Statistics on Ethnicity and Race on Organic Farms in the United States

eOrganic author:

Alice K. Formiga, Oregon State University


Information on the demographics of producers on farms and on organic farms in the United States can be difficult to find and understand. This article summarizes sources of publicly available statistics on this topic and provides some previously unavailable data. It also highlights the need for improved data collection and presentation to support efforts to diversify agricultural production and land tenure, and to evaluate the success of government programs in reaching diverse groups. While these statistics document the stark ethnic and racial disparities in U.S. agriculture, they provide only an incomplete picture of the present, as they lack the stories of the many producers of all races and ethnicities who have farmed and continue to farm in the U.S.

Census of Agriculture Statistics on Ethnicity and Race of U.S. Producers

The most detailed source of information on the demographics of farms and producers in the United States is the Census of Agriculture, which is conducted every five years by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). In the Census of Agriculture, the definitions of "race" and "ethnicity", and the terms used to classify different races and ethnicities have changed over time. Although the categories currently in use conform to federal standards, (Federal Register 1997), they do not necessarily reflect the ways in which people identify themselves. 

In the 2017 Census of Agriculture questionnaire (USDA NASS 2019j Appendix B, B32-3), respondents were asked to state the total number of producers involved in decision-making on their farms. Then, they were asked to provide demographic information on up to 4 producers involved in decision-making for farms; the four producers could include hired managers and family members, but not hired workers unless they were managers or family members. "Ethnicity" and "race" were classified as two separate categories. Respondents were first asked to specify whether each producer was of "Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin", which was the only "ethnicity" listed. The next question asked respondents to choose one or more of the available “race” categories for each producer, which were limited to: "American Indian or Alaskan Native", "Asian", "Black or African American", "Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander", and "White". In Hawaii, additional race categories were counted and reported in the state report for Hawaii (USDA NASS 2019b, Chapter 2, Tables 50 and 52). 

Respondents were also asked to specify whether each producer was a "principal operator or senior partner", a category that was not defined in the question itself, but was defined in the census instruction sheet as a "person in charge, such as a hired manager, business manager, or other person primarily responsible for the on-site, day-to-day operation of the farm or ranch business" (USDA NASS 2019j Appendix B, B52, Section 7 Item 4). The form also asked whether each producer made several specific kinds of decisions for the farm.

The 2017 Census of Agriculture full report counted a total of 2,042,220 farms. It provided information on the ethnicity and race of 3,399,834 producers (up to 4 per farm) and 2,740,453 "principal producers" (up to 4 per farm). It also tabulated the ethnicity and race of one "primary producer" per farm, which was designated as the "the person who made the most decisions for the farm" (USDA NASS, 2019j Tables 52, 62 and 63, Appendix B, B19).

Table 1 shows the number and percentage by race and ethnicity of primary producers, producers and principal producers. Many producers were in more than one race category, so the census tabulated the number of people who checked each category alone, and "alone or in combination with other races" (USDA NASS 2019j Tables 52, 62 and 63). Table 1 shows only the total of those who checked each individual race category alone plus those who checked "more than one race", which adds up to the total number of producers. 

Table 1 Number and Percentage of Producers by Ethnicity and Race on All Farms

Ethnicity and race categories in 2017 census

 Primary producers (1 per farm)

Producers  (up to 4  per farm)

“Principal producers" (up to 4 per farm)

Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin








American Indian or Alaskan Native















Black or African American







Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander














More than one race reported








2,042,220 farms and primary producers

3,399,834 producers

2,740,453 principal producers

Data sources: Table 52: Census of Agriculture Selected Producer Characteristics 2017 and 2012, United States (USDA NASS 2019j, p.62).
Note: Since "Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin" was counted as an "ethnicity", as opposed to the other groups who were counted as "races", the total of the percentages of the other categories in the table equals 100 percent. The 2017 Census of Agriculture report, Race Ethnicity and Gender Profiles, includes the number of producers of "Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin" that were marked as one or more of the available race categories (USDA NASS 2019i). 

