permaculture-inspired farms in quebec: an economic and
TRANSCRIPT
Permaculture-Inspired Farms in Quebec: An Economic and Social Overview
CitationBastien, Gabrielle. 2016. Permaculture-Inspired Farms in Quebec: An Economic and Social Overview. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School.
Permanent linkhttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33797350
Terms of UseThis article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Share Your StoryThe Harvard community has made this article openly available.Please share how this access benefits you. Submit a story .
Accessibility
Permaculture-Inspired Farms in Quebec: An Economic and Social Overview
Gabrielle Bastien
A Thesis in the Field of Sustainability and Environmental Management
For the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts
Harvard University
May 2016
Abstract
Permaculture is a design approach to human settlements that promotes diverse,
regenerative and resilient agricultural systems. It appears this movement could play an
important role in the transition from industrial to a more ecologically sound agriculture,
however it has been the object of very few systematic inquiries, in particular with respect
to its economic feasibility. Assessing the financial viability of permaculture systems will
be crucial to the widespread implementation of this approach. Moreover, understanding
farmer motivations to adopt this form of agricultural management as well as their
challenges and perceptions will be useful in guiding future policies that drive
permaculture production. The objectives of this study are: (1) to explore, through the case
study of Quebec, Canada, the types of agroecosystems implemented by permaculture-
inspired farmers; (2) to analyze the profitability of permaculture-inspired agroecosystems;
(3) to assess farmer motivations, challenges and perceptions with respect to permaculture.
I interviewed a total of 35 farmers, selected through a snowball referral sampling
approach. Permaculture farms showed high levels of system and income source diversity,
systems integration and very low human intervention levels at times. A high proportion of
permaculture farms in the sample were profitable. An organic certification, selling value
added products and restricting livelihood diversity were linked to greater profitability. No
correlation was found between farm size and economic viability. Subjects in this study
were highly motivated by conservation, lifestyle and altruistic values, and most
challenged by labor and economic constraints. Given the apparent ecological, economic
iv
and social benefits of permaculture, I propose some recommendations to Quebec policy
makers in order to encourage this approach to farming.
v
Acknowledgments
I first wish to thank my research advisor Mark Leighton for offering crucial
guidance at early stages of the conceptualization of this study and introducing me to field
research as a professor. Mark supported my enthusiasm for investigating permaculture
systems and introduced me to practitioner Ben Falk, which led to a pivotal summer-long
internship on Ben’s farm. I am deeply grateful to Ben for giving me the opportunity to
gain hands-on farm experience on his wonderful site. This apprenticeship shaped my
understanding of permaculture and was critical to my ability to conduct farmer
interviews.
The thoughtful guidance provided by my thesis director Rachael Garrett through
all phases of this study was absolutely essential its success. I want to thank Rachael for
her extensive availability, as well as her support and reassurance through the various
changes of direction of this project, which helped realigning my vision in times of doubt.
I am also very thankful to researcher Rafter Sass Ferguson for making himself
available to discuss my study. Obtaining advice from a seasoned investigator conducting
multi-faceted research on permaculture systems was highly valuable, to say the least.
Finally, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to the farmer interviewees for
being so generous with their time and sharing of information. I was moved to witness the
enthusiasm in wanting to participate to this study, despite the inconvenient timing amid
busy harvest season. Many agriculture- and permaculture- organization representatives
also provided time and information to this project. Thank you all, for this research would
not have been possible without your contributions.
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiii
I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
Research Significance and Objectives .....................................................................1
Background ..............................................................................................................2
The Emergence of Agroecology ..................................................................4
Permaculture and its Potential Role in the Agricultural Transition .............5
Lack of Systematic Assessments of the Economics of Permaculture
Production ....................................................................................................7
Profitability of Organic and Conservation Agriculture................................8
Farmer Motivations and Challenges ..........................................................10
Case Study: Quebec ...................................................................................13
Brief overview of the Quebec agricultural sector...........................13
Joint plans and supply management through quotas ......................14
Trade union monopoly ...................................................................17
Permaculture in Quebec .................................................................17
Research Questions and Hypotheses......................................................................18
II. Methods.........................................................................................................................20
Data Collection.......................................................................................................20
Farm Selection............................................................................................20
vii
Farmer Interviews ......................................................................................21
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................21
Identification with Permaculture Classification .........................................21
Farm Type, Class, Systems and Age..........................................................22
Source and Availability of Economic Data................................................23
Profitability Classification..........................................................................23
Farm Enterprise Classification and Diversity ............................................24
III. Results..........................................................................................................................26
Description of Farms..............................................................................................26
Identification with Permaculture ................................................................26
Farm Type and Class in Relation to Main Agricultural Activities ............26
Functional Systems, Functional Diversity and Systems Integration..........28
Farm Size, Age and Other Characteristics .................................................30
Very Low Intervention Level .....................................................................32
Farm Economics.....................................................................................................33
Profitability.................................................................................................33
Farm Enterprises and Diversity of Income Sources...................................33
Grants, Labor and Volunteers ....................................................................39
Motivations, Challenges and Perceptions ..............................................................39
Motivations to Farm ...................................................................................39
Challenges ..................................................................................................43
Perceptions of Permaculture Benefits and Drawbacks ..............................45
Desired Changes to the Quebec Agricultural Sector..................................50
IV. Discussion....................................................................................................................53
viii
Characterization of Permaculture Farms................................................................53
More Perennials, Yet Annuals Were Still the Most Prominent System.....53
More System Diversity and High Livelihood Diversity ............................54
Systems Integration and Low Human Intervention Level .........................55
Profitability ............................................................................................................55
Permaculture Farms Are Profitable, Likely Even More than Conventional
Farms..........................................................................................................55
Value Added Products and Organic Certification Increase Profitability ...56
Too Much Diversity Limits Profitability ...................................................57
Going Bigger Does Not Increase Profits....................................................58
Seed Farms and Tree Nurseries Yield High Revenues per Acre ...............59
Motivations and Challenges...................................................................................59
Lifestyle and Altruistic Motivations Explaining Conservation Practices ..60
Labor and Economic Challenges................................................................61
Recommendations for Quebec Policy Makers.......................................................62
Increase Environmental Education and Contact with Nature in the
Educational System ....................................................................................62
Subsidize the Organic Certification ...........................................................62
Raise Off-Quota Allowances to those of Alberta.......................................63
Allow for the Free Choice of Farmer Trade Union....................................63
Limits of this Study................................................................................................64
Recommendations for Further Research................................................................65
Conclusion..............................................................................................................66
Appendix............................................................................................................................69
ix
References..........................................................................................................................71
x
List of Tables
Table 1 Value of quotas and off-quota allowances in Quebec................................16
Table 2 Identification with permaculture classification ..........................................22
Table 3 Profitability classification...........................................................................24
Table 4 Farm enterprise classification.....................................................................25
Table 5 Farmer identification with permaculture....................................................26
Table 6 Farm type according to permaculture identification ..................................27
Table 7 Farm class according to type ......................................................................28
Table 8 Farm class according to permaculture identification .................................28
Table 9 Size and age of farms .................................................................................31
Table 10 Other farm characteristics ..........................................................................32
Table 11 Farm profitability .......................................................................................33
Table 12 Gross income by farm enterprise................................................................34
Table 13 Gross income from farm products per cultivated acre ...............................36
Table 14 Motivations to undertake the current farming initiative.............................41
Table 15 Farmer challenges.......................................................................................44
Table 16 Farmer perceptions of permaculture benefits.............................................46
Table 17 Farmer perceptions of permaculture drawbacks ........................................48
xi
Table 18 Desired changes to the Quebec agricultural sector ....................................51
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Functional diversity and identification with permaculture.........................30
Figure 2 Farm age and identification with permaculture..........................................31
Figure 3 Total farm income and identification with permaculture...........................35
Figure 4 Profitability and number of farm enterprises .............................................37
Figure 5 Percentage of income from value added products and total income from
farm products..............................................................................................38
Figure 6 Organic certification and total income from farm products .......................38
Figure 7 Motivation themes and identification with permaculture...........................43
Figure 8 Challenge themes and identification with permaculture ............................44
Figure 9 Permaculture benefit themes and identification with permaculture...........47
Figure 10 Permaculture drawback themes and identification with permaculture ......49
1
Chapter I
Introduction
Increased recognition of the detrimental environmental impacts caused by
industrial agriculture has led to the burgeoning of several alternative farming movements.
One that has gained high public interest in recent years is permaculture: a design
approach applied to human settlements that focuses on maximizing the
interconnectedness between system components for increased efficiency (Hemenway,
2009). Permaculture aims to consciously manage and maintain agriculturally productive
ecosystems to provide them with the diversity, stability and resilience of natural
ecosystems (Mollison, 1988).
This approach not only seems to have significant ecological and social benefits
(Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Mollison, 1988; Hemenway, 2009), but its rapidly
expanding international network has been successful at extending notions of sustainability
and ecology to a large community (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014). As a result, it appears
permaculture could play an important role in the transition from industrial to a more
ecologically sound agriculture.
Research Significance and Objectives
However, this movement has been the object of very few systematic inquiries. In
particular, detailed accounts of the economic feasibility of permaculture agroecosystems
are lacking in the current literature. Assessing the financial viability of such systems will
be crucial to the widespread implementation of the permaculture approach. Moreover,
2
understanding farmer motivations to adopt this form of agricultural management as well
as their challenges and perceptions will be useful in guiding future policies that drive this
type of farming. My research addresses these shortcomings by analyzing the case study of
permaculture-inspired farms in Quebec, Canada.
The objectives of this study are: (1) to explore the types of agroecosystems
implemented by permaculture-inspired farmers; (2) to analyze the profitability of
permaculture-inspired agroecosystems; (3) to assess farmer motivations, challenges and
perceptions with respect to permaculture.
Background
Industrial agriculture practices are causing the exhaustion of soil resources and
inhibiting their recovery (Lal, 2004). Indeed, widespread methods such as heavy
applications of synthetic fertilizers as well as excessive soil disturbance are inhibiting the
natural processes that allow for the sequestration of inorganic atmospheric carbon into
soil organic carbon (SOC) (Jones, 2008; Jones, 2010; Killham, 1994; Leake et al., 2004).
In addition, tillage causes the oxidation of current SOC content, releasing large amounts
of stored carbon as CO2 (McIntyre et al., 2009; Reicosky et al., 1995). Depletion of SOC,
a key indicator of soil fertility, is triggering a reduction in several essential soil functions
such as water storage and infiltration, soil structure and aggregation, erosion prevention,
nutrient release and retention as well as soil biodiversity (Paustian, 1994; Magdoff, 2007).
This contributes to the spread of desertification: as such, agricultural activities are
responsible for 35% of harshly degraded land worldwide (McIntyre et al., 2009).
The implications of soil carbon loss in terms of climate change are numerous.
Indeed, this lost SOC is mostly released in the atmosphere as CO2, contributing to rising
3
temperatures (Lal, 2004). Furthermore, losing the natural soil properties generated by
SOC creates an increased vulnerability to floods, droughts and other extreme weather
events, which are enhanced in severity and frequency with climate change (IPCC, 2014).
One of the underlying causes for such input-intensive practices is the shift towards
larger, more specialized farms, which implies several ecological consequences itself. This
transition to vast monocultures has been reflected in Canada by a fourfold increase in
average farm size from 1921 to 2011, and a rising trend in specialization with 53% of
farms considered highly specialized in 2011 (i.e. over 90% of their sales were derived
from one commodity or commodity group) (Statistics Canada, 2012; Statistics Canada,
2015). Monocultures display almost no complementary interactions between system
components, such that cycles – including the nutrient cycle – become open as opposed to
closed loops (Altieri & Nicholls, 2005). This creates a need for heavy synthetic fertilizer
inputs, and also generates undesired outputs such as nitrogen leachate (Altieri & Nicholls,
2005). Monocultures are also more vulnerable to pests and therefore require intense
applications of pesticides, which are instigating the decline of insect, bird, fish and other
wildlife populations and are also harmful to human health (Pimentel, 2009). Furthermore,
larger farm size has called for a greater reliance on heavy machinery (Dimitri et al.,
2005), which requires the combustion of fossil fuels and therefore emits significant
amounts of CO2. An outcome of such intensification is that the energy embodied in crop
harvest is often inferior to the amount of energy expended to produce this very yield
(Gliessman, 1998).
As the environmental externalities of feeding a growing population with
conventional agriculture practices become increasingly obvious, there is rising interest in
alternative agricultural practices that regenerate the ecological health of the land. Indeed,
4
while global food demand is expected to double by 2050 from 20th century levels (Tilman
et al., 2002), 24 billion tons of fertile soil disappear each year (UNCCD, 2012). In this
context, sustainable practices – practices that merely sustain the pool of natural resources
and attempt to minimize the loss of topsoil (Jones, 2003) – will not be sufficient to
overcome the challenges of expanding food supplies with scarcer arable lands of reduced
functionality. Instead, regenerative practices – practices that replenish soil, water,
vegetation and productivity – will be needed to ensure food production in the 21st century
context (Jones, 2003). As testimony to the rising awareness of this issue, France recently
lauched the “4 pour 1000” program, urging to increase soil carbon by 0.4% yearly in
agricultural soils as a way to mitigate climate change and ensure food security worldwide
(Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt, 2015). Pointing in the
same direction, the UNCTAD (2013) recently concluded that small-scale, organic
farming was the only viable way to feed the world.
The Emergence of Agroecology
In response to this need for a drastic change of agricultural methods, agronomists
and ecologists began joining forces to create the field of agroecology (Gliessman, 1990) -
“the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of
sustainable agroecosystems” (Gliessman, 1998). Broadly defined, agroecology is a more
ecologically and socially sound approach to agricultural management than conventional
agronomy (Altieri, 1987). It adopts a wider lens in analyzing the agricultural system and
in fact views it as a dynamic ecosystem, a community of interacting plants and animals
that is managed by humans – the agroecosystem (Altieri & Nicholls, 2005; Gliessman,
1990).
5
Major concepts of agroecology include designing biodiverse systems that mimic
nature, and emphasize synergistic interactions between system components in order to
promote biologically mediated soil fertility and pest management as well as reduce
reliance on agrochemical inputs (Altieri, 1987; Gliessman, 1998). Diversified farming
systems present significant advantages from an ecological standpoint. Compared to
conventional agricultural systems, they have been found to sponsor greater biodiversity,
soil quality, carbon sequestration, energy-use efficiency, water-holding capacity in
surface soils and climate change resistance and resiliency (Kremen & Miles, 2012). They
also improve pollination services as well as the control of weeds, pathogens and some
pests in comparison to conventional monocultures (Kremen & Miles, 2012).
This recent wave of interest for agroecology has led to the burgeoning of several
alternative agriculture movements or networks. The value of these social networks in
extending agricultural knowledge through experiential learning and in promoting the
adoption of best management practices among farmers is increasingly recognized
(Hoffman et al., 2015; Lubell et al., 2014; Prokopy et al., 2008; Warner, 2008; Kroma,
2006).
Permaculture and its Potential Role in the Agricultural Transition
Permaculture is one such agroecological network that has generated much interest
in recent years. Although its name comes from a contraction of the words “permanent
agriculture,” permaculture is actually a holistic philosophy rather than strictly agriculture-
related (Mollison, 1988). Indeed, it is ultimately a systems-thinking design approach for
human settlements based on ethics and ecology-derived principles, that can be applied to
6
agricultural systems (Mollison, 1988; Holmgren, 2002). For a closer look at permaculture
principles, see Appendix 1.
Founded in Australia in the 1970s by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren,
permaculture drew inspiration from J.R. Smith’s Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture
(1929), P.A. Yeomans’ integrated water management approach or keyline design
(Yeomans, 1954; 1958; 1973), and Fukuoka’s nature-inspired no-till gardening (Fukuoka,
1978). As a result, when applied to agricultural systems, emphasis is put on mimicking
nature to develop diversified agroecosystems with a focus on perennial species and water
management, using strategic design to facilitate beneficial interconnections between
components (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Mollison, 1988). Permaculture adopts a long-
term vision with the objective to increase resiliency and to facilitate an agriculture that
can be sustained indefinitely (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Mollison, 1988). Given that
permaculture does not prescribe specific crops or agricultural methods per se, but rather
promotes developing solutions adapted to one’s land and climate, the application of its
principles can result in widely different agricultural systems.
Permaculture may play an important role in the agroecological transition. The
grassroots movement has been effective at spreading across the world in just a few
decades, with projects now established on all inhabited continents (Ferguson & Lovell,
2014). Moreover, permaculture has successfully popularized sustainability concepts and
made notions of ecology accessible to a large crowd, mobilizing an intricate network of
practitioners, communicators, educators and students around the world (Ferguson &
Lovell, 2015b). The permaculture approach is also being increasingly acknowledged as a
regenerative and resilient solution to agricultural systems (Rhodes, 2015).
7
Lack of Systematic Assessments of the Economics of Permaculture Production
Published literature in permaculture to date is largely intended for a popular
audience, with little peer-reviewed work and almost no publications with an experimental
design and statistical analysis (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014). The permaculture literature has
also mostly focused on personal, small-scale agricultural systems as applicable to
homesteads and gardens, and therefore fails to address solutions for production-oriented
farms (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Mollison, 1988; Hemenway, 2009; Falk, 2013).
More specifically, the current documented literature lacks a substantial body of
economic data on permaculture systems. Achieving financial viability through
permaculture is commonly addressed in a qualitative manner. For instance, renowned
permaculturist Mark Shepard highlights prioritizing perennial cultures as a strategy to
make a profit by reducing labor costs (2013). He claims that when designed properly, a
conversion to a permaculture farm can mean an increase in income (Shepard, 2013).
Similarly, Joel Salatin touches upon the profitability of his herds, but does not support
these claims with quantitative data (1998). Other permaculturists imply the potential
economic viability of permaculture agroecosystems through the mention of increased
system self-sufficiency, although no concrete numbers are shown (Falk, 2013;
Toensmeier & Bates, 2013; Lawton, 2016).
In France, a recent study on an organic farm – Bec Hellouin – aimed to evaluate
whether a permaculture-inspired vegetable farm without motorization could be
economically viable (Morel et al., 2015). Estimations based on real values from 2013 and
2014 resulted in the conclusion that 0.26 acre (1061 m2) could yield between 10,779 €
and 18,849 € of net yearly revenues (Morel et al., 2015), or between $106,062 and
$159,453 per acre at a 1.463 exchange rate (xe.com, March 7, 2016; all dollar values in
8
this paper are in Canadian dollars). Although hypothetical, these values point to the great
potential for economic viability of such systems.
One recent assessment investigated the economics of permaculture
agroecosystems in more detail. In this study, 36 self-declared permaculture farms in the
United States were analyzed based on the type and diversity of their sources of income
(Ferguson & Lovell, 2015b). Gross farm revenue in this sample ranged from $2,000 to
$800,000, with a median of $43,700. Seventeen out of 27 farms (63%) had positive net
farm revenue, demonstrating the potential economic viability of permaculture systems.
The sample also revealed high livelihood diversity, with a median for farm-based
enterprises of 3.6, and with 63% of farms getting over 25% of their income from off-farm
enterprises. The five most frequent enterprises overall in this study were annual
vegetables (17 farms), on-site adult education (12), pork (11), consultation (8) and tree
fruit (8) (Ferguson & Lovell, 2015b).
Profitability of Organic and Conservation Agriculture
Despite this lack of economic data on permaculture systems, several studies assess
the profitability of organic agriculture. These usually conclude that organic systems
generate greater profits than conventional systems despite lower yields, due in part to
higher output prices for organically-produced foods (Cavigelli et al, 2009; Nemes, 2013;
Pimentel et al., 2005). For instance, economic analysis of the Rodale Institute Farming
Systems Trial, that compared organic and conventional grain-based farming systems for
22 years, found that when price premiums were applied, organic systems were more
profitable for grain and soybean rotations than their conventional counterpart (Pimentel et
al., 2005). In a comparative analysis of organic and non-organic farming systems in
9
which over 50 economic studies were analyzed, the organic systems were also more
profitable than non-organic ones in the majority of cases, due mainly to higher market
prices or lower production costs, or both (Nemes, 2013). Similarly, a paper comparing the
long term economic performance of organic and conventional corn and soybean rotations
found that cumulative present value of net returns for organic systems were always
considerably greater than for the conventional, when organic price premiums were taken
into account (Cavigelli et al, 2009). Slightly different results were found by an assessment
of the economic performance of organic farms in Europe. In a sample drawn from all EU
states and three non-EU countries, profits for organic farms were mostly in the +/- 20%
range that of non-organic farms (Offerman & Nieberg, 2000). Total operational costs for
organic systems were on average slightly lower than for conventional systems, and higher
output prices for organic products contributed substantially to profit margins (Offerman
& Nieberg, 2000).
Another area of a more ecologically sound agriculture for which profitability
literature exists is conservation agriculture (CA), which is based upon minimal soil
disturbance, crop residue retention and crop rotation. In an analysis of rice-wheat rotation
systems of Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia, CA systems achieved higher grain
yields and net returns over conventional tillage systems after two to three years only (Jat
et al., 2014). A study conducted on Malawi smallholder maize-based systems also found
improved crop productivity and economic gains in CA systems over conventional
(Ngwira et al., 2012).
It therefore appears that ecologically-driven approaches to agriculture can be
profitable, and in some cases even more so than conventional systems. However, it
remains unclear what factors have the greatest impact on farm economic viability. A
10
recent analysis reviews the findings of 16 studies to evaluate which factors influence farm
profitability (Tey & Brindal, 2015). Among other results, the authors conclude that large-
scale farms are able to achieve greater profits due to economies of scale (Tey & Brindal,
2015). Moreover, farms charging higher output prices for their products tended to have
greater profitability in most studies (Tey & Brindal, 2015). However, findings regarding
the relationship between diversification and profitability were mixed in the literature (Tey
& Brindal, 2015). The authors hypothesized that economies of scope would lead to
diversified systems being more profitable, however only a few studies in the review found
such a positive significance (Tey & Brindal, 2015). Several papers instead concluded that
specialization increased profitability, and other studies found no significance between
diversification and economic viability (Tey & Brindal, 2015).
Farmer Motivations and Challenges
It remains uncertain to what extent profitability is a motivating factor for the
adoption of permaculture-inspired practices. Instead, lifestyle and conservation values
may be more important. Farmer motivation research – including papers with a focus on
sustainable farming – extensively reports lifestyle as a major reason for farmers to choose
agriculture as an occupation (Sassenrath et al., 2010; Grover, 2013; Ahnström et al.,
2008; Muzzi & Morisset,1987; Parent, 2004). Some widespread lifestyle-related
motivations include a desire for independence, and a wish to work outside, close to nature
(Sassenrath et al., 2010; Grover, 2013; Ahnström et al., 2008; Muzzi & Morisset, 1987;
Parent, 2004). Farmers also commonly see agriculture as a vocation: through their family
heritage from having grown up on a farm or from the actual inheritance of the family
farm; or, due to a deeply rooted passion for this trade, whether it is related to family
11
tradition or not (Grover, 2013; Sassenrath, 2010). From the parents’ perspective, raising
their children with this healthy farming lifestyle and having a productive piece of land to
pass on to them appears as a frequent motivation to farm (Grover, 2013; Parent, 2004;
Tondreau et al., 2002).
In terms of motivations to adopt conservation practices, land stewardship – i.e. an
attachment to the land as well as a desire to improve the landscape – is quite prevalent
(Ryan et al, 2003; Farmer, 2011; Grover, 2013; Sassenrath et al., 2010; Ahnström, et al.
2008). As a matter of fact, it appears that farmers with strong intrinsic motivations such
as lifestyle, conservation or land attachment tend to adopt conservation practices (Greiner
et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 2003). More broadly, environmental awareness and positive
environmental attitudes are perhaps unsurprisingly usually positively related to adoption
of conservation best management practices, according to a review of 55 studies conducted
in the United States (Prokopy et al., 2008). Interestingly, the utilization of social networks
is also highlighted as a factor associated with adoption in that review (Prokopy et al.,
2008). A commitment to community has been linked to sustainable practice adoption as
well, especially when sales are made close to the farm (Sassenrath et al., 2010).
Economic drivers and a concern for profitability also play a role in farmer
motivations (Bowman & Zilberman, 2011; Sassenrath et al., 2010; Grover, 2013),
although these may or may not be tempered by conservation values. In an Australian
study, financially motivated subjects would not adopt conservation practices in the
absence of external incentives (Greiner et al., 2009). Likewise, perception of a
conservation practice’s long term profitability can be a determining factor for adoption
(Cary et al., 2007; Napier et al., 2000; Roberts et al., 2004). It nonetheless appears that
some farmers are willing to sacrifice profits for land stewardship (Chouinard et al., 2008),
12
and that adoption of conservation practices is sometimes more defined by intrinsic values
– such as a farmer’s attachment to their land – rather than economic drivers (Ryan et al.,
2003).
In terms of challenges, a study on small-scale farmers in Indiana found that
subjects seemed most concerned by the economic sustainability of their farm (Grover et
al., 2013). Namely, market constraints including consumer willingness to pay for their
products, ensuring effective marketing as well as market competition appeared as
important barriers to sustainable farming practices (Grover et al., 2013). Other barriers
mentioned in this paper were regulations, time and labor – including finding skilled
workers – as well as the risks inherent to weather variability (Grover et al., 2013). A
paper on the economic factors affecting diversified farming systems (DFS) similarly
found that consumer willingness to pay for DFS products was a constraint for farmers
(Bowman & Zilberman, 2011). A lack of technologies and machinery specifically
designed for diversified systems also appeared as a challenge that DFS farmers faced
(Bowman & Zilberman, 2011). In a study on the adoption of sustainable agricultural
practices in Maine and Alabama, the resistance to change of older generations that were
participating on the farm was cited as a barrier to adoption (Sassenrath et al., 2010). Pest
control was also mentioned as a challenge in this study, as well as the cold climate and
short growing season Maine producers were confronted to (Sassenrath et al., 2010).
