Brown, but to repeatmyself, that is why old men die.

Enough. Thanks again for your letter and yourpatience. I hope this finds you and your wife in goodhealth and spirit.

Yours sincerely,Louis Brown

January 11, 2001Port Royal, Kentucky

Dear Professor Brown,

I have been so much involved with travel (6 weeksof it altogether) and with the effects of it since Ireceived your letter of August 11, that I haven’t beenable to free my mind to give you an answer. Thatdoesn’t mean that I haven’t had your letter on my mind— I have thought about it many times — but only that Ihaven’t been able to concentrate my thoughts.

It seems to me that we are trying to speak toeach other from two sides of a cultural division that isbecoming more and more apparent to me. The divisionis not between scientists and artists, but rather between

The Land Report 15

those who see things from an urban-industrial pointof view and those who see them from an agrarian pointof view.

I am a country person and a member of a farmingfamily. You are surprised that I see young scientists asprivileged and well paid. But I see young and middle-aged farmers every day (I am the father of two) who arestruggling to survive, and for whom success, as under-stood in the professions, is simply unthinkable. I knowthat young scientists face a tight job market in theacademy, but a lot of them will go there, and a lot ofthem who don’t go there will go into industry, and theywill make plenty of money. A professor in the WakeForest business school was here on Sunday and he toldme that many of their graduates get a starting salary of$60,000 or $70,000 a year. A young person starting outas a farmer now would be lucky to make a third orfourth of that, and a large portion of the few who are leftwill give up or fail.

If, as you say and I willingly believe, scienceis more dependent on the industrial revolution thanotherwise, I should think that in itself makes thescientific enterprise much more contingent andhypothetical than people like Edward Wilson believe. Itis anyhow not clear to me how claims of absolute andcomprehensive truth can be founded on the premises ofthe industrial revolution.

It is certainly true that we now have a betterempirical or statistical idea of where we stand in theuniverse than Plato or Dante had, but I don’t at all seethat it has made us less arrogant. Hubris seems to me tobe the characteristic sin of our age. The proof of this isthat we keep making world-scale experiments, theresults of which we can have no notion: with nuclearenergy, with chemistry, with weapons of war, withgenetic manipulation, with corporate economics, and soon. The least intimation of humility would suggest thatwe ought to be cautious and keep the scale of our worksmall; it would teach us to be fearful of our obviouslygreat and increasing ability to do harm.

I am by no means a scholar, but the writings that Iknow don’t support your claim that until 400 years ago“the entire Western culture assumed without questionthat we were the kings of the universe.” You will notfind support for that in the Gospels or in Dante or inShakespeare or in Milton. (Mark Twain is simply not theultimate authority here.) That we were made in theimage of God does confer on us a high, though not thehighest, standing among the creatures, but this wasnever understood as a grant of sovereignty to our wantsand wishes, but rather as imposing on us the strictestmoral constraints and obligations and as entailing thegravest spiritual dangers. The first writer (in myreading) to propose that we could or should be the

absolute masters of nature was Francis Bacon, a man ofthe Renaissance.

Though I wish I could, I can’t see that Bacon andhis scientific descendents have made us more humane.We have just survived the bloodiest, cruelest, mostoppressive century in history, and our powers ofwarfare, technology, and commerce are now moreheartless than ever. We could, if we wanted to, establishnational academies to study the beliefs and methods ofGandhi and Martin Luther King, but our model man isstill General Sherman, and our weapons now arechemical and nuclear and biological, which spare nocreature, and for which industry has dependedon science.

I agree with you about the threat implicit in thedegradation of work, but I don’t think that threat isseparate from the degradation of the so-calledenvironment. It is only good work that can take propercare of the land and its products, and make them last.

Modern improvements in medicine, like modernimprovements in other things, are two-sided. New drugsand machines certainly have permitted good and dearand worthy lives to be salvaged. But it is also a fact thata lot of people are now living too long, as a visit to anynursing home will tell you. Longevity is not necessarilya good. To treat it as such, including lonely, hopelesssufferers in the statistical averages used to boast of our“increased life expectancy,” is a cruel falsehood. Mypoint, as before, is that nobody appears interested in thequestion of how much progress is net. Nobody is doingthe subtraction.

The problem of population control was not“previously unsolvable.” There is good evidence thatpeople have had their ecological limits clearly in sight— as in the Himalayan countries — solved itsuccessfully, and without recourse to the industrialdevices of “birth control.” One thing that has causedpopulations to explode is the belief that ecological limitscan be surmounted by science, trade, industry, etc.Another excellent example of modern superstition.

Well, I don’t want you to think I’m entirely glum.I’m not an optimist, but I’m not a pessimist either. I amhopeful. I can see that good and honorable and beautifulthings are still in the world, and I take a considerablehappiness in knowing them and in trying to helpthem survive.

Sincerely,Wendell Berry

The Land Report 16

I. To live, we must go to work.

II. To work, we must work in a place.

III. Work affects everything in the place where it isdone: the nature of the place itself and what is naturallythere, the local ecosystem and watershed, the locallandscape and its productivity, the local humanneighborhood, the local memory.

IV. Much modern work is done in academic orprofessional or industrial or electronic enclosures. Thework is thus enclosed in order to achieve a space ofseparation between the workers and the effects of theirwork. The enclosure permits the workers to think thatthey are working nowhere or anywhere — in theircareers or specialties, perhaps, or in “cyberspace.”

V. Nevertheless, their work will have a precise andpractical influence, first on the place where it is beingdone, and then on every place where its products areused, on every place where its attitude toward itsproducts is felt, on every place to which its by-productsare carried.

VI. There is, in short, no way to escape the problemsof effect and influence.

VII. The responsibility of the worker is to confrontthese problems and deal justly with them. How isthis possible?

VIII. It is possible only if the worker knows andaccepts the reality of the context of the work. Theproblems of effect and influence are inescapablebecause, whether acknowledged or not, work always hasa context. Work must “take place.” It takes place in aneighborhood and in a common wealth.

IX. What, therefore, must we have in mind when wego to work? If we go to work with the aim of workingwell, we must have a lot in mind. We must be mind-full.What must we know? We can establish the curriculumby a series of questions:

X. Who are we? That is, who are we as we approachthe work in its inevitable place? Where are we from, andwhat did we learn there, and, if we have left, why didwe leave? What have we learned, starting perhaps withthe influences that surrounded us before birth? Whathave we learned in school? More important, what havewe learned out of school? What knowledge have wemastered? What skills? What tools? What affections,loyalties, and allegiances have we formed? What do webring to the work?

XI. Where are we?What is this place in which we arepreparing to do our work? What has happened here ingeologic time? What has happened here in human time?What is the nature, what is the genius, of this place?What, if we weren’t here, would nature be doing here?What will the nature of the place permit us to do herewithout exhausting either the place itself or thebirthright of those who will arrive here later? What,even, might nature help us to do here? Under whatconditions, imposed both by the genius of the place andthe genius of our arts, might our work here be healthfuland beautiful?

XII. What do we have, in this place and in ourselves,that is good? What do we need? What do we want? Howmuch of the good that is here, that we now have, are wewilling to give up in the effort to have further goods thatwe need, that we think we need, or that we want?

XIII. And so our curriculum of questions, revealingwhat we have in mind, brings us to the crisis of themodern world. Partly this crisis is a confusion betweenneeds and wants. Partly it is a crisis of rationality.

XIV. The confusion between needs and wants is, ofcourse, fundamental. And let us make no mistake here:This is an educated confusion. Modern education sys-tems have pretty consciously encouraged young peopleto think of their wants as needs. And the schools haveincreasingly advertised education as a way of gettingwhat one wants, so that now, by a fairly logical progres-sion, universities are understood by politicians and uni-versity bureaucrats merely as servants of “the economy.”And by “the economy” they do not mean local house-holds, livelihoods and landscapes, they mean the corpo-rate economy. (If more and more of the powers that bethink of education as merely the servant of the corporateeconomy, why should it be surprising that more andmore of those same powers should think of the govern-ment as merely the servant of the corporate economy?)

XV. But the idea that schools can have everything todo with the corporate economy and nothing to do withthe health of their local watersheds and ecosystems andcommunities is a falsehood that has now run its course.It is a falsehood and nothing else.

XVI. What actually do we need? We might say that, ata minimum, we need food, clothing, and shelter. And, ifwe are wise, we might hasten to add that we don’t wantto live a minimal life; we would also count comfort,pleasure, health and beauty as necessities. And then,

Going to WorkWendell Berry

The Land Report 17

with the realization that it may be possible by reducingour needs to reduce our humanity, we may want to sayalso that we will need to remember our history; we willneed to preserve teachings and artifacts from the past;we will need leisure to study and contemplate thesethings; we will need towns or cities, places of economicand cultural exchange; we will need clean air to breathe,clean water to drink, wholesome food to eat, a healthfulcountryside, places in which we can know the naturalworld — and so on.

XVII. Well, now we see that in attempting to solve ourproblem we have run back into it. We have seen that inorder to understand ourselves as fully human we have todefine our necessities pretty broadly. How do we knowwhen we have passed from needs to wants, fromnecessity to frivolity?

XVIII. That is an extremely difficult and troublingquestion, which is why it is also an extremely interest-ing question and one that we should not cease to ask. Ican’t answer it fully or confidently, but will only say inpassing that our great modern error is the belief that wemust invariably give up one thing in order to haveanother. It is possible, for instance, to find comfort,pleasure, and beauty in food, clothing, and shelter. It ispossible to find pleasure and beauty and even“recreation” in work. It is possible to have farms that donot waste and poison the natural world. It is possible tohave productive forests that are not treated as “crops.”It is possible to have cities that are ecologically,economically, socially, culturally and architecturallycontinuous with their landscapes. It is not invariablynecessary to travel from a need to its satisfaction, orfrom one satisfaction to another.

XIX. It is not invariably necessary to give up one goodthing in order to have another. In our age of the worldthere is a kind of mind that is trying to be totallyrational, which is in effect to say totally economic. Thismind is now dominant. It is always telling us that thegood things we have are really not as good as theyseem, that they can seem good only to “backwardpeople,” and they certainly are not as good as the thingswe will have in the future, if only we will give up thethings that seem good to us now. If a forest or a farm isdestroyed to make a “housing development,” and the“housing development” is then sacrificed to a factory oran airport, the rational mind wants us to believe that thiscourse of changes is “progress,” and it offers as proofthe successive increases in the value or the profitabilityof the land. It shows us the “cost-benefit ratio.” Andhere we arrive at the crisis of rationality. We have cometo the point at which reason fails.