Clearly, the table shows that all the groups listed are represented in the farming population, but a huge disparity exists between the number of White producers and those in every other group. This disparity has increased substantially over the past century. According to the 1920 Census, 85.3% of farm operators were White, 14.4% were Black, 0.3% were Native American, 0.1% were Japanese and less than .001% were Chinese (Department of Commerce, 1920); however, in 1920, all Native American farms on a reservation were tallied as just one farm, resulting in a significant undercount of Native American farms and farmers--a method which persisted until 2007 (USDA NASS, 2009). Some of the many reasons for racial and ethnic disparities in U.S. agriculture include the forced removal of Native Americans from their ancestral lands, racial exclusion laws, discriminatory denial and delays of credit and services to farmers of color by the USDA and commercial lenders, heirs’ property laws, tax sales, and racial violence (Zabawa, Baharanyi and Amougou, 1995; Gilbert, Sharp and Ferin, 2001; Equal Justice Initiative, 2019).

Comparing Census of Agriculture data between years is not easy to do accurately, because of differences in the ways in which different races and ethnicities are classified, variations in the degree of outreach about the census to different groups, and changes in counting methods over time. Simply taking the numbers at face value can lead to mistaken conclusions about how certain statistics have changed (Horst and Marion, 2019).

The following example illustrates this point: Black farmers were historically undercounted in the Census of Agriculture (Gilbert, Sharp and Ferin, 2001). However, the 2012 and 2017 Census of Agriculture "Highlights" reports on Black producers appear to show a steady increase in the number of Black producers between 2007 and 2017 (USDA NASS 2014 and 2019e). The apparent rise from 2007 to 2012 may, however, have been due to increased outreach, along with different methods of counting more farmers and adjusting the counts to include farmers who had not been counted in previous years (Rosenberg and Stucki, 2019). In 2017, the "Highlights" report listed a total of 48,697 Black producers, 45,508 of whom identified as Black alone and 3,189 as Black in combination with other races, and noted a 5% increase from 2012 (USDA NASS 2019e). But this increase may have been partly due to the fact that the Census included demographic information for up to 3 producers per farm in 2012, but up to 4 producers per farm in 2017. The same report showed the number of "Black-operated" farms, i.e. farms with a producer who was identified as "Black or African American alone or in combination with other races", as having decreased by from 36,382 in 2012 to 35,470 in 2017. In the main 2017 Census report, Table 52 shows that the number of Black "primary producers" (just one of whom was counted per farm) also decreased from 33,371 in 2012 to 31,071 in 2017 (USDA NASS 2019j United States Table 52 p.62). And the number of farms that identified only Black "principal producers" in 2017 was 32,052 in 2017, which was a decrease from 2012, when it was 33,371 (USDA NASS 2019j Table 62, United States p.76, USDA NASS 2014 Table 62 United States p.64).

Conversely, some groups may be undercounted in the 2017 Census of Agriculture, such as recent immigrants who may have informal land-leasing arrangements (Tan, 2020). It is therefore important to look closely at all relevant census reports and their appendices, which provide information on the survey methodology and definitions of terms, which may be different from those used in previous years. Additional factors to consider when looking at census and other survey reports are the standard errors and adjustments. The census is sent to many farmers, but not all of them fill it out. The numbers are then adjusted to reflect the levels of nonresponse, as well as those who are missed by the census or who are misclassified. The adjustment percentages and standard errors for the Census of Agriculture are listed in Appendix A of the report, and they vary by the ethnicity and race of the producers (2017 Census of Agriculture Appendix A; Rosenberg and Stucki, 2019). In addition, the Census of Agriculture counted some principal farm operators who did not actually sell any agricultural products or report sales for the census year. A higher proportion of these "zero sales" farmers counted in 2012 were people of color and women. If they were subtracted from the total in the Census of Agriculture, the number of farmers in these categories in that year would be even lower (Rosenberg, 2017). Although these adjustment methods are not easily understandable for non-statisticians, it can be helpful to know that some adjustment of the numbers is done, so that the numbers in large-scale agricultural surveys are not entirely precise.

Nevertheless, many tables in the Census of Agriculture report contain a great deal of information on U.S. producers by race and ethnicity, including military service, young and beginning farmers, farm size, market value of products sold, land tenure and more. All the tables, reports and previous years' reports can be found on the Census of Agriculture website at

Other Sources of Demographic Data on U.S. Farms

Farm Household Characteristics Tables. Another source of data on the demographics of U.S. farm households is a set of tables on Farm Household Characteristics published by the USDA Economic Research Service, based on data from the 2016 Agricultural Resource Management (ARMS) survey (USDA ERS, 2019). According to these tables, from a total of 2,027,269 farms, 93.4% of all principal operators were  "non-Hispanic White", and 6.6% were "non-White or Hispanic".  Information on other categories of race or ethnicity was not listed.