In brief, farmer motivations to adopt conservation practices as well the constraints
they may perceive are numerous, and vary according to specific conditions and
geographic locations (Knowler & Bradshaw, 2007). An understanding of the local
conditions and motivations of farmers is crucial in developing appropriate programs to
13
encourage conservation agriculture adoption (Knowler & Bradshaw, 2007; Greiner et al.,
2009).
Case Study: Quebec
This analysis is focused on one case study region: Quebec. The French-Canadian
province makes an interesting case to analyze given it has a peculiar agricultural sector
system that imposes unusual challenges to small diversified farms, yet several
permaculture projects have emerged in the area in recent years. No systematic research
focusing on permaculture farms in Quebec was found in the literature. Below is a quick
overview of the Quebec agricultural sector, of its management of supply system, of its
farmer trade union monopoly as well as of permaculture in the province.
Brief overview of the Quebec agricultural sector. The number of farms in Quebec has
dropped drastically since its peak at 154,669 farms in 1941 (Statistics Canada, 2012). The
latest estimate by the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du
Québec (MAPAQ; translates to “Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of Quebec”)
was 28,600 farms in 2014, an 82% decrease since 1941. Mean total farm size was of 280
acres in 2011, a steady rise since its 117-acre level in 1941 (Statistics Canada, 2012).
Cultivated acres were on average 206 per farm in 2011 in the province (Statistics Canada,
2012). As far as yearly revenues, Quebec farms grossed on average $458,198 in 2014, or
$272,421 for crop-based farms and $642,495 for livestock-based operations (Statistics
Canada, 2015b).
A major turning point toward fewer and larger farms was the Héon report in 1955,
which favored large-scale, specialized producers that had invested a lot in capital
(Lamontagne, 2015). Through an increase in quality standards and sanitary security that
14
were too expensive for small producers to keep up with, 54% – or 73,000 – of the farming
operations closed down between 1951 and 1971 (Statistics Canada, 2012).
Livestock is the predominant production in the Quebec agricultural sector,
representing about two thirds of the $8 billion revenues generated in this sector in 2014
(MAPAQ, 2014). Corn, soy and field vegetables are the main crops grown, whereas
dairy, pork and poultry are the most important livestock enterprises in the province
(MAPAQ, 2014).
Although unavailable for Quebec specifically, some statistics on farm profitability
were found for Canada. In 2006, only about 56% of farms in the country were profitable,
i.e. their gross receipts were greater than their operational costs (Statistics Canada, 2014).
For farms grossing less than $25,000 annually, only 29% had positive net revenues in
2006 (Statistics Canada, 2014).
Joint plans and supply management through quotas. Subsequent to the Héon report, a so-
called “joint plans” program (loose translation of the French program name: “plans
conjoints”) was introduced. Through a joint plan, producers of a same product can come
together and collectively negotiate the marketing conditions of this product. Once a plan
is voted by farmers (in theory, by as little as one third of producers), it applies to all
producers of this product, and prevents the creation of independent COOPs (Lamontagne,
2015). The associated producer organization, or federation, then regulates its sale and
buys all of the product to sell it to the various markets (Lamontagne, 2015). There exist
17 joint plans in Quebec: for milk, pork, bovine, poultry, eggs for consumption, eggs for
incubation, sheep, goat, rabbit, grains, apple, potato, vegetables for transformation,
tobacco, Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean blueberries and privately-owned forest timber (Pronovost,
2008).
15
Certain joint plans are characterized by a management of supply – system which is
in place for all of Canada – whereby producer federations regulate the total supply of a
product through quotas and restrict foreign competition through the imposition of high
custom fees (Lamontagne, 2015). Milk, chicken, eggs and turkeys are regulated by this
system, with varying quota values according to each province. The objectives of this
approach are to stabilize consumer prices and protect producers from the fluctuations of
the market (Girouard, 2014). Frequent agricultural surpluses were apparently the reason
to initiate this system, since they would trigger declines in market prices and farmer
revenues, and therefore would cause the government to expend large sums to buy them
back (Poirier, 2010). Quotas were therefore distributed for free to producers in the late
1960s as a right to produce, to balance supply as a function of the current demand
(Poirier, 2010). Given they were the only way to produce, however, the value of quotas
quickly increased as a result of free market dynamics, although the initial aim was to
protect farmers from the free market (Girouard, 2014). Table 1 presents the most recent
values found as per the price of quotas in Quebec. Note that the value of the quota only
includes the right to produce, and does not include the cost of the livestock itself.
As displayed in Table 1, the high value of quotas is largely prohibitive for aspiring
farmers wanting to start a livestock operation with these products, so much so that the
only entities able to afford new quotas are often times existing industrial farms. This is
well-illustrated by the egg industry: there were as few as 104 egg farms in the entire
province of Quebec in 2014, for this $150 million industry, or a production of 1.2 billion
eggs annually (Girouard, 2014). In 1954, before the quota system existed, 90,000 farmers
were producing 64 million eggs in the province (Héon et al., 1956). Moreover, the space-
based poultry quotas favor concentrated animal feeding operations, as opposed to farms
16
that put more emphasis on animal welfare and environmental health. Indeed, according to
research, no quota chickens are produced on pasture (Girouard, 2014). Some other
barriers are caused by this system: for instance, if a farmer wants to sell quota chickens
on their farm, they would have to first buy them back from their federation. Moreover,
many sectors do not emit new quotas, therefore one would only be able to buy some if a
current producer is willing to sell theirs (Girouard, 2014).
Table 1. Value of quotas and off-quota allowances in Quebec.
Commodity Value of quota Off-quota allowance
Milk $25,000 per kg/day of fat produced (about one cow) None Chicken $900 per m2 of floor space (estimated to 50 chickens per
year) 100 chickens
Eggs $245 per laying hen 100 laying hens Turkeys $450 per m2 of floor space 25 turkeys Most recent values found for quota prices and off-quota allowances in Quebec (Girouard, 2014). Off-quota allowances are the levels of production allowed without owning quota.
Off-quota allowances are the lowest in Quebec in comparison to other provinces.
For example, a British Columbia farmer is allowed to produce 2,000 chickens yearly
without owning quota, as opposed to only 100 in Quebec; and an Alberta producer can
generate up to 50 litres of milk per day off-quota, whereas no milk can be produced off-
quota in Quebec (Girouard, 2014). The absence of justification for these off-quota levels
and their variance between provinces reveals they may be set arbitrarily (Girouard, 2014).
Opponents of the management of supply system – such as Union Paysanne –
claim that this approach has distanced itself from the social vocation it was meant to have,
and decry the standardization and reduced diversity of products resulting from this so-
17
called “cartelization” of the agricultural sector (Girouard, 2014). This organization claims
that raising off-quota levels to those of Alberta (2,000 chickens, 300 laying hens, 300
turkeys, 50 L/day of milk) would not undermine market shares of quota producers and
would drive rural economy (Girouard, 2014).
Trade union monopoly. Since 1972, the Quebec government only recognizes one trade
union in the agricultural sector, the Union des Producteurs Agricoles (UPA; Translates to
“Agricultural Producers Union”). To be eligible for a tax refund, farmers are therefore
obligated to adhere and pay contributions to the UPA (Gouvernement du Québec, n.d.).
This relating of a public finance matter to a non-governmental entity is rather anomalous;
in fact, some authors argue it reflects the subservience of the government of Quebec to a
private-interest group (Lamontagne, 2015).
The agricultural trade union monopoly is a situation unique to Quebec that is
criticized by certain farmers. Indeed, opponents question its legitimacy and its potential to
represent all members (Lamontagne, 2015; Silvestro, 2006).
Permaculture in Quebec. Within this unusual agricultural context, Quebec has seen an
emergence of permaculture-related activities in recent years, particularly with respect to
educational events and media. Namely, a Permaculture Convergence took place in the
town of Frelighsburg in both 2013 and 2014. One of the recurring questions following
these convergences was the economic viability of permaculture systems (Henry, J.-L.
conversation with on August 27, 2015).
18
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This paper constitutes exploratory research about permaculture-inspired farms in
Quebec, to begin building up a body of data about such agroecosystems. The following
research questions were explored:
• What types of production systems have permaculture-inspired farmers adopted in
Quebec?
• How diversified are their agricultural production systems?
• How diversified are their overall livelihood strategies?
• Are permaculture-inspired farms in Quebec profitable?
• What factors influence their profitability?
• What motivates people to undertake permaculture-inspired farming projects in
Quebec?
• What main challenges do they face?
• What are farmers’ perceptions about permaculture?
I hypothesize that permaculture agroecosystems will have a stronger focus on
perennials, given the inspiration drawn from tree crops and the emphasis on perennial
species in the literature. These systems will be highly diversified in terms of their
agricultural production systems as well as their farm enterprises, due to permaculture
proponents’ recommendation to implement biodiverse systems.
Given the reduced costs and increased efficiency generated by permaculture
systems, as well as the existing literature on the profitability of organic and conservation
agriculture systems, I hypothesize that permaculture farms can be profitable. In terms of
factors influencing profitability, it seems reasonable to estimate that larger farms will be
19
more economically viable according to existing literature. Moreover, I hypothesize that
certified organic farms as well as farms that offer value added products will be more
profitable, given the higher prices they can charge for both these types of products.
Finally, I expect that permaculture-inspired farmers will be highly motivated by
conservation values, given permaculture’s focus on ecological benefits and the fact that
environmentally motivated subjects tend to adopt conservation practices. It seems likely
they will have strong lifestyle motivations as well, according to the literature on
sustainable farmer motivations. In light of the studies on small-scale and DFS farmer
constraints, I hypothesize that permaculture-inspired farmers will feel most challenged by
the economic viability of their farm.
20
Chapter II
Methods
Data Collection
The methods related to collecting the data necessary for this study comprise two
main components: farm selection and farmer interviews.
Farm Selection
I used a snowball referral sampling approach to select permaculture-inspired farms
in Quebec: I started by contacting permaculture- and agriculture- related organizations in
the province, who referred me to farmers they perceived had some relationship to the
permaculture movement. These subjects then recommended other farmers for me to
interview.
Given the study’s focus on farm economics, one selection criteria was for the
farms to be at least partially commercial operations, i.e. to get part of their income from
the produce they cultivated or animals they raised, as opposed to strictly educational or
subsistence farms. The farmer’s identification with permaculture was not a criteria of
selection; the farm’s relationship to the permaculture movement was therefore subjective
to the perception of the people who referred them to the investigator. As a result, farmers
who did not identify with permaculture were also interviewed, in order to have responses
to contrast to those of permaculture/permaculture-inspired farmers.
21
Farmer Interviews
I interviewed a total of 35 farmers over the months of September and October
2015. Interviews were conducted mostly in person at the farm, aside from a few phone
interviews due to distant geographic location. Farmers were asked about their crops and
livestock; their fertilizer, pesticides, mulch, feed and irrigation practices; the different
functional production systems on their site; whether they lived on the farm; as well as the
age and size of their farm. In terms of farm economics, they were asked about the
profitability of their operation; their farm enterprises; their associated gross revenue as
well as their total gross revenue; whether they received off-farm income; whether they
owned or rented the land; and about their paid and volunteer labor. Finally, subjects were
asked whether they considered their farm as corresponding to permaculture principles;
their perceptions of permaculture benefits and drawbacks; the motivations that led them
to undertake this farming initiative; their challenges; and what changes they would like to
see in the Quebec agricultural sector.
Data Analysis
Analyzing the data gathered required creating classifications for different
variables to allow for comparisons. Some statistical analysis was also conducted.
Identification with Permaculture Classification
Different levels of self-identification with permaculture were revealed among
farmers in the sample. Table 2 outlines the four different types of responses to the
question “Do you consider your farm as corresponding to permaculture principles?”,
which translated in three permaculture identification levels: “full”, “moderate” and “null”.
22
Table 2. Identification with permaculture classification.
ID level Response code Description
Full Yes Consider their farm is a permaculture farm
Parts Consider that parts of their farm correspond to permaculture principles Moderate
Partially Consider their farm is partially inspired by permaculture principles Null No Do not consider their farm is a permaculture farm
Farm Type, Class, Systems and Age
Each farm was attributed one of twelve farm type categories according to its main
agricultural enterprises, as listed below:
• Annual vegetables • Orchard • Livestock • Dairy • Seeds • Nursery • Mushroom • Woody perennial • Herbaceous perennial • Mixed annual / perennial • Mixed annual / livestock • Mixed annual / perennial / livestock
For example, if a farm grew and sold mainly apples, pears and nuts, it was
attributed the “woody perennial” type. For a farm that grew and sold vegetables and
raised and sold livestock, the type “mixed annual/livestock” was assigned.
Given the high number of farm types and low occurrences within each, I grouped
farms into four higher level classes to allow for comparisons: “annual/fungus,”
“perennial,” “livestock” and “propagation.” Each farm was placed into a class according
to its most prevalent farm enterprise in terms of income. For example, a “mixed
23
annual/perennial” farm could be placed in either the “annual/fungus” class or the
“perennial” class, depending on which was its most important farm enterprise.
Eight functional systems categories were used to describe farm system diversity:
annuals, tree crops, shrubs, other perennials, mushrooms, pasture, forest and livestock.
Farm age was attributed in two ways. Total age of the farm represents the number
of years since the current owner or their parents started farming their site. Years since
new practices is either equal to total age of farm, or smaller, in the case that there was a
drastic change of farming practices (e.g. became organic; became grass-fed; transitioned
to permaculture) or a transfer of ownership to children.
Source and Availability of Economic Data
Total yearly gross revenue as well as per enterprise gross revenue was self-
reported by the interviewee. Most subjects recalled approximations for these values that
they claimed were accurate, whereas some subjects preferred referring to their financial
records (e.g. Excel spreadsheets, tax records, etc.).
Economic data was gathered for 29 out of the 35 interviewees only. The six
remaining farms were under special circumstances that made economic analysis irrelevant
to this research.
Profitability Classification
Due to the variability in economic data availability among farmers, especially in
terms of costs and expenses, farm profitability was ranked by certain categories (Table 3).
There were four different types of farmer responses to the question “Is your farm
profitable?”, which constituted two profitability groups: profitable, and not profitable.
24
Table 3. Profitability classification.
Profitability Response code Description Yes Revenues exceed costs
Profitable Yes, except for land Idem, except for land or infrastructure investments No salary Revenues equal costs; farmer does not have a salary Not profitable No Revenues are inferior to costs
Farm Enterprise Classification and Diversity
Farm enterprises were grouped into income source types, which were associated to
two major enterprise categories: farm products and farm-related services (Table 4).
Table 4. Farm enterprise classification.
Category Type Enterprise Annual vegetables Perennials Maple syrup Non-timber forest products
Plant and fungus products
Mushrooms Meat Eggs
Livestock products
Milk Seeds Propagation products Nursery Edible
Farm products
Value-added products Cosmetics Education Cultural services Consults and design Machinery Resale Restaurant Catering Storage
Farm-related services
Material services
Custom grazing
25
Two variables were used to describe farm enterprise diversity. The number of
farm enterprises per farm, including farm-related services, was used as a measure of
enterprise richness. To account for evenness of enterprises, the Simpson index of
diversity (D) was calculated with income values for each farm enterprise (i) versus total
farm income (I). The formula used was:
D = 1 - Σ ( i / I )2
Motivations, Challenges and Perceptions
For farmer motivations, challenges, perceptions of permaculture benefits and
drawbacks, a qualitative analysis was conducted by assessment of recurring themes in
subject responses. Those themes were grouped into categories, and I used stacked bar
charts to illustrate the proportion of responses of each permaculture identification group
in the different theme categories. I also inquired about farmers’ desired changes to the
Quebec agricultural sector, as an additional perspective on their challenges.
Statistical Analysis
The software R was used for statistical analysis between different variables.
Analysis of variance tests were conducted to assess the significance of the relationship
between a categorical variable and a numerical variable, or between a categorical variable
and an ordinal variable rendered numerical. Tukey tests were then used when the analysis
of variance test was performed with a variable of over two categories, to establish which
pairings displayed the most significant differences. Linear regressions were conducted to
analyze the statistical significance of the relationship between two numerical variables.
26
Chapter III
Results
Description of Farms
This section presents results that describe the following aspects of this sample’s
farms: their identification with permaculture; farm type and class; functional systems;
size, age and other characteristics; and human intervention level.
Identification with Permaculture
Out of the 35 subjects interviewed, 16 fully identified with permaculture, 12 had a
moderate level of identification with permaculture and 7 did not identify with the
movement at all (Table 5).
Table 5. Farmer identification with permaculture.
ID level Response Count (/35)
% of farms
Full Yes 16 46% Moderate 12 34% Parts 6 17% Partially 6 17% Null No 7 20% Farm Type and Class in Relation to Main Agricultural Activities
The sample was highly diverse in terms of the agricultural activities practiced on
each farm, as reflected by the 12 farm types outlined among respondents (Table 6). The
27
most common farm type was mixed annual/perennial (8), followed by annual (4). Other
common types were livestock (3), seeds (3), tree nursery (3), woody perennial (3), mixed
annual/livestock (3), and mixed annual/perennial/livestock (3). A high proportion of
mixed farm types is revealed in the sample, with 40% of farms in the mixed
annual/perennial, mixed annual/livestock and mixed annual/perennial/livestock
categories.
Table 6. Farm type according to permaculture identification.
Count by permaculture identification group Farm type
Full Moderate Null
Total count (/35)
% of farms
Vegetable 0 0 4 4 11% Orchard 1 1 0 2 6% Livestock 3 0 0 3 9% Dairy 1 0 0 1 3% Seeds 1 2 0 3 9% Nursery 3 0 0 3 9% Mushroom 1 0 0 1 3% Mixed woody perennial 0 3 0 3 9% Mixed herbaceous perennial 1 0 0 1 3% Mixed annual / perennial 5 3 0 8 23% Mixed annual / livestock 0 1 2 3 9% Mixed annual / perennial / livestock 0 2 1 3 9% In the fully permaculture identified group, the most frequent farm type was mixed
annual/perennial (5), livestock (3) and nursery (3). Note that all strictly annual-based
farms (4) did not identify with permaculture.
In terms of farm class (Table 7), annual/fungus was by far the most frequent
among the sample (15), followed by perennial (7), livestock (7) and propagation (6). As
shown in Table 8, no farms of the perennial and propagation classes were in the non-
permaculture identified group.
28
Table 7. Farm class according to type.
Farm class Farm type Count (/35)
% of farms
Annual/fungus 15 43% Annual 4 11% Mixed annual / perennial 7 20% Mixed annual / livestock 2 6% Mixed annual / perennial / livestock 1 3% Mushroom 1 3% Perennial 7 20% Mixed woody perennial 3 89% Orchard 2 6% Mixed herbaceous perennial 1 3% Mixed annual / perennial 1 3% Livestock 7 20% Livestock 3 9% Mixed annual / perennial / livestock 2 6% Mixed annual / livestock 1 3% Dairy 1 3% Propagation 6 17% Seeds 3 9% Nursery 3 9%
Table 8. Farm class according to permaculture identification.
Count by permaculture identification level Farm class
Full Moderate Null
Total count (/35)
% of farms
Annual/fungus 5 4 6 15 43% Perennial 3 4 0 7 20% Livestock 4 2 1 7 20% Propagation 4 2 0 6 17%
Functional Systems, Functional Diversity and Systems Integration
The vast majority of farms had forest on their land (27) and grew annual crops
(26). Several grew tree crops such as apple, pear, black walnut or heartnut (24); many had
shrubs like sea buckthorn, blueberry or raspberry (21); and other perennials were also
29
very common, such as herbaceous perennials, vines or perennial vegetables (17). Pasture
land was part of the site in the case of several respondents too (14), and only very few
grew mushrooms (2). Over half of the farms raised livestock (18), including laying hens
(14), sheep (6), beef cows (5), pork (4), meat chickens (4), duck (2), goats (2), turkeys
(2), dairy cows (1), boar (1), guinea fowl (1) and geese (1). Almost all of the fully
permaculture identified farms (87%) had tree crops, shrubs and/or other perennials as
functional systems, the only exceptions being livestock-based farms.
Farms in the sample demonstrated a high level of functional diversity, as
expressed by the number of functional systems per farm. On average, farms interviewed
had 4.5 functional systems, ranging from 1 to 7. The median was five functional systems
per farm, with a standard deviation of 1.6. Non-permaculture identified farms included on
average a significantly lower number of functional production system types than the two
other groups (p = 0.04) (Figure 1), with the most significant difference between non-
permaculture farms and fully self-identified permaculture farms (adjusted p = 0.03).
Among the farms that had both annual and perennial species, about 57%
integrated both kinds in the same production system in at least part of their site. Similarly,
among the farms that had both woody and herbaceous species, about 58% integrated both
in at least a portion of their site. All (100%) of the farms that raised livestock showed
some level of integration of their livestock with other parts of their system, i.e. either the
animal manure was applied to their annual or perennial crops as fertilizer, and/or the
animals were fed at least partially on pasture or from the crops or insects on the farm.
30
Figure 1. Functional diversity and identification with permaculture.
Farm Size, Age and Other Characteristics
Mean total farm size in acres was 137 with a median of 59 (Table 12). About two
thirds of farms (65.7%) were below 100 acres in total. Out of 34 farmers for whom this
data was available, 28 owned the land and 10 rented the land, with six farmers combining
both owned and rented land. Two farmers’ sites were on land trusts that were owned by
separate parties.
Mean age of farms was 15 years, with a minimum of 1.5, maximum of 48.5 and a
median of 11.5 (Table 9). Years since new practices were on average 10.6, with a
minimum of 1.5, maximum of 25.5 and median of 8.5. Farms fully identified with
permaculture were on average younger than farms from the other groups, both in terms of
the total age of the farm and of the years since new practices or ownership transfer
(Figure 2).
31
Table 9. Size and age of farms.
Size (acres) Age (years)
Owned Rented Trust owned Total Cultivated
Total age of farm
Years since new practices
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 Mean 94.2 37.5 8.0 137.1 47.9 15.0 10.6 Median 32.5 0.0 198.0 59.0 15.0 11.5 8.5 Max 810.0 950.0 0 950.0 380.0 48.5 35.5 Std dev 156.8 163.8 35.9 216.3 87.9 12.5 9.9 Count 28 10 2 all 32 35 35 Missing 1 1 1 0 3 0 0
Figure 2. Age of farm and identification with permaculture, according to: (a) total farm age; and (b) years since new practices.
Other farm characteristics worth noting are presented in Table 10. Sixteen farms
were certified organic; two were certified biodynamic; five qualified as biointensive; five
were COOPs; seven were considered communities; four were or were part of a project
collective or incubator; and four were on land trusts, either owned by the farmer or a
separate entity. Moreover, 26 had their main residence on the farm.
32
All of the non-permaculture identified farms in the sample were certified organic
(7), whereas only very few (3) fully permaculture identified farms were.
Table 10. Other farm characteristics.
Characteristic Count (/35)
% of farms
Certified organic 16 46% Certified biodynamic 2 6% Biointensive 5 14% COOP 5 14% Community 7 20% Collective / incubator (or part of) 4 11% Land trust 4 11% Live on farm 26 74%
Very Low Intervention Level
Six interviewees distinguished themselves through the particularly low human
intervention level that they applied to their farm. The four that were plant-based farms,
from the categories annual/fungus, perennial and propagation, did not irrigate their crops
at all; applied no pesticides (even organic) at all; and applied either no fertilizer at all, or
very little amounts of organic materials from their own site. For the two livestock-based
farms, this very low intervention level translated into the animals being 100% pasture-
raised, and fed either fully by on-site grasses or with little off-site supplement. All of the
very low human intervention level farms fully identified with permaculture, and almost
all of them (five out of six) were profitable.
33
Farm Economics
In this section, the following results are presented: farm profitability; farm
enterprises and livelihood diversity; as well as grants, labor and volunteers.
Profitability
Out of the 29 farms for which economic data was available, 22 were considered
profitable, and seven were non-profitable (Table 11). Eleven of the fully permaculture
identified farms were profitable, and three were not.
Table 11. Farm profitability.
Count by permaculture identification level
Profitability Response code Full Moderate Null
Total count (/29)
% of farms
Profitable 11 6 5 22 76% Yes 5 6 5 16 55% Yes, except for land 6 0 0 6 21% Not profitable 3 3 1 7 24% No salary 2 0 0 2 7% No 1 3 1 5 17%
Farm Enterprises and Diversity of Income Sources
The summary data for gross income by farm enterprise for the last year of
available data is presented in Table 12. Total farm income ranged from $11,615 to
$717,500, was on average $171,562, with a standard deviation of $170,431 and a median
of $75,000. Most farms (55.2%) had their total farm income below $100,000. Note that
minimum, maximum and median values for farm enterprises were omitted from Table 12
to avoid the identification to specific farms.
34
Table 12. Gross income by farm enterprise.
Farm enterprise Mean Std dev Count (/29)
% of farms
FARM PRODUCTS $151,140 $167,341 29 100% Plant and fungus products $70,522 $116,527 23 79% Annual vegetables $63,665 $118,617 21 72% Perennials $4,662 $12,997 8 28% Maple syrup $405 $1,261 3 10% Non-timber forest products $548 $2,950 1 3% Mushrooms $1,241 $6,685 1 3% Livestock products $23,487 $52,966 10 35% Meat $17,785 $46,171 8 28% Eggs $271 $880 5 17% Milk $5,431 $29,247 1 3% Propagation products $20,355 $65,495 8 28% Seeds $14,379 $54,366 5 17% Nursery $5,976 $16,188 6 21% Value-added products $36,776 $136,254 6 21% Edible $12,603 $47,971 5 17% Cosmetics $24,172 $129,980 2 7% FARM-RELATED SERVICES $20,423 $35,083 20 69% Cultural services $11,070 $29,933 15 52% Education $7,989 $17,750 14 48% Consults and design $3,080 $14,317 5 17% Material services $9,353 $21,893 11 38% Machinery $2,181 $10,755 5 17% Resale $1,414 $4,571 4 14% Restaurant $1,828 $9,282 2 7% Catering $2,000 $9,350 2 7% Storage $345 $1,857 1 3% Custom grazing $1,586 $8,542 1 3% TOTAL FARM INCOME $171,562 $170,431 29 100%
Farmers who didn’t identify with permaculture had on average a significantly
higher total farm income than the two other groups (p = 0.07) (Figure 3), with the most
difference between the fully and non identified groups (adjusted p = 0.09). Note that no
significant difference was found between permaculture identification groups in terms of
their farm products income per cultivated acre, however.
35
Figure 3. Total farm income and identification with permaculture.
All farms in the economic analysis earned revenues from farm products, for an
average value of $151,140 and a standard deviation of $167,341 (Table 12). Sixty-nine
percent (69.0%) of respondents obtained income from farm-related services, for an
average value of $20,423 and a standard deviation of $35,083. When considering farm
product revenues per cultivated acre, the mean value was $15,901, with a median of
$8,190, standard deviation of $20,794, minimum of $259 and maximum of $72,000
(Table 13). In the case of fully permaculture identified farms, the mean value was
$12,122, with a median of $7,123 and a standard deviation of $18,764.
36
Table 13. Gross income from farm products per cultivated acre.
Permaculture identification Full Moderate Null Overall Min $259 $438 $2,685 $259 Mean $12,122 $15,279 $25,650 $15,901 Median $7,123 $6,470 $19,470 $8,190 Max $72,000 $68,400 $61,754 $72,000 Std dev $18,764 $21,979 $24,046 $20,794 Count 14 9 6 29
Eleven out of 34 farms (32.3%) received off-farm income. Subjects who
supplemented their revenue with off-farm income were generally not profitable, whereas
farmers who did not resort to off-farm income were generally profitable. In effect, a
significant relationship was found between profitability and off-farm income (p = 0.05).
No significant differences were found between the three permaculture identification
levels with regards to earning off-farm income.
The most frequent enterprise among farms in the sample was annual vegetables
(21), followed by education (14), then perennials (8) and meat (8). Note that the fully
permaculture identified group was not found to have a higher percentage of their income
from education or farm-related services than other groups.
The average number of enterprises per farm – according to the enterprise types as
displayed in Table 12 – ranged from 1 to 7, with a mean of 3.4, a median of 3 and a
standard deviation of 1.5. Profitable farms had significantly less farm enterprises than
their non-profitable counterparts (p = 0.02) (Figure 4).
37
Figure 4. Profitability and number of farm enterprises.
The average value for the Simpson diversity Index was 0.322 and ranged from 0
to 0.728, with a median of 0.336 and a standard deviation of 0.237. This reveals that
despite farm enterprises being diverse on average in the sample, they were relatively
uneven in terms of income weight.
Farms with a higher percentage of their income originating from value added
products had a significantly higher farm product income (Figure 5) (equation: income
from farm products = 119768 + 362025 * percentage of income from value added
products; n = 29; p = 0.002; r2 = 0.28). Similarly, total income from farm products was
significantly higher in subjects that had an organic certification (Figure 6) (equation:
income from farm products = 54168 + 187479 * organic certification (1=yes, 0=no); n =
29; p = 0.001; r2 = 0.3).
38
Figure 5. Percentage of income from value added products and total income from farm products.
Figure 6. Organic certification and total income from farm products.
39
Grants, Labor and Volunteers
Out of the 29 subjects for which economic data was available, 22 had received
grants or subsidies at some point for their farming operation. The average number of full-
time equivalent workers per farm was 3.4, with a minimum of 0.5, a maximum of 9, a
median of 2.6 and a standard deviation of 2.3. Eight (8) farms were highly reliant on
volunteers, which means that volunteers made up a significant enough proportion of their
staff that they would not be able to get the necessary work done without them and/or
would not be economically feasible if they had to pay them. Five of these farms fully
identified with permaculture, whereas none of the non-permaculture identified farms
highly relied on volunteers.
Motivations, Challenges and Perceptions
Below are the different recurring themes found in subject responses with regards
to their motivations, challenges, perceptions of permaculture and desired changes to the
Quebec agricultural sector.
Motivations to Farm
Farmers in this sample expressed a vast array of motivations for their current
farming project (Table 14), although they were particularly motivated by lifestyle (71%)
and conservation (68%) values. Notably, raising their children in a healthy, natural setting
and passing them on this legacy – both in terms of a productive piece of land, and of the
experience of growing food – was a frequent lifestyle-related response among
interviewees (29%). Other common lifestyle motives included working outside (24%),
wanting to be healthy and to eat foods that they grow (24%), and the independence that
40
farming allows, namely through increased self-sufficiency and being their own boss
(24%). A desire to accomplish something concrete, through hands-on participation in the
alternative farming movement, was also cited (9%).
In terms of farmer responses that suggested conservation values, several stated a
general desire to protect or regenerate the natural environment (29%) or a love of biology
and living beings (21%), whereas some evoked more specifically the concept of land
stewardship and connection to their land (18%), wanting to enhance biodiversity (9%) or
to conserve rare genetics (6%).
Another prominent motivation theme was to give back to the community (32%).
Some respondents mentioned the desire to be a producer as opposed to a consumer, in
order to increase the availability of quality foods in their region (15%). Others stated
social values as motivators, including wanting to bring the community together (12%); to
provide land for aspiring farmers who might not be able to afford it, through either a land
trust or project collective (9%); and to provide local jobs (6%).
Farming also revealed itself as a vocation among about one third of respondents
(32%). Some mentioned a strong passion for the trade, sometimes even a “visceral
calling” pushing them to practice agriculture as an occupation (18%). Others actually
“inherited” this vocation, from either having grown up on a farm, been in contact with
farms while growing up, or taken over their family farm (18%). Interestingly, only one
interviewee mentioned both farming as heritage and explicitly stated a love for the trade,
showing that a strong passion for agriculture does not only come to those having grown
up in an agricultural context.
41
Table 14. Motivations to undertake the current farming initiative.
Theme Subtheme Description Count (/34)
% of farms
Lifestyle 24 71% Children For their children to grow up with this lifestyle, for
them to have access to this land later in life 10 29%
Outdoors Loves working outside 8 24% Health Includes eating healthy food they grow 8 24% Independence Includes self-sufficiency and being their own boss 8 24% Concrete To do something concrete 3 9% Conservation 23 68% Environmental To protect or regenerate the natural environment 10 29% Love of nature For the love of living beings, of microbiology, of
plants and trees 7 21%
Land stewardship
Connection with the land, attachment to land 6 18%
Biodiversity To conserve or enhance biodiversity 3 9% Genetics For the conservation of rare genetics 2 6% Community 12 35% Provide food To increase availability of good food 5 15% Social For social values, to bring community together 4 12% Provide land To provide land to people who might not be able to
afford and want to farm 3 9%
Jobs To provide jobs 2 6% Vocation 11 32% Love of the
trade Passion for growing food or raising animals 6 18%
Heritage Took over family farm, grew up on a farm or grew up in contact with farming
6 18%
As a demonstration 10 29% Model To serve as a model, to channel a message 8 24% Education To educate people about alternative farming 4 12% Economic
viability To demonstrate that a farming business can be economically viable
3 9%
As an opposition As a rebellion against the current system; away
from conventional farming; for a detox from the digital world.
6 18%
42
Several farmers in this sample undertook their current farming endeavour to serve
as a demonstration for the public (29%). Indeed, some expressed wanting to serve as a
model for others, to show how farming could be done in an ecological way or to channel
a message (24%). Others mentioned a motivation to educate the public about alternative
agriculture (12%). Some of the farmers who wanted to serve as a model specifically
expressed a desire to demonstrate that a farming business could be economically viable
(9%).
Finally, some interviewees highlighted a motivation to oppose themselves to the
current system (18%). These motives included: as a rebellion against the system; wanting
to move away from conventional farming; for a detox from the digital world; and due to a
dissatisfaction with the current model.
Only two interviewees (6%) explicitly mentioned economic reasons as a motive
for farming, mainly expressed as a need to earn a living. The only other economics-
related motivation was, as described above, wanting to demonstrate the potential
economic viability of a farming business. However, this response was articulated as a
desire to serve as a model for others, as opposed to a personal motivation to financial
gain.
The distribution of permaculture identification groups across the different
motivation themes seems weighted relatively proportionally (Figure 7). The only two
notable particularities are the low proportion of fully permaculture identified farmers in
the community theme, and the absence of non-permaculture identified farmers in the
opposition motivation.
43
Figure 7. Motivation themes and identification with permaculture.
Challenges
Challenge themes among farmer responses were less diverse than those of
motivations (Table 15). Almost half of the respondents reported labor-related challenges
(46%), such as finding qualified candidates, staff retention or managing volunteers. The
economic viability of their operation was the second most mentioned constraint among
interviewees (34%), including the challenges imposed by high land prices in Quebec.
Management-related concerns were also prominent in this sample (26%). Indeed, farmers
reported feeling challenged by having to handle the multiple facets of a farming business,
such as production, sales and accounting, and having difficulty managing their time doing
so. Pest and insect pressures (17%) as well as the challenges related to a cold climate and
climate variability (11%) were also mentioned by farmers. Finally, market constraints
such as competition and marketing (9%) were expressed by some respondents.
44
Table 15. Farmer challenges.
Theme Description Count (/35)
% of farms
Labor Retention, recruiting qualified candidates, volunteer management, transfer to future owner
16 46%
Economics Being economically viable. Including: high cost of land in Quebec
12 34%
Management Managing the multiple facets of a farming enterprise (production, sales, marketing, accounting, etc.) and finding the time to do so
9 26%
Pests Pest and insect pressures 6 17% Climate Cold climate, climate variability 4 11% Markets Marketing, competition 3 9%
In terms of the distribution of permaculture identification groups within the
various challenge themes cited, it appears that a disproportionately high number of non-
permaculture farmers reported labor-related challenges (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Challenge themes and identification with permaculture.
45
Perceptions of Permaculture Benefits and Drawbacks
Perceived benefits of permaculture among this sample were grouped into three
main categories: economics (54%), environmental (46%) and quality of life (40%) (Table
16). While monetary savings were only mentioned specifically by very few respondents
(9%), economic benefits were mostly expressed as perceived improvements in system
efficiency (40%). Among other observations, these farmers felt permaculture was
advantageous from an efficiency standpoint due to diminished maintenance requirements,
a reduced need for inputs and the fact that it promotes self-balancing systems. Some
farmers also mentioned benefitting from the recent trend attached to the permaculture
brand, given it helped them attract volunteer labor (9%). Perhaps unsurprisingly, a very
low proportion of non-permaculture identified farmers reported economic benefits to
permaculture (Figure 9).
With regards to perceived environmental advantages, farmers mentioned
ecological benefits such as healthy soils, clean waterways, clean air, atmospheric carbon
capture, reduced impacts of droughts and floods as well as balanced ecosystems (40%).
The long term sustainability and resiliency of permaculture agroecosystems was also
reported (14%).
Many farmers felt that practicing permaculture led to an improved quality of life
(40%). Interestingly, these were all fully or moderately permaculture identified farmers
(Figure 9). Some perceived an increased wellbeing due to an attention to people care, as
well as the fact that this approach to agriculture is gratifying for the farmer (11%). Others
mentioned a heightened capacity to observe and notice particularities in the landscape,
due to a closer relationship with the land and with nature in general (11%). Increased
46
equity (11%), health (9%) and self-sufficiency (9%) were also reported as benefits to
permaculture.
Finally, a few interviewees – logically, all fully or moderately permaculture
identified farmers – saw only benefits to permaculture when first prompted.
Table 16. Farmer perceptions of permaculture benefits.
Theme Subtheme Description Count (/35)
% of farms
Economics 19 54%
Efficiency Including: low maintenance, self-balancing
systems, less need for inputs 14 40%
Economic benefits
Seen as cheaper due to savings 3 9%
Brand Interest due to trend helps getting volunteers 3 9% Environmental 16 46% Ecological 14 40%
Long term sustainability
Includes resiliency 5 14%
Quality of life 14 40% Wellbeing People care, quality of life, gratifying for farmer 4 11%
Observation See more things as closer to the land, affects the way the farmers see their land, includes human rel to nature
4 11%
Equity Includes integrity 4 11% Health 3 9% Self-sufficency 3 9% Sees only benefits at first 3 9%
47
Figure 9. Permaculture benefit themes and identification with permaculture. Interestingly, despite economics-related responses being the most frequently
reported benefits – mostly as increased efficiency –, they were also the most commonly
mentioned drawbacks (69%) (Table 17). For instance, farmers expressed inefficiencies
linked to permaculture, including the perception that it was time- and labor- intensive
(34%). It should be noted that 11% of total respondents mentioned both efficiency
benefits and inefficiency drawbacks, which reveals peculiar contradictions within farmer
perceptions of permaculture. Many farmers were concerned by the economic viability of
permaculture systems, and either thought that starting such a project would not be
profitable in the beginning, that it required relying on off-farm income, or felt worried
that its commercial viability had not been proven yet (31%). Certain farmers saw
permaculture agroecosystems as less productive, some even mentioning they thought it
could not feed the world (14%). Another economics-related drawback that was reported
48
was the risk of losing a large portion of their harvest, given a perceived diminished level
of control due to reduced human intervention with the permaculture approach (11%).
Almost all (6 out of 7) non-permaculture identified farmers saw economic disadvantages
to permaculture (Figure 10).
Table 17. Farmer perceptions of permaculture drawbacks.
Theme Subtheme Description
Count (/35)
% of farms
Economics 24 69% Inefficiency Including takes more time, more labor intensive 12 34%
Economic viability
Includes economics in the beginning, perceived need for outside income, unproven commercial viability
11 31%
Less productive
Including can't feed the world 5 14%
Risk Less intervention seen as less control and potential
loss of harvest 4 11%
Novel and radical movement
14 40%
Perceptions Public perceives permaculturists as “hippies” or
“freaks” 5 14%
Lack of understanding
The philosophy is still new and therefore unknown or misunderstood by public
4 11%
Dogmatic Interviewee feels some permaculture proponents are
too dogmatic 3 9%
Knowledge Lack of scientific knowledge-base 3 9% Resources Lack of resources 1 3% Sees no drawbacks at first
5 14%
49
Figure 10. Permaculture drawback themes and identification with permaculture.
The second major theme of perceived permaculture drawbacks was the novelty of
this movement and the fact it is seen by some as radical (40%). Indeed, certain
interviewees reported that permaculture was perceived as extremist by some, and felt
proponents of the movement were sometimes associated to “hippies” or “freaks” (14%).
Given this philosophy is still relatively new, some farmers mentioned that it was still
fairly unknown or misunderstood by the public (11%). Certain respondents also thought
that some permaculture proponents were too dogmatic, and felt this contributed to
marginalizing the movement (9%). All of these perception-related drawbacks with
regards to permaculture being novel and radical were expressed by fully or moderately
permaculture identified farmers. Finally, farmers mentioned the novelty of permaculture
50
meant a lack of scientific knowledge-base to gather best management practices from and
actual environmental impacts (9%), as well as a lack of experts to resort to (3%).
Finally, a few respondents saw no drawback to permaculture when first prompted
(14%), all from the fully or moderately permaculture identified group.
Desired Changes to the Quebec Agricultural Sector
When asked what they would change about the current agricultural sector in
Quebec if they had the possibility to do so, farmer answers revealed three major recurring
themes (Table 18): a desire for a more ecological agricultural landscape in general (53%),
for changes in the subsidies programs that would encourage such farming (44%), and for
changes in the centralized management of supply and trade union systems in Quebec
(38%).
With regards to transitioning to ecologically sound agriculture, respondents
expressed their desire to see more small and diversified farms, as well as less large
monocultures (26%). Chemical pesticides were also a concern among the sample (18%).
Some farmers felt that it was sometimes difficult to sell or buy local produce, and
mentioned they would like to see proximity sales more encouraged (9%). An interesting
suggestion coming from some interviewees was to have dedicated regions for organic
agriculture (6%), to avoid pesticide or seed contamination from neighboring conventional
farms. Some respondents also reported hoping GMOs could be banned in the province
(6%).
51
Table 18. Desired changes to the Quebec agricultural sector.
Theme Subtheme Description Count (/34)
% of farms
More ecological agriculture 18 53%
Size and diversity More small and diversified farms, less large
monocultures 9 26% Pesticides Less or no chemical pesticides 6 18% Proximity Encourage proximity agriculture (local sales) 3 9%
Alternative agriculture
More organic agriculture, permaculture, agroforestry 3 9%
GMOs Ban GMOs 2 6% Organic region Dedicated areas for organic agriculture 2 6% Subsidies 15 44% Organic Subsidize organic farming and certification 11 32% Conventional Conventional agriculture should have to pay 3 9% Diversified Subsidize diversified and innovative agriculture 3 9% Follow ups More follow up on grants for startups 2 6% Centralized system in Quebec 13 38%
Quotas Quota system should be more flexible, allow for
more off-quota 11 32%
UPA Farmers should have the choice of their trade
union 5 15% Joint plans There should not be joint plans for direct sales 2 6% Land access and affordability 3 9% Research 3 9%
The single most frequent response to the changes in the Quebec agricultural sector
question was the desire to have more subsidies for organic farming, particularly for the
certification itself (32%). In fact, organic farmers have to expend considerable sums of
money every year for this certification (between about $700 and $2,000 among
participants of this study, depending on their yearly sales). This expense is not even
partially reimbursed by the government, like it is in other places in the world.
Interviewees expressed the irony of having to pay to justify having agricultural practices
that are less harmful for human health and the environment, and some (9%) even claimed
52
that it should be conventional farmers who have to pay a premium, to justify methods that
are more damaging for the earth and human beings. Other subsidies-related responses
included to have more financial incentives for diversified and innovative agriculture
(9%), as well as more follow up on grants for startup farms (6%). Indeed, at this time,
Quebec farmers can enjoy certain subsidies the first year that they farm, however there is
little follow up help for subsequent years.
The other most frequent response was a desire to have the Quebec management of
supply system through quotas be more flexible (32%). Notably, raising the off-quota
limits would help small farmers diversify their income and drive a market for niche
products without harming the demand for large-scale farms. Some interviewees also
mentioned hoping to have the choice of trade union to represent them, as opposed to the
current UPA monopoly (15%). Then, the joint plans program was also reported as
something that could change, namely the fact that they should not be imposed for direct
sales (6%).
Finally, respondents expressed a desire to have land be more accessible and
affordable for farmers (9%), as well as more innovative agricultural research to inform
practitioners about best management practices (9%).
53
Chapter IV
Discussion
Characterization of Permaculture Farms
The results validated the initial hypotheses that permaculture farms had more
perennials than other farms, and that they were highly diverse in terms of functional
systems and livelihood strategies. They also revealed that permaculture farms displayed
high systems integration and particularly low human intervention at times.
More Perennials, Yet Annuals Were Still the Most Prominent System
Results show that permaculture farms had a stronger focus on perennials than non-
permaculture farms, which is in line with the emphasis on perennial crops in the
permaculture literature (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Shepard, 2013). Promoting the
permaculture approach on a larger scale could therefore contribute to increasing the use
of perennials in agriculture, which are valued for system efficiency and resiliency
(Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Shepard, 2013). The long period of establishment before
some perennial species start yielding may have been a reason for non-permaculture
farmers not to integrate them in their systems, or perhaps even not to adhere to
permaculture principles in the first place, especially if they had a need for short term
profitability.
Annual vegetables were still the most frequent and important farm enterprise in
this sample, including for fully permaculture identified farms, which is similar to the
results found in the United States assessment on permaculture systems (Ferguson &
54
Lovell, 2015b). It seems that despite the emphasis on perennials in permaculture systems,
annuals still play an important role, both for self-sustenance and commercial purposes.
The main systems and enterprises implemented by farms in this study differed from the
trend in Quebec, though, which is focused primarily on livestock, and where corn and soy
are the most prominent crops (MAPAQ, 2014). Larger farms do have a competitive
advantage in crops that require mechanization, whereas labor-intensive vegetable
production can be more suited to small farms. One could also conclude that small
diversified farms attribute more importance to community sustainability and therefore
tend to opt for vegetables, rather than commercial crops.
More System Diversity and High Livelihood Diversity
Permaculture identified farms in this sample were significantly more functionally
diverse than other groups – despite the overall sample already being highly diverse – in
accordance with polycultures being such a prominent theme in the permaculture literature
(Mollison, 1988; Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Hemenway, 2009; Jacke & Toensmeier,
2005). Given the value of diversified systems for pest resistance, system interactions that
reduce the need for external input, and climate resilience (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978;
Shepard, 2013), promoting permaculture could encourage these ecosystem services in the
Quebec agricultural landscape.
Livelihood diversity was also high in this sample, with a median of three
enterprises per farm according to this study’s classification, similarly to the findings of
the recent United States assessment on permaculture farms (Ferguson & Lovell, 2015b).
Note that these enterprise categories were broad, too, and that each one therefore likely
55
encompasses several enterprises (e.g.: “meat” could comprise pork, beef and chicken;
“education” could comprise tours, workshops and conferences; etc.).
Systems Integration and Low Human Intervention Level
In accordance with the promotion of system interconnections and self-sustenance
by the permaculture philosophy, permaculture farms in this study displayed a high level
of integration between production systems, and some had a particularly low level of
human intervention. The relationship between system integration and profitability is yet
to be seen. The fact that a very high proportion of low human intervention farms were
profitable calls for deeper analysis of the practices on these farms in order to determine a
set of best management practices.
Profitability
This study’s results validate the hypotheses that permaculture farms can be
profitable, and that value added products as well as an organic certification contribute to
economic viability. However, the hypothesis that larger farms would be more profitable
was rejected by this study. Enterprise diversity was also found to limit profitability, and it
seems propagation-based farms may be more likely to be profitable.
Permaculture Farms Are Profitable, Likely Even More than Conventional Farms
This study reveals that permaculture farms – more specifically, those that get at
least part of their income from the products they farm – can indeed be profitable.
Comparing this study’s results to the Canadian farm profitability data seems to point in
the same direction as the organic and conservation agriculture literature, whereas these
56
ecologically-driven approaches are even more profitable than conventional operations
(Cavigelli et al, 2009; Nemes, 2013; Pimentel et al., 2005; Jat et al., 2014). Although this
study’s results do not allow to see whether permaculture farms are profitable at a greater
degree than conventional farms, we do know that a higher percentage of permaculture
farms in this sample were profitable in comparison to Canadian farms in general
(Statistics Canada, 2012). The reason why such a large proportion of non-profitable
Canadian farms stay in business may be due to subsidies. From that standpoint, and in
light of the results of this study, permaculture farms might in fact be preferable for
Canada from a broad economics perspective.
The significantly lower average income for fully permaculture identified farms in
comparison to non-permaculture farms in this sample could have pointed to their lower
profitability, however the results for per acre revenues showed that these differences
could have been due to larger farm size for non-permaculture farms. The fact that fully
permaculture identified farms were younger could also explain these differences;
similarly to conservation agricultural systems, economic benefits might take some years
to be fully achieved (Jat et al., 2014).
The per acre gross income from farm products for fully permaculture identified
farms was much lower than that found in France (Morel et al., 2015), however this could
be explained by several factors, including the very small surface area on which that study
was conducted as well as the longer growing season in France.
Value Added Products and Organic Certification Increase Profitability
A few different factors seemed to influence profitability in this sample. First,
farms that had a higher percentage of their income from value added products as well as
57
certified organic farms both earned significantly greater revenues from farm products,
validating my hypothesis. The higher output prices of organically-produced goods as well
as transformed products allows farmers to achieve greater profitability, in accordance
with the documented superior economic viability of farms able to charge a premium (Tey
& Brindal, 2015). Interestingly, however, certain interviewees believed that an organic
certification was not always necessary to charge higher prices, e.g. in the case of direct
sales, assuming the consumer would know the farm’s practices and trust the higher
quality of the product. It remains to be seen, though, whether a certification would allow
to attract more consumers who are willing to pay this premium, even in such a case.
Unequivocally, respondents of this study who had an organic certification expressed it
was worth it for them, given it allowed them to sell all of their produce at a higher price,
and that it fostered transparency with their customers.
Too Much Diversity Limits Profitability
Although the literature documenting the impacts of diversification on farm
profitability was mixed, the higher profitability for farms with reduced livelihood
diversity found in this study is similar to the results of certain papers that conclude in
specialization being linked to greater profits (Tey & Brindal, 2015). This is in accordance
with a perception shared anecdotally by a few farmers during the interviews: that
diversity (i.e. biodiversity and enterprise diversity) is beneficial to a certain extent, but
that too much diversity leads to losses in efficiency. Indeed, each species farmed might
require different harvesting methods, different expertise, different marketing channels,
etc. Certain farmers who had a particularly high level of diversity therefore reported
noticing benefits from narrowing down their farm enterprises to some extent. However,
58
farmers should keep in mind that livelihood diversification helps reduce risk, and
biodiversity in production systems can increase climate resilience, resistance to pests, soil
quality and energy-use efficiency (Kremen & Miles, 2012). Producers should therefore
strategically choose a limited number of crops and/or livestock, as well as farm
enterprises, in order to maximize symbiotic interactions and to develop enough expertise
in each commodity as to not compromise efficiency.
Going Bigger Does Not Increase Profits
The absence of correlation between farm size and profitability or income in this
sample differs from the trend in the literature, which usually demonstrates greater profits
for larger-scale farms (Tey & Brindal, 2015). This study’s results could be due to the fact
that farms in the sample were not highly mechanized operations that benefit from
economies of scale. In fact, a few interviewees reported noticing that “going bigger” did
not necessarily mean earning greater profits, and also usually meant lesser quality of life.
In the case of small no- or low- mechanization operations, farmers have little to no
employees and do most activities with hand tools. To upscale, they would need to hire
more employees and/or purchase expensive machinery, therefore incurring substantially
greater costs. This would also impose spending more of their time managing employees,
doing administrative work to coordinate sales and deliveries, and operating machines,
whereas small-scale farmers usually most enjoy spending time in the field. The
permaculture approach to agriculture therefore appears as a viable option for smaller
farms.
59
Seed Farms and Tree Nurseries Yield High Revenues per Acre
Aside from these conclusions related to my initial hypotheses, another observation
can be made as per ways that allow greater farm profitability. It appears that propagation
farms – namely, seed farms and tree nurseries – may constitute a business model that is
more prone to being economically viable. Although no significant relationship was found
between the percentage of income from propagation and profitability or total farm
income, looking into the data offers different insights. Five of the six propagation-based
operations in this sample were profitable; the only one that was not able to provide a
salary to the farmer was established in 2014, and was on its way to profitability within the
next year or two. These types of operations indeed tend to yield greater revenues per acre
and therefore require less land surface area to generate profits. For example, one tomato’s
seeds can be worth between $18 and $28, in comparison to approximately $1 to $1.50 for
a medium-sized tomato meant for consumption. Moreover, saplings can be grown
between about 1 to 4 per square foot depending on the species, and generally sell for $10
to $15 a piece. I therefore pose the hypothesis that seed farms and tree nurseries have the
potential for being more profitable than other farms. Obviously, though, a greater
proportion of production farms is necessary for ensuring community sustenance.
Motivations and Challenges
As per my initial hypothesis, lifestyle and conservation motivations were strong in
this sample, along with other altruistic values. Farmers felt most challenged by labor-
related issues, negating the hypothesis that economic viability would be their main
challenge, although economics still represented a major constraint among the sample.
60
Lifestyle and Altruistic Motivations Explaining Conservation Practices
The strong conservation and lifestyle motivations from farmers in this study are in
accordance with current literature, given this overall sample’s diversified and ecological
agricultural practices. Positive environmental attitudes, environmental awareness, land
stewardship, conservation values, as well as lifestyle motivations have indeed been
related to adoption of conservation practices (Greiner et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 2003;
Prokopy et al., 2008; Farmer, 2011; Grover, 2013; Sassenrath et al., 2010; Ahnström, et
al. 2008). Increasing conservation and lifestyle motivations among potential farmers in
our society could therefore encourage the adoption of ecologically-driven approaches to
agriculture, including permaculture. Given the small percentage of farmers in this sample
that had agriculture as a family tradition, it seems these efforts should be directed to a
wider audience, as opposed to current farmers only. Implementing environmental
education as well as more time spent outside at each level within our educational system
could increase conservation and lifestyle values among the next generation.
The “as a demonstration” motivation theme appears as a peculiarity from this
sample that does not feature in the literature. Together with the “community” theme and
most of the “conservation” motivations, it denotes a frequent occurrence of altruistic
motives in this study, including for permaculture farmers. It seems these subjects were
highly motivated by contributing to the greater good as opposed to personal interests
only.
Interviewees motivated to undertake this project “as an opposition” also highlight
a particularity from this sample, and constituted mostly fully permaculture identified
farmers. Given permaculture’s holistic approach that provides solutions to more than
strictly agriculture, one could suppose that permaculture farmers are particularly
61
dissatisfied with our current system and are attempting to find a viable model for society
in a broader sense.
It is also interesting – and divergent from most of the farmer motivation literature
– that farmers in this study did not enunciate economic motivations, aside from two
subjects that mentioned the need to provide for their family (Bowman & Zilberman,
2011; Sassenrath et al., 2010; Grover, 2013). Lifestyle, environmental and demonstrative
motives therefore seem more important for permaculture farmers, and these might be
willing to sacrifice profits for land stewardship, such as the documentation on sustainable
agriculture adoption relates (Chouinard et al., 2008).
Labor and Economic Challenges
Although not a motivation to farm in the first place, it was clear that economic
viability was a major concern for farmers in this study, including permaculture identified
subjects. The literature places similar emphasis on economic constraints for farmers
(Bowman & Zilberman, 2011; Grover et al., 2013), although usually expressed as market-
related challenges, which were not as prominent in our sample. Interestingly, the potential
profitability of permaculture systems was demonstrated in this study, therefore economic
concerns might not be as well-founded as was believed by these subjects. Continued
efforts to clarify best management practices enabling permaculture systems to be
economically viable, along with education, are therefore needed to reduce these concerns
among potential farmers.
Labor-related challenges seemed more prominent in this sample than what is
reported in the literature. Perhaps this is related to local particularities, whereby in
Quebec it would be especially challenging to recruit and retain qualified farm labor. In
62
2011, 81% of the population in the province lived in urban centers, which could
contribute to this situation (Statistics Canada, 2013). A disproportionate number of non-
permaculture farmers mentioned labor as a constraint. One could hypothesize that farms
with a stronger business and production focus – i.e. most non-permaculture farms in this
sample – have more labor-related challenges due to skill requirements.
Recommendations for Quebec Policy Makers
In light of the findings of this study, I propose the following recommendations to
Quebec policy makers to encourage permaculture-inspired farming.
Increase Environmental Education and Contact with Nature in the Educational System
At the basis of conservation agricultural practice adoption are environmental and
lifestyle motivations. Integrating environmental science at the core of the educational
system in Quebec, as well as increasing time spent in nature at school, would foster
positive environmental attitudes as well as lifestyle values among the next generation,
setting the stage for farming approaches such as permaculture to be adopted in the future.
Subsidize the Organic Certification
Broadly speaking, applying permaculture principles results in producing organic
foods. However, only three self-declared permaculture farms in this sample had an
organic certification. Many expressed believing it would not be worth it for them, given
the high cost of the certification and the time requirements for filling out the paperwork.
Nevertheless, this study revealed that certified organic farms earned significantly more
income than others. Subsidizing the organic certification would encourage more
63
permaculture-inspired farmers to get certified and could help them charge higher output
prices for their products, enabling them to earn more substantial revenues and reducing
their concern for economic sustainability. This would also allow for greater transparency
towards consumers and facilitate better-informed purchase decisions.
Raise Off-Quota Allowances to those of Alberta
While the management of supply system had a commendable basis when first
instigated – that is, of protecting producers from market fluctuations – it has now resulted
in prohibitive quota values due to free market dynamics. Moreover, the low off-quota
allowances in Quebec prevent from starting an off-quota farm enterprise that would be
substantial enough in terms of revenues. Raising off-quota levels in Quebec to match
those of Alberta, i.e. 2000 chickens, 300 laying hens, 300 turkeys and 50 L/day of milk
(Girouard, 2014), would enable farmers in the province to supplement their income
substantially from these farm enterprises. Doing so would also diversify the current
supply and fulfill market demands for niche products that are virtually inexistent at this
time in the province, such as pasture-raised chicken, pasture-raised eggs, grass-fed milk
and grass-fed cheese. Moreover, this would not penalize quota producers, given off-quota
market shares would still be insignificant in comparison to the current total supply
(Girouard, 2014).
Allow for the Free Choice of Farmer Trade Union
Permaculture-inspired farms are different than the average Quebec farm in terms
of size, type of crops and livestock, system and livelihood diversity as well as agricultural
practices. For these reasons, current and aspiring permaculture farmers may feel like the
64
UPA – being a unified trade union for all producers in Quebec – does not represent their
needs as well as it could. Having the free choice of farmer trade union would foster more
diversity and equity in the Quebec agricultural landscape, and impose less barriers to
current or aspiring permaculture farmers.
Limits of this Study
This study constitutes exploratory research about permaculture-inspired farms in
Quebec. Its results are therefore not necessarily representative of all permaculture farms
in the province, nor of the rest of the world.
Indeed, the small size of the overall sample and of the different subgroups (i.e.
permaculture identification groups, profitability groups) limits the applicability of the
results to a larger population. Moreover, the fact that these subgroups were of uneven size
constrains the relevancy of the comparative analysis. Some bias might also be linked to
the snowball referral method for farm selection, due to the fact that this may have favored
farms that were familiar to the public, which may not be representative of the overall
permaculture-inspired farm population.
Furthermore, permaculture identification was subjective to the interviewee, and
potentially not always descriptive of reality. For instance, a farm that identifies itself as
permaculture might not actually fully apply permaculture principles, and vice versa. This
may have hindered the comparative analysis between permaculture identification groups.
It should also be noted that the non-permaculture identified group was used as a point of
comparison to the fully permaculture identified farms, but that they were still generally
small diversified farms, and therefore not representative of the average farm in Quebec.
65
Time and resource restrictions in conducting this study put a limit on the level of
detail gathered during data collection, and led to certain variables needing to be grouped
into higher level categories (e.g. “perennials” and “meat” counted as one farm enterprise
each although they might have encompassed numerous ones; “tree crops” counted as one
functional production system although it may have been several; etc.). This also limited
the possibilities of comparison and could be improved in further research.
The level of precision and availability of economic data varied widely across
study subjects and was often quite restricted, which imposed some limitations to the
economic analysis as well. In particular, data about costs and expenses was generally
unavailable or quite vague; when it was available, the costs associated to specific
enterprises was often unknown. I was therefore unable to deduct which enterprises were
most profitable, or why they were. Also for this reason, profitability was merely
categorized, in such a way that farms with a 40% profit margin were placed in the same
category as farms with a 5% profit margin, for example. A higher level of detail would
enable a more profound analysis and perhaps more useful conclusions. It should also be
noted that the year of economic data gathered differed among farms interviewed, once
again due to availability limitations. Had the year been the same for all farms, results may
have been different.
Recommendations for Further Research
Further research is required to deepen understanding of the economics of
permaculture-inspired farms, of the types of system they represent and of the motivational
factors surrounding such projects. Collecting sociodemographic data – such as gender,
age and level of studies – on the farmers undertaking these initiatives would provide
66
additional insights to this analysis. Moreover, a longer period for data collection would
allow distribution of an online questionnaire in advance to a larger pool of potential
candidates, in order to assess their self-identification with permaculture and to get a larger
sample. This advance notice might allow farmers to have a higher level of detail of their
costs and expenses during the interview, per enterprise if possible; or, the online
preliminary questionnaire might enable the selection of farms that do have more cost data.
This would allow for a more nuanced economic analysis. In addition, if more time per
interview was a possibility, using a mapping tool to record the spatial arrangement of
production systems would provide further understanding of farm practices and of relative
importance of systems in terms of surface area.
There also appears to be a need to elucidate some contradictions within
perceptions of permaculture: is it really more efficient, or rather more labor intensive as
some suggest? A way to shed light on this question could be to conduct a comparative
analysis, in which permaculture and non-permaculture farms with similar crops would log
in their hours doing different kinds of activities on the farm for an entire season.
Otherwise, taking the very low human intervention farms in this study that were also
profitable, and analyzing them in more detail, could allow to come up with a set of “best
permaculture practices” that promote efficiency.
Conclusion
In conclusion, permaculture farms can be economically viable, potentially even
more so than conventional farms. These agroecosystems are diverse, display high systems
integration, and have a greater focus on perennials than other farms, which are all aspects
67
that provide beneficial ecosystem services. Some permaculture farms have very low
levels of human intervention yet are still profitable, hinting to system efficiency benefits.
This study reveals that organic certification and selling value added products
could help farms achieve greater economic viability. Results also show that limiting
diversity to a certain extent could contribute to farm profitability, and that operations do
not need to get larger in size to become more profitable. The permaculture approach thus
seems like a viable option for smaller farms.
Subjects in this sample were highly motivated by conservation, lifestyle and
altruistic values. Promoting these in our society could therefore contribute to spreading
the permaculture approach. In addition, interviewees felt most challenged by finding and
retaining qualified labor as well as the economic viability of their farm. Efforts to clarify
and educate farmers about best management practices that promote profitability in
permaculture systems are therefore needed to reduce these concerns among potential
producers.
Given the apparent ecological, economic and social benefits of permaculture-
inspired farms, and in light of the findings of this study, I suggest for Quebec policy
makers to encourage this approach to farming by achieving the following: (1) increasing
environmental teaching and contact with nature in the educational system; (2) subsidizing
the organic certification; (3) raising off-quota allowances to those of Alberta; and (4)
allowing for the free choice of farmer trade union. A different set of rules is needed for
small diversified farms such as permaculture farms, therefore it is incumbent upon policy
makers to adapt the rules in order to facilitate these approaches to farming.
As Wendell Berry once said: “What we do to the land, we do to ourselves”. It is
our choice as a society whether we wish to promote diversity, equity and health through
68
our agricultural sector. We are now witnessing a shift, a rise in motivated youth seeking
to farm with ecological and community-oriented motives. Removing the barriers that
restrain these aspiring farmers will benefit us all.
69
Appendix
Permaculture Principles
Reworded from Holmgren, 2002
Ethics
1. Earth care: Provision to ensure the continuation and multiplication for all life
systems.
2. People care: Provision to allow people to access resources necessary to their
existence.
3. Fair share: Setting limits to population and consumption to allow for the return of
surpluses to further the above principles.
Design
1. Observe and interact: Taking the time to understand and engage with nature
allows to design suitable solutions.
2. Catch and store energy: Developing systems that collect and store resources at
peak abundance to use them in times of need.
3. Obtain a yield: Ensuring that the work done is providing useful rewards.
4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback: Discouraging inadequate activity to
ensure the good functioning of systems.
5. Use and value renewable resources and services: Making the most of nature’s
abundance to reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources.
70
6. Produce no waste: The output of one system can be reused as the input of another.
7. Design from patterns to details: Using patterns in nature and our society as the
backbone of our design, and filling in with details as we go.
8. Integrate rather than segregate: Promoting connections between system
components so that they work together and support each other.
9. Use small and slow solutions: Small and slow systems are easier to maintain,
make better use of local resources and generate sustainable outcomes.
10. Use and value diversity: Diversity decreases vulnerability to threats and is a
reflexion of the unique nature of the local environment.
11. Use edges and value the marginal: The junction between elements is often the
most valuable, diverse and productive areas of the system.
12. Creatively use and respond to change: Change is inevitable – by working with
nature as opposed to against it, we can use change as an opportunity and have a
positive impact on the outcome.
71
References
Ahnström, J., Höckert, J., Bergea, H. L., Francis, C. A., Skelton, P., & Hallgren, L. (2008). Farmers and nature conservation: What is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(1), 38–47.
Altieri, M. A. (1987). Agroecology: The scientific basis of alternative agriculture (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.
Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2005). Agroecology and the search for a truly sustainable agriculture. Mexico: United Nations Environment Program.
Bowman, M. S., & Zilberman, D. (2013). Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology and Society, 18, 1–15. doi:10.5751/es-05574-180133
Cary, J. W., & Wilkinson, R. L. (1997). Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 48(1), 13–21.
Cavigelli, M. A., Hima, B. L., Hanson, J. C., Teasdale, J. R., Conklin, A. E., & Lu, Y. (2009). Long-term economic performance of organic and conventional field crops in the mid-Atlantic region. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(2), 102–119. doi:10.1017/S1742170509002555
Chouinard, H. H., Paterson, T., Wandschneider, P. R., & Ohler, A. M. (2008). Will farmers trade profits for stewardship? Heterogeneous motivations for farm practice selection. Land Economics, 84(1), 66–82.
Dimitri, C., Effland, A., & Conklin, N. (2005). The 20th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Information Bulletin (Num. 3).
Falk, B. (2013). The resilient farm and homestead. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Farmer, J. R., Knapp, D., Meretsky, V. J., Chancellor, C., & Fischer, B. C. (2011). Motivations influencing the adoption of conservation easements. Conservation Biology, 25(4), 827–834.
Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2014). Permaculture for agroecology: Design, movement, practice, and worldview. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34, 251–274. doi:10.1007/s13593-013-0181-6
72
(a) Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2015). Grassroots engagement with transition to sustainability: diversity and modes of participation in the international permaculture movement. Ecology and Society, 20(4), art39. doi:10.5751/ES-08048-200439
(b) Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2015). Permaculture as farming practice and international grassroots network: A multidisciplinary study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
Fukuoka, M. (1978). The one-straw revolution: An introduction to natural farming. Rodale Press, Inc.
Girouard, B. (2014). Vers une gestion de l’offre 2.0 au Canada. Lachute, Québec: Union Paysanne.
Gliessman, S. R. (1990). Agroecology: Researching the ecological basis for sustainable agriculture. Ecological studies series (78th ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gliessman, S. R. (1998). Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Michigan: Ann Arbor Press.
Gouvernement du Québec. (n.d.). Loi sur le ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation. Retrieved January 16, 2016, from http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/M_14/M14.html
Greiner, R., Patterson, L., & Miller, O. (2009). Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agricultural Systems, 99(2-3), 86–104.
Grover, S. (2013). Exploring motivations and perceptions of small-scale farmers: Considerations for sustainable agriculture in East Central Indiana (Unpublished Master of Science Thesis). Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
Hemenway, T. (2009). Gaia’s garden: A guide to home-scale permaculture (2nd ed.). White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Héon, G. H., Marion, J.-A., & Larue, A. (1956). Rapport du comité d’enquête pour la protection des agriculteurs et des consommateurs.
Hoffman, M., Lubell, M., & Hillis, V. (2015). Network-smart extension could catalyze social learning. California Agriculture, 69(2), 113–122. doi:10.3733/ca.E.v069n02p113
Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainability. Hepburn: Holmgren Design.
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Summary for policymakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
73
Jacke, D., & Toensmeier, E. (2005). Edible forest gardens. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Jat, R. K., Sapkota, T. B., Singh, R. G., Jat, M. L., Kumar, M., & Gupta, R. K. (2014). Seven years of conservation agriculture in a rice – wheat rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Yield trends and economic profitability. Field Crops Research. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2014.04.015
Jones, C. (2003). Recognise relate innovate. (Rangelands Report). Armidale: Department of Land & Water Conservation, New South Wales Government.
Jones, C. (2008). Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised. Australian Farm Journal, July 2008, 15–17.
Jones, C. (2010). Soil carbon - Can it save agriculture’s bacon? The Permaculture Research Institute.
Killham, K. (1994). Soil ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2007). Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy, 32, 25–48. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003
Kremen, C., & Miles, A. (2012). Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4).
Kroma, M. M. (2006). Organic farmer networks: Facilitating learning and innovation for sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 28(4), 5–28.
Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304, 1623–1627. doi:10.1126/science.1097396
Lamontagne, D. (2015). La ferme impossible. Montreal: Éditions Écosociété.
Lawton, G. (2016). Permaculture for profit. Retrieved on March 15, 2016 from http://geofflawton.com/videos/permaculture-for-profit/
Leake, J., Johnson, D., Donnelly, D., Muckle, G., Boddy, L., & Read, D. (2004). Networks of power and influence: the role of mycorrhizal mycelium in controlling plant communities and agroecosystem functioning. Canadian Journal of Botany, 82, 1016–1045. doi:10.1139/b04-060
Lubell, M., Niles, M. T., & Hoffman, M. (2014). Extension 3.0: Managing Agricultural Knowledge Systems in the Network Age. Society and Natural Resources, 27(10).
Magdoff, F. (2007). Ecological agriculture: Principles, practices, and constraints. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22, 109–117.
74
MAPAQ. (2014). Statistiques production. Retrieved December 20, 2015, from http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/Fr/Productions/md/statistiques/production/pages/production.aspx
McIntyre B. D., Herren H. R., Wakhungu J., & Watson T. R. (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads (Synthesis Report). International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Ministère de l’Agriculture de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt. (2015). Contribution de l’agriculture à la lutte contre le changement climatique : lancement d’un projet de recherche international : le « 4 pour 1000 ». Paris.
Mollison, B. (1988). Permaculture: A designer’s manual. Tyalgum: Tagari.
Mollison, B., & Holmgren, D. (1978). Permaculture one: A permanent agricultural system for human settlements. Tyalgum: Tagari.
Morel, K., Guégan, C., Léger, F. (2015). Une ferme maraîchère biologique viable sans motorisation? Le cas d’une approche holistique inspirée par la permaculture. Retrived on September 23, 2015 from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01200636v2
Muzzi, P., & Morisset, M. (1987). Les facteurs de réussite ou d’échec de l'établissement en agriculture au Québec. Québec: Groupe de recherche en économie et politique agricoles.
Napier, T. L., Tucker, M., & McCarter, S. (2000). Adoption of conservation production systems in three Midwest watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55(2),123-134.
Nemes, N. (2013). Comparative analysis of organic and non-organic farming systems: A critical assessment of farm profitability. (Trade and environment review 2013). Geneva: United Nations Publication.
Ngwira, A. R., Thierfelder, C., & Lambert, D. M. (2012). Conservation agriculture systems for Malawian smallholder farmers: Long-term effects on crop productivity, profitability and soil quality. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 28(4), 350–363. doi:10.1017/S1742170512000257
Offermann, F., & Nieberg, H. (2000). Economic performance of organic farms in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, 5.
Parent, D., Ouellet, E., Perrier, J.-P., & Gagné, M. (2004). Établissement en agriculture de la relève agricole non familiale: trajectoires et facteurs de succès et d’insuccès. Québec: Traget Laval.
75
Paustian, K. (1996). Modelling soil biology and biochemical processes for sustainable agriculture research. In C. E. Pankhurst, B. M. Doube, V. V. S. R. Gupta & P. R. Grace (Eds.), Soil biota: Management in sustainable farming systems (pp. 182-193). Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO.
Pimentel, D. (2009). Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. In Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-Development Process (pp. 89–111). Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-8992-3_4
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55(7), 573. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2
Poirier, L. (2010). De l’histoire et de la politique agricole au Québec à l’émergence d’une agriculture soutenable (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC.
Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Klotthor-Weinkauf, D., & Baumgart-Getz, A. (2008). Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63(5), 300–311.
Pronovost, J., Dumais, M., & Tremblay, P. (2008). Rapport de la Commission sur l’avenir de l'agriculture et de l'agroalimentaire québécois. Retrieved from http://www.caaaq.gouv.qc.ca/documentation/rapportfinal.fr.html
Reicosky, D. C., Kemper, W. D., Langdale, G. W., Douglas, C. L., & Rasmussen, P. E. (1995). Soil organic matter changes resulting from tillage and biomass production. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 50(3), 253-261.
Rhodes, C. J. (2015). Permaculture: Regenerative – not merely sustainable. Science Progress, 98(4), 403–412. doi:10.3184/003685015X14467291596242
Roberts, R. K., English, B. C., Larson, J. A., Cochran, R. L., Goodman, W. R., Larkin, S. L., Marra, M. C., Martin, S. W., Shurley, W. D., & Reeves, J. M. (2004). Adoption of site-specific information and variable-rate technologies in cotton precision farming. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36(1), 143-158.
Ryan, R. L., Erickson, D. L., & De Young, R. (2003). Farmers motivations for adoption conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(1), 19–37.
Salatin, J. (1998). You can farm: The entrepreneur’s guide to start & succeed in a farming enterprise. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Sassenrath, G. F., Halloran, J. M., Archer, D., Raper, R. L., Hendrickson, J., Vadas, P., & Hanson, J. (2010). Drivers impacting the adoption of sustainable agricultural
76
management practices and production systems of the Northeast and Southeast United States. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 34, 680–702.
Shepard, M. (2013). Restoration agriculture. Austin: Mark Shepard.
Silvestro, M. (2006). L’histoire du syndicalisme agricole au Québec: un chantier déjà très balisé? Recherches Sociographiques, 47(1), 121–137.
Smith, J. R. (1929). Tree crops: A permanent agriculture. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Statistics Canada. (2012). 2011 Census of Agriculture. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/fra/ra2011/index
Statistics Canada. (2013). Population, urban and rural, by province or territory (Quebec). Retrieved February 27, 2016, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo62f-eng.htm
Statistics Canada. (2014). The financial picture of farms in Canada. Retrieved February 16, 2016 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ca-ra2006/articles/finpicture-portrait-eng.htm#A5
(a) Statistics Canada. (2015). Data quality, concepts and methodology: Glossary. Retrieved March 4, 2016, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-208-x/2012002/technote-notetech5-eng.htm
(b) Statistics Canada. (2015). Detailed average operating revenues and expenses of farms, by farm type, incorporated and unincorporated sectors, Canada and provinces. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&id=20044
Tey, Y. S., & Brindal, M. (2015). Factors influencing farm profitability. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 15, 235–255.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418, 671–677.
Toensmeier, E., & Bates, J. (2013). Paradise lot: Two plant geeks, one-tenth of an acre and the making of an edible garden oasis in the city. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Tondreau, J., Parent, D., & Perrier, J.-P. (2002). Transmettre la ferme familiale d’une génération à l'autre: Situation au Québec et regard sur le monde. Québec: Agri-Gestion Laval.
UNCCD. (2012). Desertification, land degradation and drought: Some facts and global figures. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/WDCD/DLDD Facts.pdf
77
UNCTAD. (2013). Trade and environment review 2013: Wake up before it is too late. Geneva: United Nations Publication. doi:UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2012/3
Warner, K. D. (2008). Agroecology as Participatory Science: Emerging Alternatives to Technology Transfer Extension Practice. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(6), 754–777. doi:10.1177/0162243907309851
Yeomans, P. A. (1954). The Keyline Plan. Sydney: P.A. Yeomans.
Yeomans, P. A. (1958). The challenge of landscape : The development and practice of keyline. Sydney: P.A. Yeomans.
Yeomans, P. A. (1973). Water for every farm: A practical irrigation plan for every Australian property. Sydney: P.A. Yeomans.