XX. Reason fails precisely in the inability of the cost-benefit ratio to include all the costs. We know that, how-ever favorable may be the cost-benefit ratio, the progress

from forest or farm to any sort of “development”degrades or destroys the integrity of the local ecosystemand watershed, and we know that it causes human heart-break. This kind of accounting excludes all coherencesexcept its own, and it excludes affection. The cost-benefit ratio is limited to what is handily quantifiable,namely money. The failure of reason comes to light inthe recognition that things which cannot be quantified— the health of watersheds, the integrity of ecosystems,the wholeness of human hearts — ultimately affect thedurability, availability and affordability of necessaryquantities. To think of landscapes merely in terms ofeconomic value will in the long run reduce their eco-nomic value, not to mention the availability of suchnecessities as timber and food, clean water and clean air.

XXI. The mind makes itself totally rational in aneffort to become totally comfortable, but at the risk ofeventually becoming totally uncomfortable. The cost ofsubordinating all value to economic value willeventually be economic failure.

XXII. We are well-acquainted with this mind ofwould-be total rationality, hellbent on quantification.And we are increasingly well-acquainted with its resultsin the ruin of culture and nature. And so the next in ourcurriculum of questions necessarily is this: Do we knowof a different or better or saner kind of mind?

XXIII. I think we do. It is what I would call theaffectionate or sympathetic mind. This mind is notirrational, but neither is it primarily rational. It is a mindless comfortable than the mind that aspires only toreason, and it is more difficult to define.

XXIV. It is defined, I think, in the parable of the lostsheep in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and in theBuddhist vow: “Sentient beings are numberless, I vowto save them.” The mind given over to reason would loseno time in demonstrating mathematically that it “makesno sense” to leave ninety-nine sheep perhaps in dangerwhile you go to look for only one that is lost. Andsurely it makes even less “sense” to vow to “save” allsentient beings.

XXV. Obviously, to assent to such teachings as thesewe must change our minds. We must give up some partof our allegiance to reason and to quantification, and wemust accept as our lot in life a perhaps irreduciblediscomfort. We have given affection and sympathy apriority over rationality. We have consented to theproposition that at least a part of what we have now, thepart we have been given, is good, and we have assumedthe responsibility of preserving the good that we have.We have assented implicitly to God’s approval of Hiswork on Creation’s seventh day.

XXVI. To change one’s mind in this way is to changethe way one works. This changed way of working is

The Land Report 18

new to us in our industrial age, but is old in the historyof human making. And what is this way? How does thischanged mind go about its work?

XXVII. Such a mind, I think, is no longer satisfiedwith the conventional standards of industrialism:profitability and utility. Needing a more authentic, morecomprehensive criticism, it looks beyond thoseconcerns, without necessarily giving them up. It tries tosee the work and the product in context; it tries to deriveits standards from that context. And once again it mustproceed by way of questions: Is the worker diminishedor in any other way abused by this work? What is theeffect of the work upon the place, its ecosystem, itswatershed, its atmosphere, its community? What is theeffect of the product upon its user, and upon the placewhere it is used?

XXVIII. Work under the discipline of such questionsmight hope to give us, to name a few examples, forestrythat would not destroy the forest, farming that would notdestroy the land, houses that would be suited to theirplace in the landscape, products of all kinds that wouldneither exhaust their resources nor degrade their users.

XXIX. Obviously, there has come to be a radicaldisconnection between the arts and sciences and theirultimate context which is always the natural or the givenworld. Why should this be?

XXX. I venture to think that it is a problem ofperception, most particularly and directly in thesciences. The scientific need for predictability orreplicability forces perception into abstraction. The“test plot,” for example, is perceived, not as itself, butas a plot representative of all plots everywhere.

XXXI. Developers of technology, in somewhat thesame way, are under commercial pressure for generalapplicability. The place where a new machine orchemical or technique is proved workable is assumed tobe representative of all places where it might work.

XXXII. These processes in science and technologyseem to be closely parallel in effect to the processes ofcentralization in economic and political power.

XXXIII. The result is that all landscapes, and thepeople and other creatures in them, are beingmanipulated for profit by people who can neither seethem in their particularity nor care particularlyabout them.

XXXIV. The disciplines that are not directly involvedin this manipulation nonetheless have consented to it. Itis the problem of all the disciplines.

XXXV. It seems to me that the solution to thisproblem is not now foreseeable, but I believe it cancome about only by widening the context of allintellectual work and of teaching — perhaps to thewidth of the local landscape.

XXXVI. To accept so wide a context, the disciplineswould have to move away from strict or exclusiveprofessionalism. This does not imply giving upprofessional competence or professional standards,which have their place, but professionalism as we nowunderstand it has already shown itself to be inadequateto a wide context. To bring local landscapes within whatWes Jackson calls “the boundary of consideration,”professional people of all sorts will have to feel theemotions and take the risks of amateurism. They willhave to get out of their fields, so to speak, and into thecountryside and the city and the community, and theywill have to be actuated by affection.

XXXVII. In the sciences, I think the acceptance of thelocal landscape as context will end the era of scientificheroism. No one scientist or one team of scientists orone science-exploiting corporation can expect to “savethe world,” once the disciplines have accepted thiscontext that is at once wide and local. The solutions thenwill have to be local, and there will have to be a myriadof them. The scientists, moreover, will have to suffer theresponsibility of applying their knowledge at home,sharing the fate of the place where their knowledgeis applied.

XXXVIII. Throughout these notes I have beenassuming — as my reading and the work I have donehave taught me to assume — that it is impossible for ushumans to know in any complete or final way what weare doing.

XXXIX. Now I will explain this assumption in adifferent way, but one that leads to the same conclusion.

XL. Increasingly since the Renaissance, the buildingblocks of rational thought have been facts, pieces of datathat can be proved or demonstrated or observed to be“true.” So great has been our confidence in facts, and inthe empirical processes by which factuality is tested,that Thomas Jefferson, for example, could speak smuglyof “our barbarous ancestors.”

XLI. The assumption seems to be that the pursuitof truth in our time, as never in the times before, hasbecome completely scientific and rational, so that nowwe not only possess more facts every day than we everpossessed before, but have only to continue to fill in thegaps between facts by the empirical processes of ourscience until we will know the ultimate and entire truth.

XLII. I do not believe this. I think it is a kind offolly to assume that new knowledge is necessarily truerthan old knowledge, or that empirical truth is truer thanunempirical truth. But I also do not believe that factualtruth is or ever can be sufficient truth, let aloneultimate truth.

XLIII. A fact, I assume, is not a thing, but issomething known about a thing. The formula H2O is a

The Land Report 19

fact about water, it is not water. A person who had neverseen water could not recognize it, much less recognizeice or stream, from knowing the formula. Recognitionwould require knowledge of many more facts. Water iswater because it is the absolute sum of all the factsabout itself, and it would be itself whether or nothumans knew all the facts.

XLIV. The only true representation of a thing, we cansay, is the thing itself. This is true also of a person. It istrue of a place. It is true of the world and all its crea-tures. The only true picture of Reality is Reality itself.

XLV. In order to work, in order to live, we humansnecessarily make what we might call pictures of ourworld, of our places, of ourselves and one another. Butthese pictures are artifacts, human-made. And we canmake them only by selection, choosing some things toput in the picture, and leaving out all the rest.

XLVI. From the standpoint of the person, place orthing itself, of Reality itself, it doesn’t make any differ-ence whether our pictures are factual or imagined, madeby science or by art or by both. All of them literally arefictions — things made by humans, things never equalto the reality they are about and never assuredly evenadequate to the reality they are about.

XLVII. Facts in isolation are false. The more isolated afact or a set of facts is, the more false it is. A fact is truein the absolute sense only in association with all facts.This is why the departmentalization of knowledge in ouruniversities is fundamentally wrong.

XLVIII. Because our pictures of realities, and ofReality, are invariably and inescapably incomplete, theyare always to some degree false and misleading. If theybecome too selective, if they exclude too much (on theground, for instance, of being “not factual”), if they aretoo biased, they become dangerous. They are constantlysubject to correction — by new facts, of course, but alsoby experience, by intuition, and by faith.

XLIX. We may say, then, that our sciences and artsowe a certain courtesy to Reality, and that this courtesycan be enacted only by humility, reverence, propriety ofscale and good workmanship.

This paper originated as a talk at The Prince’sFoundation in London and will be appearing in aforthcoming volume Ecology — A Sacred Trust to bepublished by The Prince’s Foundation.

From An Epistle toLord BurlingtonAlexander Pope (1688-1744)

To build, to plant,whatever you intend,

To rear the Column,Or the Arch to bend,

To swell the Terras,Or to sink the Grot;

In all, let Nature never be forgot.Consult the Genius

Of the Place in all,that tells the Waters or

To rise, or fall,Or helps th’ ambitious

Hill the Heav’ns to scale,Or scoops in circling

Theatres the Vale,Calls in the Country,

Catches opening Glades,Joins willing Woods,

And varies Shades from Shades,Now breaks, or now directs,

Th’ intending Lines;Paints as you plant

And as you work, Designs.

Man Carrying BaleHarold Monro (1879-1932)

The tough hand closes gently on the load;Out of the mind a voice

Calls “Lift!” and the arms, remembering welltheir work,

Lengthen and pause for help.Then a slow ripple flows along the body,While all the muscles call to one another:

“Lift!” and the bulging baleFloats like a butterfly in June.

So moved the earliest carrier of bales,And the same watchful sun

Glowed through his body feeding it with light.So will the last one move,

And halt, and dip his head, and lay his loadDown, and the muscles will relax and tremble …

Earth, you designed your manBeautiful both in labor and repose.

The Land Report 20

Wes Jackson’s Right Livelihood AwardAcceptance Speech

Honor goes to all of those past and present who havebrought The Land Institute to this moment: directors,researchers, support staff, students, and a far-flung regimentof private philanthropic foundations and grassrootssupporters. Their contributions this past quarter-centuryrepresent a belief in the long-term necessity — and now thepossibility — of solving the 10,000-year-old problem ofagriculture. Their steadfastness protected our ideas longenough to demonstrate the promise of a new paradigm: aNatural Systems Agriculture.

Our hopeful message is now being more broadly sown.The message is that humanity can fashion an agriculture assustainable as the nature we have destroyed, an agriculturethat rewards the farmer and the landscape more than theirexternal suppliers of inputs. An agriculture in whichirreparable soil erosion ceases. An agriculture not dependenton fossil fuels or alien chemicals, an agriculture that honorsthe reality of the ecological mosaic as it honors the reality ofthe cultural mosaic of men and women in local habitats.Though it will be a long journey to reach this ideal, the agri-culture of which I speak has this potential because it featuresnature’s wisdom rather than human cleverness. Consequently,it is more resilient to human folly, more forgiving. To mimicnature means to feature perennial crops whose roots hold thelife giving soil and to grow them in mixtures that mimic thevegetative structures of nature. That is the nature’s wisdomside of the equation. The human cleverness side involvestaking conventional annual crop species and breeding them tobe transformed into perennials. With expanded commitmenton the part of researchers and a modest amount of financialsupport, numerous prototypes of perennialized domesticgrains could be available in the near future and ready for fullblossom in the next half-century.

While we have a great possibility before us, the realitiesof our time are sobering. The last one percent of the historyof agriculture, the twentieth century, gave humanity its largestincrease in food production. That accomplishment is unlikelyto recur. Most of the elasticity for yield increase has beenabsorbed. Moreover, it was a Faustian bargain: much of thegain in grain yield came at the cost of accelerated soildegradation by erosion, chemical contamination, andsalinization. Fully 38 percent of the planet’s agricultural soilsare degraded now. In addition, the spread of industrialagriculture’s brittle economies has dislodged thousands oftraditional farmers and torn much of the social and culturalfabric standing behind production.

Population growth will end one day, voluntarily orotherwise. The first cries of the newborns who arrive that daywill likely be heard in a very crowded world. We will wantthem fed every day, every week, every month, every year for

The AwardOn December 8, Wes Jackson and three othersaccepted Right Livelihood Awards in Stockholm,Sweden. The prizes, worth about $51,000 each, arepresented annually in the Swedish Parliament “tohonor and support those offering practical andexemplary answers to the most urgent challengersfacing us today.” They are often referred to as the“alternative Nobel Prize.”

The idea came from Jakob von Uexkull, whosold his valuable postage stamps to provide theoriginal endowment for a program that began in1980. Alfred Nobel wanted to honor those whosework “brought the greatest benefit to humanity.”Von Uexkull felt that the Nobel Prizes today ignoremuch work and knowledge vital for the futureof humankind.

The Right Livelihood Foundation picked Jackson“for his single-minded commitment over more thantwo decades to developing an agriculture based onperennial crops that is both highly productive andtruly ecologically sustainable.” The foundation senthim to meet people at the European Union inBrussels, Belgium, and Strasbourg, France. Hediscussed agriculture with numerous parliamentmembers, civil servants and activists, and he made apresentation to the EU’s Agriculture Committee.

The Other Honorees• Indonesian lawyer and human rights activist Munir,“for his courage and dedication in fighting forhuman rights and the civilian control of the mili-tary in the world’s fifth most populous country.”

• Ethiopian scientist Tewolde Gebre Egzhiaber, “forhis exemplary role in representing the Like-MindedGroup at the Biosafety negotiations in Cartagenaand Montreal, and in achieving an outcome thatstressed the importance of the conservation ofbiodiversity and the traditional rights of farmersand communities in developing countries to theirgenetic resources.”

• Turkish environmentalist Birsel Lemke, “for hercommitment over many years to protect hercountry from the devastation of cyanide-based goldmining, and for campaigning internationally for aban on this disastrous technology.”

The Land Report 21

the rest of their lives. They will want the same for theirchildren and grandchildren. No one can foretell the timewhen the population growth curve will flatten, or underwhat circumstances, but we can be certain that the liquidfossil fuels will be severely reduced. Natural gas now servesas the feedstock for nitrogen fertilization, responsible for40 percent of the current standing crop of humans. Whatnatural soil fertility remains will be humanity’s best friend.We must be forever mindful that any food production thatdegrades soils now will eventually take food fromour descendants.

But there is hope. With the maturity of ecology andevolutionary biology, both disciplines are available to mergewith agriculture and assist in truly sustainable food produc-tion. No other material or industrial process can entertainsuch a hope. If we don’t get sustainability in agriculturefirst, sustainability will not happen. Soils are the key. It isclear that agricultural civilizations have depended on anabundance of soils. Without the soils that sustain agriculturethere would have been no pyramids, no Parthenon, notemple of Solomon, no Teotihuacan, no Forbidden City, noChartres — no NewYork City or San Francisco, no UnitedStates of America. And without the later subsidy of fossilfuels, in combination with our soils, the scientific revolutionwould have stalled. It seems likely that there would be noknowledge of DNA, no Einstein equations, no space age, noHubble telescope, no knowledge of tectonic plates and

continental drift, no knowledge of geologic or cosmic time,no expansion of our knowledge of the scale of the universeor the inner recesses of the atom.

All of those accouterments of civilization have rested onsoil, which is as much a non-renewable resource as oil.

We are the only species, in this part of the universe atleast, that knows that we are made of stardust recycledthrough supernova. This awareness of our stellar originsshould make us capable of absorbing the lessons of ourplanet’s ecosystems and then applying those lessons to agri-culture. The agriculture we seek will act like an ecosystem,feature material recycling and run on the contemporarysunlight of our star. By beginning to make agriculturesustainable we will have taken the first step forward forhumanity to begin to measure progress by its independencefrom the extractive economy.

I end on a personal note: I began graduate studies in thelate 1950s as a plant taxonomist. And so my oldest academicgrandfather was that giant of Uppsala, the father of moderntaxonomy, Carl von Linné. The man who gave us thebinomial system of nomenclature also gave us our name:Homo sapiens. Sapiens means wise, sage, or knowing. Didthe great Linnaeus get it right? That is up to us. It dependson whether we solve our oldest environmental problem —the problem of agriculture. If we don’t, then a dark,uncertain future awaits us. But if we are lucky, and a littlewise, we may yet live up to von Linné’s generous flattery.

Environmental LeadersDavid Brower andDonella Meadows die

In recent months, two important figures inthe so-called environmental movement died,David R. Brower and Donella Meadows.

Brower, longtime leader of the SierraClub and founder of Friends of the Earth andEarth Island Institute, died of complicationsrelated to cancer Nov. 5, 2000, in Berkeley,Calif. He was 87.

Meadows, usually called Dana,co-authored The Limits to Growth, wrote thesyndicated newspaper column The GlobalCitizen and helped create the environmentalstudies program at Dartmouth College, whereshe taught. Meadows, 59, died of spinalmeningitis Feb. 20, 2001, in Hanover, N.H.

Both had visited The Land Institute andwere strong supporters of our mission andour work. Brower was the keynote speaker atour first Prairie Festival in 1979. Meadowsattended a 1989 conference hosted by TheLand, Marriage of Ecology and Agriculture.

Above: David Brower, at far right,visited The Land Institute’s PrairieFestival in 1979. The others pictured,from left, are Dana Jackson, SisterJeanne McKenna, John Simpson,Charles Washburn, Hunter Sheldon(and Sparky), Amory Lovins, WesJackson, Kansas Gov. John Carlinand Sister Monica Schneider.

Right: Donella Meadows talks withJack Ewel at the Land’s Marriage ofEcology and Agriculture in 1989.

The Land Report 22

Prairie Festival 2001, to be held Sept. 29-30, will featureworkshops, “warmups” and presentations by formerinterns. The program is not yet developed. The onlycertain outside speaker will be Gary Paul Nabhan,whose new book, Coming Home to Eat: The SensualPleasures and Global Politics of Local Foods, will havebeen released a week or two before.

Why did we move the date?• The end of September should find us in less conflictwith our research efforts around here and

• It is closer to the 25th anniversary of our beginnings.We started in late August and a fire destroyed ouroriginal building six weeks after we began.We hope you will come and have a look at the

phoenix that arose from those ashes.

Looking Back and ForwardInvitation to The Land Institute’s25th Birthday Party

Above: Interns at a hoe-down.

Right: Cindy Hurlbutt and BethGibans in the classroom in 1989.

The Land Report 23

At The Land

Natural Systems Agriculture (NSA)

In November, we invited 11 prominent ecologists andagronomists to review and discuss The Land Institute’sagroecology research agenda. Also in November, SeniorScientist Stan Cox met with some NSA Advisory Teammembers at the University of Georgia, and in Decemberhe met with a group at North Carolina State studyingallelopathy, weed-inhibiting properties, in rye.

Plant Breeding and Genetic ResearchWe partially renovated the greenhouse. In bay two,

six cool-season beds are up and running. Circulating waterwarms each bed, and new fans circulate heated air.

The key to any good breeding program is goodparent material. Stan Cox communicated with about 30researchers around the country to obtain seed and informa-tion on breeding and genetics of perennial grains. Betweenseed exchange with colleagues and searching our germplasm collection, Stan assembled initial gene pools forwheat, rye, perennial grasses, sorghum and even apotentially perennial oat.

We planted a germ plasm nursery of 320 annual andperennial wheats, ryes and other cool-season grasses nearthe classroom. The entire nursery is replicated in thebottom ground across the river from where the annualpolyculture was harvested.

We planted a plot with alternating strips of perennialrye and wheatgrass populations for selection.

Most of the wheat, rye, perennial grass and sorghumgenotypes were sown in the winter greenhouse. Theseinclude perennial and exotic parents for vernalization, lowtemperature to hasten plant development. Weekly we sowannual and adapted parents so that flowering times overlapand they can be crossed with each other. One cold room isrunning as a vernalization chamber for winter cerealsand grasses.

Staff and helpers converted the basement of theclassroom into a laboratory. Its immediate uses will be forrescue and culture of hybrid embryos, chromosomedoubling and mutagenesis. It is equipped with a chestcooler for breaking seed dormancy and vernalization, alaminar-flow hood for sterile embryo rescue, an autoclaveand other instruments and glassware.

Ecology ResearchChris Picone’s research is trying to assess the effects

of soil disturbance, plant diversity and plant identity onmycorrhizal fungi. (See The Land Report No. 67, summer2000.) To distinguish the effects of tillage from the effects

of having annuals or perennials, we established a long-termexperiment of small, paired plots of tilled and untilledprairie soil. In each plot we will plant perennials andannuals to separate the effects of soil disturbance fromplant habit. Once established, these plots will be a valuableresource for visiting researchers to study topics such as soilfungi, nematodes, carbon sequestration and root dynamics.

Chris has been writing a chapter, “Managingmycorrhizae for a sustainable agriculture in the tropics,” fora book edited by John Vandermeer. Chris also published anarticle, “Diversity and abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizalfungi in tropical forest and pasture,” in Biotropica’sDecember issue, 32:734-750.

Sunshine Farm

Our project is entering its last field season this year, asplanned in our 1991 feasibility study. This winter, whileSunshine Farm Director Marty Bender has been writingresearch reports, Operations Manager Steve Renich andcontract farmer Charlie Melander have been sortingthrough Charlie’s voluminous farm records for data neededin our energy analysis. It is complicated because Charliefarms 2,000 acres in Saline County as well as the SunshineFarm. His farm includes many tasks that are not done onthe Sunshine Farm but contribute to its operation —equipment maintenance and repair, for example. Hence, apart of the energy, materials and labor in some of the taskson Charlie’s farm should be charged in our energyaccounting of the Sunshine Farm. As Charlie can attest, thisrequires far more detail than keeping financial records fora farm. He chuckles that we may end up knowing moreabout his farming operation than he does.

Rural Community Studies Program— Education

A one-day workshop called Entering the Web trainedteachers, students and community members interested increating a website for our schools and communities.Flinthills High School in Rosalia hosted our group, andSara Marshall of Chanute High School presented sevenhours of training in the latest software. Both Chase Countyand Flinthills districts have high interest in websiteprojects, both as a publishing medium for students topresent their place to the world and to boost opportunitiesfor young people to make a living in rural places. This is awork in progress, so websites are not yet completed.

The Land Report 24

School ProjectsChase County District

Elementary school students and parents built a lowlimestone wall near the school’s entrance. It borders theoutdoor learning center, which features prairie plants.Other students studied butterflies — their life cycle and theplants that attract them. The elementary and middle schoollibraries have added more than 360 nonfiction books onthe flora, fauna, soils, history and weather of the GreatPlains. Many of the titles include computerized readingcomprehension checks. The librarian reports that these newbooks don’t spend much time on the shelf. Childrenlove them.

Middle schoolers run the recycling trailer during itsregular visits to town, sorting and boxing items thatresidents deliver. High schoolers have set up a greenhouseand will plunge into an early start for the second season ofthe Red Hot Prairie Peppers organic gardening project.Denise Uhlrich, who coordinates our work in this district,has spoken to several local civic groups about the work inthe schools made possible through this Land Institute-sponsored grant.Flinthills District

Science students completed fall soil preparation on thefive-acre prairie restoration project adjacent to the highschool. History projects to videotape community elderscontinued this fall. A greenhouse was also erected in thisdistrict. The district used part of its staff development timefor a “computer smorgasbord” to bring teachers up to dateon opportunities for long-distance learning.Baldwin District

A foods course in the high school has been intensivelyrevised to include farming, ranching, chemistry and foodpreparation. All sophomores take this course, meaning thattwo-thirds of the students in the high school will beexposed to this material by the end of the grant period. Alarge investment in the course now will allow it to becomean ongoing part of the curriculum.

Marion Springs Elementary School has set up asmall greenhouse where the students will soon start plantsfor two projects: a three sisters Indian garden of beans,squash and corn, plus wildflowers for their schoolyardenvironmental center. Seeds are compliments ofThe Land Institute.

Baldwin has set a goal to boost student participation inthese projects to at least 50 percent this year. Bev Worster,our education director, has visited the schools often andgiven presentations during fall staff development days tolend support to their efforts.

Public Notices

Next Generation Leadership ProgramLand Institute Plant Scientist David Van Tassel was

accepted into the Next Generation Leadership Program

funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. He attended SanAntonio and San Francisco workshops, and will go toSouth Africa in April.

PresentationsWe made presentations that included the public,

professors and students, and organization members aroundthe country at Hastings Center, Monmouth College,Washington College, University of Kentucky, VassarCollege and the Sustainable Farm Association ofMinnesota. In Kansas, we made presentations at BethanyCollege, Cloud County Community College, the ScottishRite of Salina Masons, Manhattan Unitarian Church,Washburn University, Kansas State University and theKansas Regional Convention of Phi Theta Kappa.

WebsitePlease remember to check www.LandInstitute.org

for our presentation schedule around the country. SeeCalendar. You’ll also find information as it becomesavailable on the Prairie Festival, which will celebrateThe Land Institute’s 25th anniversary Sept. 29-30.

NSA grad fellows’ abstracts describing their projectsare now on our website.

A growing number of articles are available on ourwebsite. They can be found via menu item ArticleArchives on any page and then by clicking the Searchbutton and entering keywords.

Writers, Photographers and Sourcesfor This Issue

Wendell Berry is an essayist, novelist, poet and Friend ofthe Land.

Louis Brown is a physicist and staff member emeritusin the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism of theCarnegie Institution in Washington, D.C.

Christopher Picone is a Land Institute scientist.Ted Sidey works at the Henry A. Wallace Country

Life Center in Orient, Iowa, and is writing a book ofshort stories.

Soil Conservation was a booklet, produced about1950, of articles that appeared in the Monthly Review ofthe Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

For information about writers reprinted from The Landquarterly, see page 4.

The Land Report 25

MemorialsLionel Basneyfrom Judy Bredeweg

Alfred R. Dreilingfrom Pam DeNicola and Family

Mae Fredericksfrom Paul, Jessica and TysonNeukirch

Fred Hibbardfrom Barbara Jeane Hibbard

Dr. Charles Jennerfrom Dr. Robert B. andMarianne K. Smythe

Linwood R. Langley Sr.from Joel Bourne

Sam G. McClellanfrom Mildred N. McClellan

George H. Meyerfrom Olive E. Meyer

Wilma and Charles Meyerfrom Suzanne Meyer Mittenthal

Betty Olsonfrom Paul A. Olson

Andre Perrettefrom J. Yannick Perrette

James S. Petersonfrom Kerry M. Kramer andCharles J. Santangelo

Larry Ricefrom Paul and Marge Reaume

Lucy Sherakfrom Janit London

Ben and Mary Smithfrom Marcia and Michael Mayo

Irving Tennerfrom Dr. Edward H. Tenner

Gale and Jack Warnerfrom Louise O. Warner

Ashley Winstonfrom Matthew Wood

Howard O. and Thelma E.Wrightfrom Frank and JeanetteAnderson

Honorary giftsT.H. AveryFred W. Greer Jr.Homer F. Sharp Jr.Mr. and Mrs. David Yohofrom Jim Anderson

Mr. and Mrs. Russ BaldingerMr. and Mrs. Steve BowerMr. and Mrs. Doug PalmMr. Fred Palm and MorganMr. and Mrs. Jeff PalmMr. and Mrs. Emilio Rodriguezfrom Earl and Jeanne Palm

Dr. Donald and LouiseHeynemanMrs. Martha Heyneman andChildrenStephen HeynemanBarbara and Larry Wormsenfrom Jack and Susan Heyneman

Kirk Barrett and Peg McBrienfrom Brad and Mary Barrett

David Griffinfrom T. McLean and Hope W.Griffin

Martin Kimmfrom Michael and SueLubbers

Lyda and Jim Lillyfrom Jancie Lilly and CaryBuzzelli

Rachel Medleyfrom R. Michael and Debra L.Medley

Margaret and Everett Morganfrom Lee and Marla Beikman

Agi and Henry Plenkfrom Bruce Plenk and JulieCisz

Benton Rhoadesfrom Henry and Mary Blocher

The Schemm Familyfrom Mary McCall

Mr. and Mrs. Richard G. Stutzfrom Martha and Jack Day

John Szarkowskifrom Bill and AnnemarieTurnage

Ken Warrenfrom Jim Tuckett andConstance Organek

Megan Wechslerfrom Laurie Tanenbaum

David Wheatonfrom Kathleen Fisher

Fritz Zensfrom Christina Robinson

Thank you to our contributors, October 2000 through January 2001IndividualsMarilyn Adam and Ralph TaukeMary Ragan Adams and FranklynGarry

Nancy L. Adams and Susan M. CarterArllys G. and Lorado S. AdelmannDr. Gerald W. AdelmannElisa AdlerSteven A. AftergoodMarian AikmanQuentin Alan and Shari Ann MorfordGregory S. and Jill AllenJulia AllenRoy T. and Bly M. AllenWilliam W. and Joyce H. AllenJanda L. and Charles T. AllredJames AlwillCarl R. and Claire E. AmickAnn E. AmyesProfessor Jonathan G. Andelson

Angela A. AndersonEric C. Anderson and Andrea T.Zumwalt

Frank J. and Jeanette AndersonJim O. Anderson Jr.Professor Richard E. AndrusRobert D. and Anne H. AngusRobert K. and Joanne V. AntibusRichard E. and Jill Bremyer ArcherKenneth B. and Katie Hart ArmitageJohn M. ArmstrongThomas J. ArnesonJoseph C. ArtersStefanie G. AschmannRobert W. and Jacqueline AshSuzanne P. and Roger W. AshworthElizabeth AszkanazyDenise Attwood and James R. ConnerWayne L. and Joyce AttwoodMargaret Ayers

DeWayne BackhusSydney and Raymond B. BackstromRichard H. and Denise BackusCatherine E. Badgley and Gerald R.Smith

Amos G. BaehrJanet BaerWalter T. and Virginia A. BagleySusan M. BakerVirginia B. BakerRobert BangerterJane Beckett and Joseph BarabeMarilyn BarnesMark E. and Ronda J. BarnesBradley H. and Mary K. BarrettBrent BarrettBob BarrySteve BarryDouglas E. BartlettJerry M. and Carol Baskin

Anne Desloge BatesConnie BattaileMark M. and Anne F. BaumanW. Reese and Donna BaxterEugene J. BazanW. Conger BeasleyC. Dustin Becker and Mark D.Hollingsworth

David BedanRobert E. BeersAnthony P. and Karin E. BeggLeroy W. and Marla BeikmanDella and Aaron BelanskyEleanor H. BellJoan Bennett and John C. Parsons Jr.J. Benton and Doris C. RhoadesKirk and Debra L. BentonV. Louise BequetteEd BergJudith Bergquist and James Trewitt

The Land Report 26

Don and Helen BerheimHoward and Katheryn BerndAndrew W. and Maureen M. BernerThomas W. BerryWendell and Tanya BerryEdward and Varsenik BetzigNancy Lea BevinOrville W. and Rose H. BidwellGeorge W. and Marie Anne BirdPaul G. BirdsallJason W. Biwer-JensenCarroll Lynn BjorkRichard G. BjorklundAlan BlackAaron and June E. BlairSteven N. and Jane P. BlairWilliam C. BlakeHenry D. and Mary G. BlocherDeVere E. BlombergDorothy H. and Harry BloomRoss and Lorena BlountCharles R. and Dianne E. BoardmanRobert M. and Margaret E. BoatzMark W. and Ellen BohlkeJoy BoileauBruce D. and Marcia M. BontaTerry and Patricia B. BoothBruno Borsari and Julie ChiassonBetty BottomsWilliam G.F. Botzow IIJoel K. and Edith W. BourneMontie J. and Patricia M. BowenAndrew P. BowmanDr. Roger L. and Jan L. BoydGeorge H. and Elizabeth B. BramhallMary Alice and John E. BrammingJim BrattRobert H. and Judith BredewegSheryl D. BreenRussell and Patricia BrehmJay K. and Sara BremyerJohn A. BrennanDavid M. Brenner and Anne KimberJ.C. BrentonDaniel L. Breslaw and Judith A.Tharinger

Joyce BrinkDavid A. and Carolyn S. BrittenhamEddie R. BrodersRichard C. BroekerJack Brondum and Patricia McGowanMartin E. BrothertonAlice BroughtonCheryl L. BrownDonna J. Brown and Jakob JaggyHugh J. Brown, Ph.D.Janice Brown and Kim ShakleeOwen S. BrownThomas L. BrownThomas W. and Ruth L. BrownWillis E. BrownKenneth BrueneJames G. and Christine S. BrunerPaul T. and Genevieve D. BryantDr. Paul C. and Joni C. BubeRex C. and Susan Schuette BuchananWiley BuckBetty Jo BuckinghamDavid L. BucknerCarl G. BuhseThomas E. BullockJim and Wileta BurchDavid P. and Kathryn A. BurdenMarjorie and Lynn Van BurenErik P. and Jessyca C. BurkeLance W. BurrSheldon E. BurrJerry D. BuschPeter J. and Toshiko Busch

Patrick F. Byrne and Linda R.Brown-Byrne

Tamara M. ByrneJames Byun

Reverend John F. CainJohn and Kay CallisonThomas W. and Leanne CalvertMatthias C. and Barbara H. CampbellRoald and Lois E. CannRichard A. Carl and Cynthia C. FreyCarl

Diana B. CarlinDr. Bruce CarlsonBryan Jon CarlsonRobert Carnevale and Denise DeLeoNorman M. CarrJohn E. and Diana C. CarrollCatherine CarterWilliam P. and Kristine CaseyMs. Robin G. CashVictor M. CassidyAddison S. and Jean G. CateW. F. and Ruth Cathcart-RakeDr. Samuel D. and Cynthea CaughronMichel Cavigelli and Martha TomecekMr. & Mrs. John A. ChaffinJeffrey A. ChandlerMargaret Gay ChanlerRoland R. and Jacqueline L. ChapmanHal S. and Avril L. ChaseJeremy CherfasWayne A. and Judith M. ChristiansenJudith F. ChristyJulie CiszThomas H. and Annelle K. ClaassenKatherine L. ClancySharon A. ClancyDr. Andrew G. Clark and BarbaraAndersen

C.L. Clark and Constance M.Achterberg

Elizabeth C. ClarkJames Robert ClarkRegina ClarkJody E. Clowes and David B. DriscollFr. Frank CoadyJean and John B. CobbDr. Jack CochranRobert and Carolyn CohenSuzanne D. and Peter Z. CohenSally ColeKaren Colligan-Taylor and Mike S.Taylor

Lee W. CollinsworthJack A. Collom and Jennifer K. HeathBruce ColmanJohn E. Colwell, Ph.D.Mr. Marshall J. ComptonGeorge E. Comstock and AnneHillman

Dr. Yvonne C. CondellWallace L. and Nancy L. CondonDr. Francis H. Conroy and Linda B.Hayes

Dr. J. Lea Converse and Dr. PaulLessard

Constance P. Conway and Ted A. TuelDr. Karen Severud CookMichelle M. and Gary N. CookRosalind L. CookMaren Leyla Cooke and Neil M.Donahue

Christopher W. Coon and Christina A.Snyder

David C. CooperDr. Doris E. CoppockEdward J. and Mary CostelloKeith CottonDermot P. Coyne

Paula C. and Terry A. CrabbsWilliam J. CraigKenneth L. CramerKaye J. CrawfordRobert A. and Barbara W. CreightonC.L. and Catherine CrenshawPamela CressHenry CrewCharles A. and Lillian CrewsElizabeth A. CrisfieldDebra W. Crockett and William K.Conover

Joanne CroweAndrew W. and Jane Durney CrowleyWes A. CulwellClaire Hope CummingsCynthia Curlee and Robert C. CampPaul CurrierWilliam C. Cutler and Elisabeth Suter

Francesca D’AnneoSeth M. Dabney and Deborah A. ChessinKenneth A. and Barbara Rullan DahlbergDr. Gretchen C. DailyLance G. and Billie S. DarinJoan DarrowAdam S. Davis and Amy C. HassingerMarion B. Davis IIIRichard G. and Eleanor W. DawsonJohn W. DayLouise Budde DeLaurentisDiane DempsterSuzanne P. DeMuthPamela and Alex DeNicolaDean Denner and Cia VerscheldenGerald R. Depew and Dorothy LambertiJoe R. Des JardinsDave N. Desertspring and Sherrie L.Spangler

Joe DeteljMari and Ed DetrixheSusan L.I. DetweilerThomas J. and Linda M. DevesGretchen DeVriesCalvin B. and Ruth Ann DeWittConsuelo Choca DiazWill Dibrell and Beverly BajemaDennis R. DimickSteve DinneenJohn M. and Deborah P. DivineRuss and Joan DonaldsonAndrea F. DonlonStrachan and Vivian DonnelleyDeane and Ann B. DoolenDr. John W. and Janet T. DoranStephen and Joan Dorrell-CanepaJ. Charles and Evelyn G. DoudnaGordon K. and Jane Dempsey DouglassJean E. Downing and Peter R. GatskiK. David and Kathleen S. DrakeAndrew G. and Barbara T. DregalloHenry S. and Linda A. DreherAlan R. Drengson and Victoria StevensMerlin D. and Sandra K. DresherWilliam R. and JoAnn DrewsJames F. and Mary N. DudleyMr. and Mrs. Lloyd C. DumenilMyrl L. DuncanGail Ellen DunlapNaomi F. and Dirk D. DurantFred Y. DurrancePeter K. Duval

Sherman L. Eagles and Susan J. ConnerAlbert EbersBernard and Margaret EckL.G. EddyThomas A. and Ginnie EddyRebecca B. EdwardsDrs. Oscar R. and Eleanor V. Eggers

Professors David and Joan EhrenfeldPaul R. and Anne H. EhrlichRobert L. and Marilyn Sue EichhornChris and Carol EisenbeisLoren and Debera L. EkenJulie B. ElfvingMyron L. and Deborah L. ElliottKen and Pat EmbersJean A. EmmonsJohn R. EngelDavid EngmanDouglas D. and Catherine C.Engstrom

Hilda L. EnochEldon EppMelvin D. and Sylvia K. EppRaymond R. and Akiko EppJames A. ErdmanRichard ErganianPatricia C. and S. Glenn EricksonThomas and Terry L. Erickson-HarperMichael J. EttemaTerry and Sam EvansBeverly B. and Lawrence W. EverettDrs. John J. and Katherine C. EwelMargaret S. and S.A. Ewing

Steven L. Fahrion and Patricia A.Norris

Laura L. FaldutoEdward S. and Kristin Maahs FallonDavid L. and Patricia L. FancherDarrell D. and Dorthy A. FanestilElizabeth FarnsworthDr. Daphne G. FautinWayne D. Federer and Virginia A.Gaynor

Betsy B. FehsenfeldRalf FellmanPauline R. and Norman Miles FellowsWilliam H. FergusonProfessor Frederick FerrePete FerrellLisa A. FieldsAndy FinfrockDavid D. and Judith R. FinleyMargaret M. and William J. FischangEmily Fisher and Evan GriswoldKathleen FisherMarcie Fisher and John BradlyMarston

Dr. David R. and Nancy C. FlattKen and Lana FleischmannLaurence B. FloodJan and Cornelia FloraSamuel E. and Bernice E. FloraDon M. and Mary Anne FlournoyBernd and Enell FoersterJ. Thomas FordJeremy and Angela FosterMr. John Fox Jr. and SheilaJusten-Fox

Norman C. and Margaret A. FrankBarbara A. FraseMr. and Mrs. Edward C. FrederickThe Rev. Jim L. and Annabel K.Fredrickson

Rachel R. FreifelderJean W. French and Ben FischlerJohn French Jr.Carlton Dean and Elsie L.Freudenberger

Phillip E. Fry and Peggy MilesCyril R. and Donna B. FunkStephen Furey

John W. and Judith M. GallmanAmanda GarciaDavid Gates and Diane GumzLarry Gates and Peggy Thomas

The Land Report 27

Jacob A. GatschetBrant and Mary Ellen GaulJared N. and Cindi M. GellertJoseph V. and Janette A. GelrothCarolyn Cox GeorgeJohn Edward Gerber IIITimothy J. and Lynn A. GerchyCharles E. Gessert, M.D.George W. and Kate Rogers GessertTerri GiacomazziElisabeth GibansStephen W. and Marie Roth GibsonWilliam E. and Julia K. GibsonRobert L. GielMark M. GieseGladys Gifford and Alvin J. SchusterJohn GilardiGerald L. and Mineko S. GillespieChris and Preston GilsonPaula J. and James E. GlackinJohn and Kathi GlovackLisa Goddard and Mitchell D.Thompson

Jay R. and Linda K. GoeringThomas M. and Gail C. GoletzSezer Goncuoglu-EserJames T. and Margaret E. GoodLeRoy J. and Ruth M. GoodrickMark GordonKenneth E. and Shirley A. GowdyRobert and Kay L. GoydenMary Ann and James J. GraeveJeanne B. GramstorffSusan W. GrangerLewis O. and Patricia J. GrantRobert L. GrantJohn Emmet and Margery GravesGrace W. GrayJack Gray and Mary Jo WadeMarion W. and Esther N. GrayDaniel G. and Norma A. GreenLaurie C. and G. Garner GreenVictor M. GreenRobin and John McClure GreenlerDr. William Greenway Jr. and CynthiaRigby

Rachel L. GreenwoodGregg T. Greiner, D.V.M.William W. and Mary K. GreshamJoseph GriffinCharles G. and Patricia A. GrimwoodEvan GriswoldMarian D. GriswoldCarol GrossMarcia A. Miller and Bryan J. GrossLisa Jo Grossman and Kelly BarthDean and Betty GrovesDoug and Ruth Ann GuessPhyllis L. GunnPeter Gustafson and Kelly M.Champion

Donald HagedornPhilip M. and Patricia A.D. HahnPaula R. and Van B. HallVirginia HamillJohn A. HamiltonNeil D. HamiltonJames B. and Sally HammermanJames L. and Karen J. HamrickJoel C. and Joyce L. HanesDon and Nathalie HanhardtJohn P. HanselLloyd B. Hansen and Margaret R.Tuma

Art and Natalie HansonKirk V. and Rhonna M. HargettCheryl Harrington HarperRenee and Gregg HarrisJohn Hart and Jane Morell-Hart

Julie P. and Philip A. HartPeter G. and Mary Jean HartelJohn M. Hartman and Kay M. RicheyDr. Gary S. and Lynne F. HartshornKaren H. HarwellRichard C. Haskell and Nancy V.Hamlett

Jean HassmanKathryn J. Hatcher and Robert B.Ambrose Jr.

Delmar and Laverna HatesohlRobert HaughawoutBert and Dawn Haverkate-EnsLois F. and Charles M. HayesPalmer R. and Lydia F. HaynesWilliam HeasomDaniel L. and Margaret A. HebertPhillip and Sally Holman HebertLinda and Jeffrey P. HedquistMarjorye and Barney HeeneyJudith M. HeeschenPeter Ridgaway Hegeman and PatriciaEgan

John Heider and Donna LuckeyWarren J. and Rosemary A. HeidrickPhilip and Carmen S. HeilmanProfessor Nicholas and Suzanne W.Helburn

Steffen A. and Janet M. HelgaasAmanda Beth HelinBurton and Rosemary HendricksonRollie HenkesJames F. HensonDr. Robert A. HerendeenNorbert E. and Marlene J. HermesEric and Mary HerminghausenCarl V. HerrgesellJohn M. and Susan S. HeynemanJim HeynenEleanor C. and Kenneth J. HiebertBette J. HilemanTresa HillJoe and Virginia HillersSteven A. and Annabeth HindClinton R. and Nancy C. HinmanJuan and Tomas Rehbock and A.P.Hiraki

Dr. Allen Gene Hirsh and Rhonda J.Weiss

Dave and Cathleen Hockman-WertRuth HodgesHelen L. and Rex HodlerJon HoeflerKurt Hoelting, M.D., and SallyGoodwin

Peter HoffmanWalter and Virginia HoffmanBernie and Ingrid Scharn HoffnarStan C. and Karen HokansonCraig and Henrike HoldregeCheryl E. and John P. HoldrenJohn M. and Catrinka HollandMargaret A. Holm and Keith L. RaderJenny E. HolmesRobert and Lynne HoltJohn J. and Gloria J. HoodWilliam J. and Leslie G. HooksDave HopkinsErnest HorberJames C. HormelWilliam Hornung and MargueriteDesotelle

James K. HosleyLoren B. HoughHeather and Wayne HoukKeim T. and Sylvia R. HouserBruce F. and Debra K. HowardJune P. HowardGary R. and Michele HowlandJames F. and Catherine J. Hoy

Jerold and Bonnie HubbardDarrell K. and Bunny E. HuddlestonKarl Fred HuemmrichMiles D. HuffmanMegan E. Hughes and Gregory J. JarrettTerry A. HughesDeborah A. HunsbergerJon C. and Audrey F. HunstockEric G. HurleyLinda S. and Terry A. HurstLogan L. HurstJames A. and Sara Lou Hutchison

Charles and Dominique IngeJean S. IngoldMichelle IppolitoC.J. Iremonger and C.C. Van SchaikGerald J. and Kristin L. IrissarriDuane and Mary IselyCharles W. Isenhart

Harley and Linnea JacksonDr. and Mrs. J.H. Jackson Jr.Judith E. Jacobsen and John W. FirorMargaret JaggerJean and Luc JanninkJan and Willem JansensPaul G. and Elaine D. JantzenCharles B. and Melanie R. JenneyDr. Charles D. and Gerry JenningsIrene C. JenningsRobert W. JensenEvangeline P. JilkaFelix R. JimenezKenneth D. and Wilma F. JohnsenBen F. Johnson IVCarl L. and Linda K. JohnsonCharles Aaron and Marion Jean JohnsonDuane E. JohnsonKurt N. JohnsonMarlin P. JohnsonDr. Michael G. and Gwyn E. JohnsonNina L. and Orval G. JohnsonPaul W. and Patricia J. JohnsonPaul D. JohnsonRaymond N. and Lola A. JohnsonRobert K. and Joycelyn A. JohnsonRoland A. and Margaret JohnsonStephan H. Johnson and Patricia A.Termini

Dr. Stephen R. JohnsonVernon L. and Betty M. JohnsonMax D. and Helen JohnstonElaine E. JonesGary and Marilyn JonesLoretta L. JonesNathan JonesProfessor W. Paul JonesWilliam D. JonesLucy JordanNicholas Jordan and Annette JacobDr. and Mrs. Charles R. JorgensenMarilyn JorrieWalter and Mary Ann JostPaul E. and Carol A. Junk

Richard and Beverly KaiEdward A. KailKaty KampfJames F. and Julie KanadyMr. Adrian KaufmanTim and Sharon KeaneAndy and Nan Fullerton KegleyGlendon Dean and Billie Sue KellerJohn R. Keller and Cheryl Ann HickeyRichard W. KellerWilliam G. KellerJohn E. KelloggLoni Kemp and Richard A. NethercutBruce Kendall

Sally M. KendallAlissa and Neal Keny-GuyerLincoln KernEdwin Kessler IIIStephan M. KettlerThomas R. and Lorna J. KilianGeoff KingForrest KinzliFrederick W. KirkM.B. KirkhamJames L. Kirkland Jr.F Kirschenmann and C.Raffensperger

Bruce A. KittleTheodore A. and Violet H. KlaseenLance R. and Melanie KleinJay C. Klemme and Anne S. WilsonMark C. KlettPaula Kline and Alan J. WrightKaren KlonskyCarolyn S. Klote and Stephen A.Kapp

Raymond C. and Marianne D.Kluever

Dorthea KnappClayton A. KnepleyDavid E. KnoxJohn N. KochEleanore KoetherWalter J. and Barbara J. KoopSeppo A. and Terttu K. KorpelaGayle Joy Kosh and H. RedekoppVerna and Conrad O. KrahlingKerry M. Kramer and Charles J.Santangelo

Larry A. and Sharon E. KramerElizabeth KraseDavid J. and Heidi R. KreiderDonald J. and Becky KretschmannU. Beate and Mara KrinkeRonald A. Kroese and KimberlyColburn

David E. and Roberta J. KrommAlan and Marti KruckemyerDouglas D. and Janet G. KruegerPaul B. KubistaGary W. and Patricia F. KublyGregg C. and Gretchen P. Kumlien

Robert C. and Margaret A. LaatschPatricia A. LabineH. Lawrence Lack and Lee Ann WardCharlotte E. Lackey and Donald L.Barnett

Duane and Christine LahtiThomas L. and Peggy K. LammersWarren B. and Susan LammertPaul W. and Pamela P. LanderMichael LandersM. Daniel and Judi S. LaneMarvin LangeTerrence W. LarrimerLloyd H. LarsenBradley J. LarsonLoren C. and Elizabeth A. LarsonMerlin D. and Bianca G. LarsonSally W. LasaterJonathan Latham and Allison K.Wilson

Dr. Leo E. LauberEulah C. LaucksC. Shaffia Laue and Gary MindenEdward J. LawrenceGeorge W. LawrenceJerry F. and Eleanor M. LeeperGrace T. LefeverJeanne A. LeFilsEileen M. and Paul F. LeFortDee C. and Robert N. LeggettMary L. Lehmann

The Land Report 28

Ron Lehmkuhl and Idalia T.Mantautas

Shanti LeinowSusan M. LennhardtLaura A. LesniewskiLucinda Merriam LeveilleJeff and Lea Steele LevinDaphne B. LewisLawrence B. and Ruth G. LewisBetty and Robert W. LichtwardtLouise N. and William Z. LidickerDr. William C. and Kathleen H.Liebhardt

Matthew Z. Liebman and Laura C.Merrick

Leslie LihouJanice Lilly and Cary A. BuzzelliNancy R. LindbloomJoseph G. and Beatrix U. LindquistPaul E. and Carol G. LingenfelterDonald N. and Nancy LinkLucy R. LippardCarolyn E.R. LitwinLeslie P. Livingston and David D.Miller, M.D.

Gerald D. and Janice LockhartDavid T. and Mary E. LockwoodRandy L. Lodjic

Gary A. and Judy A. LohmeyerRobert and Janet LondonBruce A. LoomisGary E. and Pamela D. LothsonMarilyn D. LovelessBetty L. LovettDr. Herlan O. and Marjorie V. LoydAnne E. LubbersDrs. Michael and Sue LubbersRichard LundquistDr. Daniel B. Luten Jr.Sandra D. LynnWarren D. and Betty S. LynnAndy LyonJay T. and Suzanne L. Holtz Lyons

Tod J. MaclayCraig and Sue Lani W. MadsenMarilyn L. MahoneyTom and Sherrie MahoneyTom MahoneyAgnes Lee MaierGrant W. Mallett and NancyTilson-Mallett

George R. and Marjorie J. ManglitzMichael F. Maniates and Kathleen M.Greely

Charles F. Manlove

Kathryn A. and Peter B. ManningPhilip S. MargolisKevin L. Markey and Candice MillerAndrew F. Marks and Tamara Zagorec-Marks

James H. and Patricia Jo MarlettRichard MaroldHugh and Joanne MarshIvy MarshFrancis G. and Christine B. MartinFrederick N. MartinHelen O. and Edwin J. MartinJames L. and Nancy MartinDavid MartinezErnest L. and Kathy M. MassothRonald M. and Lillian S. MathsenWilliam J. MatousekWilliam and Robin B. MatthewsJean MaustGordon E. and Evelyn M. MaxwellBruce MayJames MayhewElizabeth T. MaynardMarcia S. and Michael W. MayoJohn N. and Virginia K. McCallMary Gayle McCallMildred N. McClellanMarion McConnell

Spencer C. and Hattie Mae McCraeCarl N. and Mary F. McDanielTerence A. and Katherine I.McDodge

Christopher J. and Lynda A. McElroyAlec McErlichDarren P. and M. Suzanne McGannCathleen D. and Jim T. McKeenT. McKimmiePatrick L. McLaughlin and DianeNeidzwiecki

T. McLean and Hope W. GriffinH.P. and Catherine L. McMillanMarilyn D. McNabbLarry E. McPhersonMr. and Mrs. Sidney McVeyJames C. and Diana N. McWilliamsR. Michael and Debra L. MedleyCurt D. MeineRoger K. MeitlJaye MelcherRoger MelkusMargaret G. MellonRichard A. MertensDouglas J. and Diane MesnerLauree Hersch MeyerOlive E. MeyerRonald Meyer

Audio Tape Order FormSelected recordings from

PRAIRIE FESTIVAL 2000“The Art of Living in Place”

Presented by The Land Institute • Salina, Kansas • May 26-28, 2000Qty. Session Title Speaker(s)

Saturday, May 27___ S1 From Forest to Sea* Joan Lederman & Jesse Sedler___ S2 Far Afield—How Landscapes Affect Our Lives* Lucy Lippard___ S3 Reclaiming The Commons: On Beyond Suburbia Brian Donahue___ S4 The Poetry of People and Place William Kloefkorn

Poetry Round Robin: Harley Elliott, Twyla Hansen, James Thomas Stevens, Patricia TraxlerSunday, May 28

___ SU1 Communicating Art with Nature as Measure* Panel: Bob Sayre, Scott Jost, Katherine Kormendi___ SU2 The Legacy of Landscape Photography Merry Foresta___ SU3 Down the Great Unknown Don Worster___ SU4 Landmarks Versus Monuments Saralyn Hardy___ SU5 The Need to be Versed in Country Things Wes Jackson

*These tapes are visually enhanced with contact sheets of slides shown during presentations.

Name

Company Name

Address

City

State Zip Code+4

Phone ( )

Credit Card: __MC __VISA __Discover

Card # Exp.

Signature

Total number of tapes x $8.00 = ________ Full Set(s) x $65.00 _____

Subtotal: _____For Mail Orders within the U.S., add Shipping and Handling: _____$2.00 first tape, $.50 each additional tape ($18.00 maximum)

For Colorado residents add 7.46% sales tax _____For Canada/Mexico/Overseas Mail Orders:

For Canada, DOUBLE shipping amount. _____For Mexico/Overseas, TRIPLE shipping amount. _____

Orders are sent Air Mail and are guaranteed for 60 days.

Grand Total: _____

Mail Order Payment Policy: We accept checks or money orders (USFunds Only) and MC, VISA or Discover credit cards. Credit card purchasesmay be made by fax or phone, or by filling out this form and mailing it to:

Perpetual Motion Unlimited10322 Left Hand Canyon Drive • Jamestown, CO 80455

Phone: (303) 444-3158 • Fax: (303) 444-7077

The Land Report 29

Ronald R. MichaelHoward Walter MielkeJamie MierauJeanette and Mark MikinskiT.H. and Kathleen M. MilbyKathy L. MilesNancy and Frank MilesAmy E. MillerDarrel E. and Ruth C. MillerKeith B. and Ruth Douglas MillerMargaret J. and Paul A. MillerMargot W. and Roger MillikenJean Barbara and Philip E. MillsDavid V. and Florence MinarPatrick J. and Barbara K. MindrupCraig and Susan MinerGrover C. Mitchell and Harriet G.Hodges

Joanna M. and Stephen C. MitchellRichard W. and Susan H. MitchellRobin E. MittenthalTherese M. MoellerRobert T. MohlerJeffrey L. MolineRobert T. and Kay L. MolineGeorge L. and Lois J. MontoVonna Jo MoodyGary W. and Ruby MooreGregg T. and Emily B. MooreThomas W. and Anne H.T. MooreH. Stewart and Joyce MoredockDon and Ann MoreheadFrederick MorganMark A. Morgenstern and Sally A.Meyer

Dale L. MorrisRev. Kathryn L.R. MorrisonPhilip C. and Lona MorseOdette M. MortensonLynn W. MoserSusan MoultonDiane M. and Robert L. MuellemanChristopher C. MundtAlison G. and Martin L. MurieDebra Dean and James O. MurphyGlen A. MurrayGeorge and Virginia E. Myers

Paul Nachtigal and Toni HaasDarrell E. and Luanne NaptonDavid P. and Nancy A. NedveckMarsha J. Neff and Gregory A. GautAlice C. NelsonPamela S. Nelson and Michael A.Spindler

Ellen G. NeufeldPaul W. NeukirchRichard D. and Shirley A. NewsomeBruce and Barbara NeyersDolores E. Nice and David P.Siegenthaler

Jean G. NicholasBarb NicholsKenneth N. and D. Gail Nickel-Kailing

Gerald A. and La Vonne C. NielsenTrix L. NiernbergerPaul F. and Elaine NighswongerDale and Sonya NimrodUlrich NitschRae Ann NixonBruce J. and Amy W. NobleJorge L. and Patricia O. NoboThomas Nolan and Mary E. ArpsThompson

William J. and Shirley A. NoltingDouglas Nopar and JoAnn ThomasPaul NorlandDavid A. and Janice L. NorlinRobert M. and Laurel Ann Norman

Karl S. and Jane B. NorthCharles L. and Patricia J. Novak

Marian O’Reilly and Stephen M.Lockwood

Larry S. ObornyDavid J. and Jeanne K. OdeRuthann OelsnerMichael and Kathleen J. OldfatherMaurice E. OlsonPaul A. OlsonMartin G. OrlinsDavid Earl OsterbergFrank OstiniBrad M. OstranderJames and Dorothy OswaldJohn S. and Lee Sayre OvertonJim Owens

Jerry C. and Carole PackardEarl W. and Jeanne R. PalmDavid Palmer, Ph.D.Joel D. PalmerHerbert PankoAlan Parker II and Rebecca AnnZerger

Donald G. ParkerMary Thorpe ParkerGary and Eileen ParksPeter A. and Sarah Bremer ParksLaurence ParnellSteven D. PattersonWesley and Helen E. PaulsLisa PaulsonHarold W. PayneElmer N. and Wilma I. PearseRachel M. Pearson and Jose R.B.Marroquin

Richard H. Peckham and Maureen J.Nowlan

Kenneth V. and Ana M. PecotaMil and Marci PennerDr. Gregory K. PennistonC. Diane PercivalJulien Yannick PerretteJohn B. and Jennifer L. PerryJoy B. and James W. PerryJoan PeterkinPaul J. and Karla V. PetersCaroline PetersonClifford B. and Lisa Lee PetersonPeter L. and Rita E. PetersonKatharine M. and Harry J. PetrequinBernard L. and Anne Bertaud PeutoErnest W. and E. Ann PhilippiLeroy C. PhilippiC. Frank Phillips and Deborah K.Hawkins

Michael D. and Eldred PhillipsDonna PickelRobert W. and Susan M.C. PiggJohn R. and Tari Ann PiskacDwight and Lavonne PlattMary Lee Plumb-Mentjes and ConradV. Mentjes

Bryce J. and Kathleen Plunkett-BlackDavid PodollMichael W. PoleraJohn A. PollackDave and Betty PollartFrank J. and Deborah E. PopperDavid W. and Beverly J. PorterNora PouillonDonna Chang and Darwin R PoulosEric E. and Lora Thompson PowellKathy A. Powell and Stephen L.Griswold

William B. and Mary Anne K. PowellAnne W.B. PrichardThomas and Sandra Pritchard

Donna PrizgintasMary Grant Purdy

Trucia Quistarc

Dan and Sarah RainMargaret P. and Jonathan C. RandNeal S. and Izen I. RatzlaffThomas L. Rauch and Joyce BorgerdingHarris A. and Shannon Drews RaylRobert H. and Agnes V. RaymondPaul A. Reaume and Margaret Blake-Reaume

Donald E. ReckLawrence R. and Kimberley A. ReddMilton D. and Irene L. RedickL. David and Ann RedmonChad ReeseDon T. and Barbara ReevesRaymond and Gladys RegierDouglas P. ReidThomas P. and Marianne ReidyDarrell and Sara ReinkeRichard L. and Joyce ReinkeMr. and Mrs. Paul W. RenichJean I. and Stephen L. RetherfordDouglas W. and Cindy S. RettigJohn RezelmanMartha RheaStanley RiceDavid G. RichStephen C. RichardsMabel C. RichardsonRandolph E. RichardsonW. Dennis and Cheryl A. RinehartElizabeth L. RingerBenjamin F. RinkeviczieJanice M. and Hugh D. RiordanMichael E. and Kathleen F. RiordanJanet I. and Wayne L. RippelGordon T. and Barbara A. RiskJames V. and Sandra E. RisserCarol I. and James R. RitterDavid RitterDiane C. and Jack A. RobertsonChristina M. RobinsonLila W. and Albert RobinsonNancy Roca and Phillip W. SchneiderBeverly RockhillJulie Roesler and Fred UtroskeJohn A. RogersDouglas E. Romig and Lori GrahamElizabeth J. RootStanley L. Rose and Bev JacksonTrish RoseJames A. Rousmaniere Jr. and SharonOstow

Martha J. RuheJanyce M. RyanPatricia J. and Jerry D. Ryan

Jennifer M. and Mark E. SaboNiklaus N. Salafsky and Julia A. SegreJohn F. SamsonScott Russell and Ruth Ann SandersDonald E. SandersonMary Sanderson-BolanosWayne E. and Lou Ann SangsterRobert C. SargentNorman E. and Mary Ann SaulDonald T. and Susan G. SauterJanice E. SavidgeDavid L. SayerRobert F. SayreThomas M. and Mary L. ScanlanHenry E. and Dianne M. SchafferStanley and Nava ScharfKathy and James D. ScharplazRichard A. and Dorothy T. SchererA. Anne Schmidt

Joel A. SchmidtMavis A. SchmidtTom SchmiedelerCarol C. SchmittRichard and Sharon SchoechBen J. and Linda S. ScholeKathlyn J. SchoofClaire Lynn SchosserKash SchrieferJeffrey J. SchrubenPeter C. and Helen A. SchulzeA.J. and Jane E. SchwartzAmy D. SchwartzStephanie Kerly and MichaelSchwartz

Kim J. and Ann B. SeeleyRuth E. SeiberlingLynette S. SeigleyRaymond F. and Mary C. SellGerald L. and Jean L. SelzerCharles SesherCharlene A. SextonMiner and Valetta SeymourSuzanne Jean ShaferCharles A. and Joan SudmannShapiro

Emilie R. and Dennis M. SharpStuart L. and Diane SharpMartha J. ShawSandra J. ShawStephen J. and Jeannette P. ShawlNancy H. and John C. SheaRichard B. and Audrey M. SheridanMarion T. SherkCharlotte ShoemakerMary Helen ShortridgeBob SiemensRobert Lee SigmonDiane W. SimpsonJohn M. SimpsonWilliam A. and Janice D. SimpsonThomas D. Sisk and Helen R.Sparrow

Martha S. SkillmanDonald E. and Elvera W. SkokanKathleen M. SlatteryMary Lynn SloaneDave Lawton Smalley and Sarah L.Johnston

Boyd E. and Heather M. SmithDaniel G. and Cheryl L. SmithDonald M. SmithJames R. and Katherine V. SmithMargaret A. Smith and Douglas S.Alert

Marjorie Whitall SmithMichael SmithSue Smith-Heavenrich and Lou D.Heavenrich

Nathan Smucker and Greta HiebertDr. Robert B. and Marianne K.Smythe

Marvin SnellVada SniderSeymour and Sara H. SohmerLarry Soll and Nancy C. MaronRobert F. and Judith D. SouleJoel SpectorJames H. and Sue SpenceJohn W. and MaryAnn S. SpencePaul R. SpenceEarl F. and Carol S. SpencerEric A. and Mary Louise StahlPamela C. StearnsDavid B. and Claudia SteckelSara G. SteelmanMichael S. and Barbara C. SteerRobert and Clara SteffenL. Joe StehlikRobert J. and Lyda L. Steiert

The Land Report 30

Marion SteinRichard J. and Peggy SteinKristen A. StelljesBetty C.S. and John R. SterlingBridget StevensDean StevensDuncan StewartWendell H. and Elizabeth J. StickneyPaul D. Stolen and Deborah K. AmaziJonas and Judy StoltzfusRussell and Dorothy N. StoneJeffrey R. and Rebecca J. StouppeReginald and Elrene StoweJim StrainPaul A. StrasburgChris StrattonGail E. StrattonCharlotte M. and John G. Strecker-Baseler

Dale StricklerRita Joy Stucky and R.A. ChristensenBrad R. Stuewe and Paula A. FriedJohn Carl and Virginia A. StuhrDonald D. StullConnie and Karl StutterheimPersis B. SuddethJanet L. SuelterLinda SuelterRuth K. SullivanWilliam J. SunderlandRobert A. and Mary F. SuperHarold SupernawMarian F. SussmanThomas M. and Carol A. SvolosEdward C. and Janice C. SwabGerald R. SwaffordConnie S. SwanA.J. SwansonDavid K. and Shelli A. SwansonConnie M. SweeneyWalter P. and Jeanie M. SyMargaret E. Winter and Rusty SydnorT. John Szarkowski

Laurie D. TanenbaumProfessor Edith L. TaylorJames T. and Rosa Lea TaylorGary E. and Diane TegtmeierDr. Edward H. TennerRuth TerrillRichard ThieltgesGene S. and Patricia A. ThomasArt Thompson, M.D., and SusieMassoth

Beth E. ThompsonHelen M. ThompsonJohn W. ThompsonMargo ThompsonRobert Ernest ThompsonJohn A. and Linda L. ThorntonJill TiemanJonathan P. TillquistRichard and Marney TooleDouglas Clark TowneCharles J. TransueSarah C. Trulove and James W.Woelfel

Mary Evelyn Tucker and John A.Grim

James E. Tuckett and Constance J.Organek

William A. and Annemarie Turnage

Charles Umbanhowar Jr. and GretaAnderson

Cheryl Umphrey and Stephen E.Renich

Cork and Ella UmphreyEmilio UngerfeldRobert L. Untiedt

Virginia L. UsherWalter F. Utroske

J. Pat ValentikDaniel G. and Amber D. VallottonJim Van EmanTimothy I. Van MeterStanley Van SteenvoortBridget VenningGary Allen and Donna June ViaThomas von Geldern and CynthiaSkrukrud

Ronald J. and Nancy A. VosDr. Orville L. and Helen M. Voth

John M. WadeVirgil WagnerDavid E. Wagoner and ArwenDonahue

Alvin WahlJeffrey S. Walberg and Kara M.Beauchamp

Robert K. WaldoPatricia J. and Samuel H. WalkerTom WallaceWilliam B. and Nancy M. WallaceRobert C. WallisCurtis S. and Evelyn S. WalsethDonald J. WalshAndrea C. WalterRobert A. WalterTerrence W. WaltersRichard F. and Susan M. WaltonSteven G. and Elaine A. WaltzJustin R. Ward and Anne T. CarverRichard T. and Barbara R. WardJohn S. and Amy L. WarinnerAllison WarnerCharles and Nancy Jane WarnerDr. Louise O. WarnerNancy E. Warner, M.D.Thomas J. WarnerDorothy F. and John F. WarrenWilliam D. and Iren M. WarrenDeborah R. and David M. WatsonRobert E. and Elaine WatsonRichard S. WaxmanJim WeaverAlexander S. WebbMsgr. John George WeberLeonard J. and Margaret M. WeberWallace N. WeberRobert B. and Judith S. WeedenJane Beatrice WegscheiderThomas R. and Deborah Neher WeichtPaul K. Weidhaas and Madonna M.Stallmann

Suzanne R. and Frederic D. WeinsteinRuth WeirRobert Claire WemerDal and Diane L. WengerCharles W. and Barbara Wertz-LeidenHolly A. WescottDr. and Mrs. Charles R. WesnerPaul WestHoward B. and Dorothy WestleyWarren and Geneva WestonOrval L. and Mary C. WeyersJan L. WheelerValerie Wheeler and Peter EsainkoRobert E. and Mary WhelpleyArthur P. and Jody WhippleChristopher D. WhiteRoger P. and Anita P. WhiteJo M. and Stephen R. WhitedDelbert L. Wiens and Marjorie J.Gerbrandt

John WilcoxKaren K. WilkenJeannine and Randy A. Wilkinson

Dr. Julia WillebrandRoslyn WillettDavid L. WilliamsMarjorie J. WilliamsRobert D. and Kathryn B. WilliamsTodd M. and Lezle G. WilliamsSarah Jane WilliamsonRobert and Delores WillmsPhillip J. WilmoreGabriel C. WilmothOtis W. and Lois W. WinchesterSusan H. Winslow and Fred P. KarnsWallace C. WinterSteven WisbaumKlaus H. and Karin WisiolJean C. Withrow and James J. HaggertySylvan H. and Maurine C. WittwerKeith V. and Kathleen M. WoldJoyce A. and Ronald J. WolfMichael H. WolfCharlotte P. and Robert W. WolfeDorothy P. WonderMatthew T. WoodJoel and Joan G. WoodhullCatherine A. WorsterDonald E. and Beverley J. WorsterAngus WrightHoward O. WrightDr. Valerie F. WrightDavid WristenNancy L. Wygant and Jamie S. Alexander

George and Margaret YarnevichRobert J. and Janet C. YingerPaul and Kathy YoachimJ. Lowell and Ruth AnnYoungRebecca YoungDavid A. Yudkin and Jeana S. Edelman

M. Louise and James J. ZaffiroDavid E. and Linda M. ZahrtRuth R. and Mark W. ZalonisSarette Zawadsky and Helmut W. WeistJon and Bette Simon ZehnderJodi ZiesemerDr. Robert L. ZimdahlDavid H. Zimmermann and EmilyMarriott

Anne ZinsserRichard W. Ziock

OrganizationsAcme ConstructionAllstar OrganicsAppalachian Ministries EducationalResource Center

Applegreen TrustArrow Printing Co.Aspen Business Center FoundationAustin Memorial Foundation

Balanced HorizonsBank of TescottBriggs ConstructionBrown Brothers FarmingBuckskin Valley Farms

C.K.H. Inc.California Certified Organic FarmersCedar Valley Honey FarmsCenter for Design StudiesChesapeake Wildlife HeritageChez Panisse FoundationChico Basin RanchChrysalis FoundationClubine & Rettele, CharteredCollins Family FoundationCooperative Grocer

Coronado Oil & Gas Inc.Coulter Farm

Dahl & AssociatesDAK Inc.Geraldine R. Dodge FoundationDoug’s Optical DispensersDrummond & Associates

Fertrell CompanyFlora Family FoundationFred Smeds Inc.Fry Masonry

Garfield Farm MuseumGrain Place Foods Inc.Grand Rapids DominicansGreat Plains Earth Institute

H&M Enterprises N.W. Inc.Haley Johnson Design CompanyClarence E. Heller CharitableFoundation

C.M. Hendrycks ApiariesHibbard Family TrustJohn Hirschi Fund

Insurors and Investors Inc.

J&E Farm

Kinnickinnic Realty Co.Kirchhoff Farms

Laguna FarmsLaucks Foundation Inc.Leighty Foundation

Miller’s Bakery

Nature Conservancy of Illinois

Oak Lodge Foundation

Packaging SystemsPandol & SonsPathfinder FundPauline-Morton FoundationPennAg IndustriesPhilanthropic Collaborative Inc.Prairie Moon Nursery IncPurple Dragon Co-Op Inc.

Quincy University Friary, Franciscan

Radiance DairyRobert B. Ragland Foundation Inc.Price R. & Flora A. Reid FoundationRight Livelihood AwardRoss Agro

San Vincente Wine Co.Sandhill Farm Inc.Sauvie Island OrganicsSchuster Kane Alliance, Inc.Share-It-Now FoundationSilver Seed GreenhousesSimpson FoundationSisters of St. Benedict, CommonGround

Solomon State BankSoy Inc.SuffolkSoft Inc.

Wallace Genetic Foundation Inc.Windy Hills FarmWolf FoundationWork Family Estate Trust

Yellow Teapot

The Land Report 31

Invest in TheLand Institute!Our research isopening the way to anew agriculture —farming modeled onnative prairies.Farmers using NaturalSystems Agriculturewill produce food withlittle fertilizer andpesticide, buildingsoil instead of losingit. If you share thisvision and would liketo help, pleaseconsider becoming aFriend of The Land.

To become a Friend ofthe Land and receiveThe Land Reportplease send your gifttoday. Clip thiscoupon and return itwith your payment to:

The Land Institute2440 E. Water Well RoadSalina, KS 67401

Yes! I want to be a perennial Friend of The LandHere’s my tax-deductible gift to support The Land Institute’s programs in Natural SystemsAgriculture, The Sunshine Farm, and Rural Community Studies.

Please Print

Name ____________________________________________________________________________________

Address___________________________________________________________________________________

City ____________________________________________State _____________ Zip_____________________

I authorize The Land Institute each month to

�� Transfer from my checking account (enclose check for the first monthly payment)

�� Transfer from my savings account #___________________________________

�� Charge my credit/debit card

�� $3 per month �� $5 per month �� $10 per month �� $15 per month �� $30 per month

�� $60 per month �� $80 per month �� $100 per month �� Other $________ per month

Deduct my tax-deductible gift on the �� 5th of each month �� 20th of each month

I prefer to make a special gift of �� $25 �� $55 �� $125 �� $500 �� $1,000 �� Other $___________ since Iam unable to make a monthly commitment at this time.

Payment Method: �� My check, made payable to The Land Institute, is enclosed.

Charge my �� Visa �� MasterCard �� Discover

Account # ____________________________________ Expiration Date ____ /____

Signature__________________________________________________________________________________

Monthly Giving:We will transfer your gift on the date you select and will continue until you notify us otherwise. You can change or cancel your monthly donation at any time simply by calling or writing The Land Institute. Wewill confirm your instructions in writing.

LR69

The work we are doing on Natural Systems Agricultureis urgent and, because it is long-term, we are accelerating the progress. With that goal in mind, TheLand Institute implemented a plan to process monthlygifts by automatic bank transfer, credit card or debitcard. We hope you will consider becoming a perennialFriend of The Land by committing to make a tax-deductible charitable gift each month.

Dependable monthly income makes planning easierfor you — and for The Land Institute. Your commitmentwill help us reduce administrative costs and advance ourresearch agenda more quickly by providing steady,dependable support. You choose the amount and timing

of your gifts. Within the first month of receiving yourcommitment, we will mail you a photocopy of yourcommitment authorization as your reminder. Early ineach new year, we will provide you with a summary ofyour total charitable contribution for the previous calendar year. You can change or cancel your monthlydonation at any time simply by calling or writing The Land Institute.

If you would like to help us speed up the work ofThe Land Institute by making an automatic monthlycontribution, please complete and return the form below.For more information contact Patty Melander at 785-823-5376 or Melander@LandInstitute.org.

Become a Perennial Friend of the Land

Non-Profit OrganizationU.S. Postage PaidPermit #81Salina, KS 67401

2440 E. Water Well Rd.Salina, KS 67401

If the date on your label is before 7-1-00, this isyour last issue. Please renew your support.

Address Service Requested

Visit our website: www.landinstitute.org