The Current Population Survey, administered by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to c. 60,000 households per month only included 3 race categories:”White”, “Black or African American” and “Asian”, and “Hispanic or Latino” as an ethnicity. According to the 2020 survey of 901,000 “farmers, ranchers and other agricultural managers”, 96.3% were White, 0.7% were Black or African American, 0.8% were Asian and 4.3% were Hispanic or Latino (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021)

TOTAL and NAWS Surveys.  Horst and Marion (2019) analyzed land ownership, tenancy, and farm income data by race, ethnicity and gender from the 2012 Census of Agriculture, the 2014 USDA NASS Tenure, Ownership and Transition of Agricultural Land (TOTAL) survey and the 2013-14 National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS). Among their many findings was that in 2012-14, 97% of farmland owners, 96% of farm owner-operators, and 86% of tenant farmers were White.

Hernandez and Gabbard (2018) reported on the 2015-6 NAWS survey. Unlike the Census of Agriculture and TOTAL surveys, the NAWS is distributed to crop workers. In 2015-6, 83% percent of crop worker respondents identified themselves as "Hispanic".  In terms of race, 24% of respondents identified themselves as "White", 1 percent as "American Indian or Alaska Native", and 3 percent as "Black or African American". None were "Asian/Pacific Islander" or "Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander" and only 6 were "Asian". Nearly three quarters of respondents entered their own term to describe their race that was not on the list of choices, an option that wasn't available in the Census of Agriculture. 

American Community Survey. The American Community Survey, issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, surveyed crop workers, as well as (unlike the NAWS) livestock workers, who are more likely than crop workers to be "non-Hispanic White". According to the survey results, 64% of the agricultural laborers, graders and sorters surveyed were "Hispanic", 32% were "Non-Hispanic White" and 3% were "Non-Hispanic Black" (USDA ERS, 2020).

Demographics of Recipients of Farm Programs

The USDA has many programs which provide subsidies, loans, insurance and other aid such as National Resources Conservation Service programs and the Organic Certification Cost Share Program. Table 61 of the Census of Agriculture records the number of farms that received certain government payments, and the payment amounts, by race. See also Appendix B B-11 for the definition of which payments were included.

REGStats is an online tool that tracks applications and participation by ethnicity, race and gender in programs of the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rural Development, and the Risk Management Agency; however, it is unclear how complete or accurate the dataset is, because demographic information for many programs is collected on a voluntary basis (USDA n.d.). A recent USDA audit showed that, contrary to policy, much of the race and ethnicity information about producers was based on agents’ visual assessments, and not obtained directly from the producers themselves (Harden, 2020). Data on participation in EQIP and other NRCS conservation programs by ethnic and racial groups is also available in the Civil Rights Impact Analysis report for each program on the 2018 Farm Bill Rules page of the NRCS website (USDA NRCS, 2018).  According to USDA data published by the Farm Bill Law Enterprise and the Land Loss and Reparations Project, approximately 97% of coronavirus aid from the Coronavirus Food Assistance Programs 1 and 2, and approximately 99% of Market Facilitation Program aid to offset trade losses went to White farmers (Hayes, 2021). There is no published data on the ethnic and racial demographics of recipients of the Organic Certification Cost Share program funding; however, the number of recipients by state was tabulated, and this data is available in the 2019 Organic Survey, Table 20: Selected Farm Programs on Certified Organic Farms (USDA NASS 2020b). This table also contains state information on the distribution of funds from the EQIP program, and the number of farms with crop insurance.

Some USDA programs reserve funding or set aside a portion of funding for "socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers" or for groups that assist them. “Socially disadvantaged” is statutorially defined in several ways, depending on the program (Johnson, 2021). One definition includes those who have historically been subject to discrimination based on race and ethnicity, and the other definition also includes groups who have been subject to gender prejudice, a category which includes White women. Sometimes, the funding in certain programs for "socially disadvantaged" farmers is also available for groups that serve beginning farmers, low-income farmers, or military veterans of all races and ethnicities. Because of these variations across USDA programs, as well as insufficient or aggregated data collection, it is often difficult or impossible to track how much funding in a particular program for socially disadvantaged producers went to members of different racial and ethnic groups (United States Government Accountability Office, 2019).

To improve tracking and accountability in USDA programs, Representative Bobby Rush and Senator Cory Booker introduced the Farm Subsidy Transparency Act in June, 2021. This law would require the collection and annual publication of the race and gender of all recipients of farm subsidies, loans, crop insurance and other relief and conservation payments. It would also require reporting of the race and ethnicity of those who were denied assistance.

Statistics on Ethnicity and Race of Organic Producers

In addition to questions about race and ethnicity, the 2017 Census of Agriculture form contained questions about whether farmers produced products in accordance with National Organic Program standards or had acres transitioning to organic production. If they answered "yes", they were asked to check one or more of the following:

  • USDA NOP certified organic production
  • USDA NOP organic production exempt from certification (exempt is production normally less than $5000 in sales) 
  • Acres transitioning into USDA NOP organic production
  • Production according to USDA NOP standards but NOT certified or exempt.

The form then asked respondents to state the value of their organic products sold or to check a box if the amount was zero. 

Although the main 2017 Census of Agriculture report provides statistics about organic farms, as well as information on characteristics of farms with producers and "principal producers" of different races and ethnicities, it does not, for the most part, combine these datasets; however, there is some information available in several reports.

The Race/Ethnicity/Gender Profiles report (USDA NASS, 2019i) lists the percentage of certified organic farms with producers of "Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin" and with producers in each of the race categories. According to this report, only 1% of farms with producers in each of the ethnic and race groups were organic, with the exception that 3% of farms with Asian producers alone or in combination with others were organic. This report lists many other statistics about producers and farms based on race, ethnicity, and gender (male or female), but it does not filter all the information specifically for organic farms. Some of this information is also available in "Highlights" reports for each group (USDA NASS 2019c-h).

Table 51 of the 2017 Census of Agriculture lists a total of 17,741 certified organic farms and 3,065 exempt farms, for a total of 20,806 organic farms. It also lists 3,723 transitioning farms. These numbers include farms that did not report organic sales in the census year. The total number of producers on all certified and exempt farms for which demographic information was reported was 39,686. Some farms may not have reported organic sales because they were just starting out, they may not have sold any products in the census year, or there may have been reporting errors, for example, if the respondent misunderstood the question (USDA NASS, email communication, 17 March 2021).

Farms with Organic Sales

The Characteristics of All Farms and Farms with Organic Sales report from the 2017 Census of Agriculture provides information on 18,166 farms that reported organic sales: 15,951 of those farms were certified organic and 2,215 were exempt. The total number of producers on these farms is 36,374. The report tallies the number of producers (up to 4 per farm) in each of the ethnicity and race categories and the number of producers of more than one race on certified organic farms with less than 50% of total sales from organic sales, on certified farms with more than 50% of organic sales, and on farms that are exempt from certification (USDA NASS 2019a). State level data is also available. Since demographic information was only provided for up to 4 producers per farm, the total number of producers for which demographic information is given adds up to 34,805. In other words, there were 1,569 additional producers on farms with organic sales for which no demographic information was reported. There is also no demographic information in the report on 3,312 producers on the 1,790 certified farms and 850 exempt farms for which no organic sales were reported, which were counted in Table 51. Table 2 shows the number and percentage of producers on farms with organic sales by ethnicity and race of up to 4 producers per farm.

Table 2. U.S. Producers on Farms with Organic Sales (Information on up to 4 producers per farm) from the 2017 Census of Agriculture.

Producer Ethnicity or Race

Producers on Farms with Organic sales, NOP certified

Percent of certified organic producers (Producers = 30,909)

Producers with organic sales exempt from certification (Producers =3896)

Percent of exempt producers

Farms with less than 50% total sales from organic

Farms with 50% or more sales from organic

Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin






American Indian or Alaskan Native












Black or African American






Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander












More than one race reported






Data sources: USDA NASS. 2019. Characteristics of All Farms and Farms with Organic Sales. Table 1, page 5. (USDA NASS 2019a). See also: USDA NASS 2019 Organic Survey Data Release 10/22/20 (USDA NASS 2020a).
Note: Since "Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin" was counted as an "ethnicity", as opposed to the other groups who were counted as "races", the total of the percentages of the race categories equals 100%.

The Organic Production Survey (USDA NASS) and the Organic Integrity Database (USDA) contain more information about organic farms, but they do not include data on ethnicity and race.

Special Tabulation of 2017 Census of Agriculture

From USDA NASS, eOrganic requested a special tabulation of 2017 Census of Agriculture tables which detail farm and producer characteristics by race and ethnicity, and asked that these tables be filtered for certified and exempt organic producers, and farms with organic sales. Due to disclosure requirements, we were unable to obtain all the information we requested. However, we received the following spreadsheet, which contains information about producers on certified and exempt farms—including those which reported no organic sales. Some of the cells are missing data due to disclosure requirements; however, these tables still provide some previously unavailable information.

Click here to download the special tabulation

The following tables appear in separate sheets:

  • Table 59: Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin Producers, Selected Farm Characteristics: 2017:  Certified Farms
  • Table 59: Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin Producers, Selected Farm Characteristics: 2017: Exempt Farms
  • Table 62: Selected Farm Characteristics by Race of Principal Producers: Certified Farms
  • Table 62: Selected Farm Characteristics by Race of Principal Producers: Exempt Farms
  • Table 63: Selected Producer Characteristics by Race: Certified Farms
  • Table 63: Selected Producer Characteristics by Race: Exempt Farms

Note: The total number of producers (up to 4 per farm) in the tabulation of Table 63 for certified and exempt producers is 39,686, the same number as in the 2017 Census of Agriculture Table 51. However, the total number of certified and exempt farms listed in the tabulations of Table 62 (21,164) is higher than in Table 51 (20,806). According to USDA NASS, a farm was listed in each race column if any principal producer falls in that category. Because farms may have multiple principal producers, the number of farms was duplicated if the principal producers on a farm were of different races. (USDA NASS, email communication, 17 March 2021).

The percentage of White producers on organically certifed farms with organic sales shown in Table 2 (96.4%) is very close to, but slightly higher than on all farms shown in Table 1 (95.4%). Certified organic producers in Table 63, which included producers on farms that did not report organic sales, were 0.4% "Native American or Alaska Native", 1.8% "Asian", 0.5% "Black or African American", 0.2% "Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander", 96.2% "White", and 0.9% reported more than one race. Of these producers, 4.3% were "Hispanic Latino or Spanish Origin". As in Table 2, there was a slightly higher percentage of producers of color on exempt than on certified organic farms.

While the racial and ethnic disparities in organic farming reflect the overall structural inequities in U.S. land ownership and agricultural production, they also show that not all groups of producers are benefiting equally from the higher price premiums and health and environmental benefits that certified organic farming can yield.

There are many barriers to the risky business of farming and organic farming for producers of all races and ethnicities—and there are additional barriers to organic certification. These include the significant expenses and time associated with organic transition, certification, and regulatory compliance, as well as difficulties of access to organic markets, equipment, processing facilities and technical assistance (Boyd, 2019: Carlisle et al. 2019; Delbridge et al., 2017; Stephenson et al. 2017).  Financial resources such as inherited or family wealth and property helps mitigate the risks of going “back-to-the-land”, and the racial wealth gap has meant that many of those who have been able to afford to make this lifestyle choice are White (Daloz, 2016). There are many other reasons why some farmers, even if they are using organic practices, choose not to become certified organic or maintain organic certification; for example, they may sell directly to customers who buy their products without requiring that they get certified, or they may choose a different type of certification (Veldstra, Alexander and Marshall, 2014; Goodrich, Cuffey and Kpomblekou-A, 2020). For some producers of color who farm according to organic practices, mistrust of or negative experiences with the USDA may be an additional deterrent to getting certified organic (Evans, 2016). In spite of the racial and ethnic disparities in U.S. agriculture, however, many farmers of color across the country are not only growing crops and raising livestock organically and sustainably, but also are working for food justice and food sovereignty.

In 2021, the U.S. Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act, which contained provisions for debt and tax relief for socially disadvantaged farmers (using the definition that is restricted to ethnic and racial discrimination). According to a USDA Farm Service Agency Bulletin, these funds were intended to address "systemic discrimination with cumulative effects that have, among other consequences, led to a substantial loss in the number of socially disadvantaged producers, reduced the amount of farmland they control, and contributed to a cycle of debt that was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic" (USDA Farm Service Agency, 2021). Additional provisions in the act included legal advice and measures to improve land access. 2023 update: In the face of lawsuits alleging that the act discriminated against White farmers, it was replaced by provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 that provided debt relief for "economically distressed" borrowers (including White farmers) and some funds for producers who have experienced discrimination. It remains to be seen what impact this program will have, if any, on the demographics of farming and organic farming in the United States.  


While there is publicly available data on the ethnic and racial demographics of farms, farmland, producers and farmworkers, farm assistance program recipients, and on organic farms, finding it requires searching on many different websites, articles and databases. It can be difficult to compare different data tables due to differences in survey methodology and variations in how the data is presented. The limited number of racial categories (as well as gender categories) in some surveys can paint a misleading picture, because respondents may not actually identify with the available choices. A limited amount of data is available on organic farms by race and ethnicity, as well as on farms that are not certified organic or exempt but use organic practices. The available data shows the ethnic and racial disparities in organic production and in U.S. farm production overall. More accurate, comprehensive and easily discoverable data on these topics could help researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders better understand where to focus support to diversify organic farming, and evaluate the success of farm programs.

Finally, statistics can convey a false sense of inevitability about the status quo without holding anyone responsible, and they say nothing about the many farmers of color who have always farmed and gardened using organic and sustainable practices. Nor do they tell of the individuals and organizations of people of color who have worked for many years to increase equity in land ownership and retention, and who are reclaiming agricultural traditions. As Natasha Bowens, author of the book The Color of Food, wrote, “It seemed the role of people of color in food and agriculture was misrepresented and defined solely in statistics about inequity. I knew our story was richer than that and I thought storytelling from farmers and food activists of color was the perfect way to share it.” (Bowens, 2015). See the Additional Resources section below for a selection of recommended books and articles, and a few of the many organizations that work for racial justice in U.S. agriculture.

References and Citations

Additional Resources

Books and Articles

  • Baszile, N. 2021. We are each other’s harvest: celebrating African American farmers, land and legacy. Amistad Press. New York.
  • Bowens, N. 2015, The color of food. New Society Publishers. Gabriola Island, BC.
  • Carpenter, S. 2012. The USDA discrimination cases: Pigford in re Black Farmers, Keepseagle, Garcia and Love. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law V12.
  • Cox, A. The bone and sinew of the land: America’s forgotten Black pioneers. Public Affairs. New York.
  • Daniel, P. 2015. Disposession: discrimination against African American farmers in the age of civil rights. 2013. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
  • Harris, C.V.  2008 “The Extension service is not an integration agency”: the idea of race in the Cooperative Extension Service. Agricultural History. 82:2. Spring 2008. (Available online at: (verified 2 August 2021)
  • Ichikawa, N.F. 2013. Giving credit where it is due: Asian American farmers and retailers as food system pioneers. In:Eating Asian America: A Food Studies Reader. Ji-Song Ku, R., M.F. Manalansan, &A. Mannur (eds.) New York University Press. New York and London.
  • Jordan, J.L., E. Pennick, W.A. Hill and R. Zabawa. 2007. Land and power. a collection of essays from the 2007 Black Environmental Thought Conference. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE). (Available online at: (verified 2 August 2021)
  • Kimmerer, R.W. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions. Minneapolis, MN.
  • Minkoff-Zern, L. 2019, The new American farmer. immigration, race and the struggle for sustainability. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, London.
  • Newkirk, V.R.II. 2019. The great land robbery. The Atlantic. September 2019. (Available at: 2 August 2021)
  • Penniman, L. 2018. Farming while Black: Soul Fire Farm’s practical guide to liberation on the land. Chelsea Green. White River Junction, VT.
  • Rainge, M. 2018. Land loss trends among socially disadvantaged farmers in the Black Belt region. Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund Research Report. (Available at: (verified 2 August 2021)
  • Romero-Briones, A. 2020. Bringing equity to organic. New Farm Magazine. Organic Farmers Association. November, 2020. (Available at: 2 August 2021) (verified 2 August 2021)
  • Taylor, D.  2018. Black farmers in the USA and Michigan: longevity, empowerment, and food sovereignty. Journal of African American Studies. 22, 49–76. (Available online at: (verified 2 August 2021)
  • White, M. 2019. Freedom Farmers: Agricultural Resistance and the Black Freedom Movement. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
  • Williams, J.M. and E. Holt-Jiminez. 2017. Land justice: reimagining land, food and the commons. Food First Books. Oakland, CA.



Published August 9, 2021

This is an eOrganic article and was reviewed for compliance with National Organic Program regulations by members of the eOrganic community. