Therefore, the indication of trees cultivated within the milpas at Cerén suggests that the ancient farmers valued the contributions of forest ecosystems within agriculture. Cerén’s agricultural fields were dynamic and incorporated a variety of species that were likely encouraged to grow and utilized for a variety of reasons, not just for food. It is possible that trees served as landmarks to differentiate land ownership and serve as a division between field plots. The extraordinary preservation in and around Cerén showcases direct archaeological evidence of various agricultural management practices that were likely widespread throughout Mesoamerica. The gardens adjacent to the domestic structures contained a variety of useful plants and were under careful and constant attention from residents, leading to well-maintained plots with strategically constructed activity spaces for daily tasks and social gatherings. Household members would have spent a large portion of their time in these spaces; the spatial arrangement and composition of the gardens reflect the great deal of care given towards them. Infield milpa plots at a short distance from the homes echo this practice, yet with less defined agricultural ridges and abundant weed growth. Nevertheless, vertical growing weed these plots were still quite productive and incorporated a variety of edible herbaceous species. Both the garden plots and the maize fields exhibit polyculture farming practices that reveal the Cerén residents’ efforts to intensify and diversify their agriculture.
Many indigenous groups within the Neotropics tend to practice poly-agricultural strategies which incorporate not just domesticated plants, but also semi-domesticated and tolerated species . Milpa plots can often include trees, shrubs, herbs, and vines in addition to maize and manioc, creating a biologically and culturally diverse agroecosystem that benefits from multiple resources rather than a single crop . The practice of intercropping additional species within milpas has been the foundation of food security in much of Latin America’s rural communities for thousands of years , and Cerén’s unique preservation provides direct evidence for this type of agricultural strategy that is typically invisible archaeologically. The paleoethnobotanical assemblage throughout the archaeological site demonstrates that individual households and farmers were able to manage their space in varied ways. The farmers tending to the milpa plots to the east and west of the earthen causeway practiced different strategies regarding weed management. The eastern fields contained a more diverse assemblage of wild and weedy plant species whereas the western fields revealed a significantly larger percentage of weedy species per flotation sample. These differences suggest varying perceptions among the ancient agriculturalists concerning what wild species are valuable and what intensity of weed removal efforts would have been appropriate within their fields.
Paleoethnobotanical studies at such a remarkably well-preserved site have shown just how diverse an ancient Maya farmer’s diet could have been with the use of home gardens, polycultural milpas, and nearby forest ecosystems. Farmers inhabiting the Late Classic Zapotitán Valley took advantage of the fertile landscape and manipulated the land to benefit their way of life. Paleoethnobotanical investigations at Cerén demonstrate just how broad and diverse the plant assemblage would have been in the daily routines of villagers. Because the agricultural fields were preserved archaeologically, we get a rare, direct view of production, and therefore consumption patterns without having to analyze stomach contents, coprolites, or skeletal remains. Biodiversity supports multiple ecosystem functions and ensures greater environmental and social resilience. Research has shown that a biodiverse system including wild foods can also enhance a diet , even if the foods include something a more high-ranking individual may eschew such as wild or weedy species. The Cerén residents had a variety of food resources incorporated into their diet and were not limited in terms of access to their thriving and bountiful environment. The gardens surrounding their domiciles would have increased their access to fruits and vegetables, whereas the agricultural fields supplied a secure source of staple crops as well as flavorful herbs and spices.
Therefore, they likely lived quite a comfortable life both economically and socially where individual households had control over the composition, arrangement, and management of their own household gardens and agricultural fields. The ancient inhabitants of Cerén actively exploited their fertile, volcanic landscape and were knowledgeable of its available resources. Farming is inherently knowledge intensive. This knowledge base is multi-faceted and context specific, and often informed by scientists, researchers, policymakers, government, extension agents as well as by farmers. While farmer knowledge is a critical component of this knowledge base, in the United States farmer knowledge has been widely underappreciated . Long considered “informal” knowledge, farmer knowledge is generally not regarded as scientifically valid and therefore infrequently recorded, whether formally or informally . Since the 1950s, due to an increase in knowledge standardization within production agriculture combined with widespread deskilling among farmers and farm workers, farmer knowledge has become increasingly undervalued . However, farmers who practice alternative agriculture often amass an incredible wealth and depth of knowledge that integrates multiple ways of knowing and reflects diverse knowledge systems for thinking about evidence; perhaps most importantly, farmer knowledge is based in practice . If current trends in consolidation of land ownership, chemical-based intensification of agriculture, and standardization of farmer knowledge continue, local farmer knowledge may be endangered or permanently lost . Before this occurs, it is essential that we elevate the critical role of farmer knowledge and: 1) understand the key features of farmer knowledge; 2) understand the substance of farmer knowledge; and 3) systematically document farmer knowledge in specific local contexts. Understanding the substance of farmer knowledge serves as a first step to conserve this essential knowledge base in practice; however, it is equally critical to document the particularities of farmer expertise in local contexts to provide essential knowledge for other contemporaneous and future generations of farmers, scientists, and policymakers alike. Moving forward, there is therefore a need to elevate the importance and value of farmer knowledge across multiple disciplines such that farmer knowledge is considered “expert” knowledge throughout alternative agriculture . While other studies attempt to integrate the artificial binary between “formal” and “informal,” or “expert” and “non-expert” knowledge and view the two forms of knowledge as complementary , in this paper we maintain that farmer knowledge is scientifically valid, expert knowledge and therefore warrants formal, standalone documentation within the scientific literature . While it is true that the terms “traditional,” “folk,” and/or “indigenous” knowledge are applied in certain contexts, in this paper, the term “local knowledge” is most appropriate , as farmer participants were all white and all either first- or second generation settlers on unceded Patwin-speaking Wintun Nation tribal lands in Yolo County, CA. To frame this paper, we apply Agrawal’s definition of local knowledge as knowledge that is “integrally linked with the lives of people, always produced in dynamic interactions among humans and between humans and nature, and constantly changing.” This definition of local knowledge recognizes the key elements of local knowledge: 1) It is produced by people and among people; 2) It is always produced in relationship with nature; and 3) It is a dynamic process. More broadly defined, local knowledge involves dynamic processes and complex systems of experiences, practices, and skills developed and sustained by people in their environmental and socioeconomic realties . Further, local knowledge may develop even within one or two generations of place-based experience . In the US, pipp shelving there exists a handful of studies documenting rural local knowledge and rancher local knowledge .
Very few studies explicitly examine local knowledge in the context of alternative agricultural or organic systems, referred to as “farmer knowledge” in the literature. This type of knowledge is a subset of local knowledge that enables knowledge holders to farm alternatively in their specifical local contexts. To date, most formal studies on farmer knowledge tend to focus on farmer decision making as it relates to the adoption of new practices . Few studies exist at the intersection of local knowledge, alternative agriculture, and soil management. To consider this gap, we focus this study on a significant epicenter for alternative agriculture in the United States: Yolo County, California, which represents unceded Patwin-speaking Wintun Nation tribal lands. This region in northern California is unique in that it is among the handful of places in the country that emerged as a catalyst and knowledge hub for the organic agriculture movement and where a large concentration of high value, innovative organic production farms continue to thrive today. Due to a unique set of historical and ecological circumstances, the region experienced an influx of organic farmers beginning in the 1970s . During this decade, Yolo County—in combination with Santa Cruz, CA—became a significant node in the organic movement. Its emergence as a significant node was in part due to Yolo County’s proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area and the University of California, Davis—which provided key institutional support—and also partially due to the existence of largely prime agricultural lands combined with a temperate climate ideal for growing year-round. As a result, Yolo County became one of a few of places where regulations for organic production first evolved and experimentation with organic farming first emerged . Following the farm financial crisis of the 1980s, land prices in the County sharply dropped ; this economic window provided an opportunity for a new generation of farmers to insert a more ecologically-minded approach to farming. Many of these farmers arrived to Yolo County relatively new to farming —often young, educated white urbanites with a desire to farm alternatively to the industrial agribusinesses that had historically dominated the landscape of Yolo County since the early 1900s . When these so-called “back-to-the-land” farmers arrived, many were particularly interested in soil fertility—a conscious effort to avoid “mining the soil” and address ongoing issues with soil degradation in agriculture . While initially these back-to-the-landers lacked historically- and ecologically specific knowledge of the lands they cultivated , over the last three decades or more, it is highly probable that they have individually amassed a wealth of local, place-based knowledge of their specific management contexts and soil landscapes . In this sense, farmer knowledge of soil management presents a particularly salient entry point for further examination in the context of Yolo County specifically. How did these particular farmers address the challenge of soil management in their region? What have they individually and collectively learned about soil management, in theory and in practice? Such questions are particularly important to consider given that—from a pedological and agricultural perspective—soils are heterogenous across landscapes. For example, even at the scale of a single field, differences in micro-environments, management histories, inherent soil characteristics, and time of year can all dramatically influence how a particular field can be most effectively managed. Addressing this challenge in soil management and understanding the nuances of soil management are fundamental to organic systems—where deep place-based knowledge of soil landscapes is the basis for building and sustaining healthy soils on-farm—and more broadly, resilient agriculture. Yet, farmer knowledge of soil management is still generally under-researched, particularly in the United States and particularly among organic farmers. Though documentation of farmer knowledge of soil management in alternative agriculture exists, most studies focus within the “development” context . Similarly, research on indigenous knowledge of soil is frequently approached from an ethnopedological or traditional ecological knowledge perspective , and lacks focus on production and/or organic agriculture. To date, farmer knowledge of local soil landscapes and related soil management practices remains entirely undocumented in Yolo County. Yet, the unique historical and ecological context makes farmer knowledge of soil health and soil management in this region especially important to document; this knowledge is potentially foundational as organic farmers adapt their farming approaches and management in the face of increasing social, economic, and environmental uncertainties. Though many organic farmers in Yolo County are informed by principles of alternative agriculture when managing their soils, it is less clear how these farmers have translated their ethos into practice and the substance of the soil management practices applied. To address this gap, we examined local farmer ethos and practical knowledge of soil management in this region. Our objectives were to: 1) understand how farmers acquire local knowledge of their soils; 2) document what organic farmers know about their soils; and 3) determine how these farmers translate this local knowledge into specific management practices related to soil health and on farm resilience.This research is informed by a Farmer First approach, which recognizes farmers as experts and crucial partners in researching and innovating solutions for resilient, alternative agriculture .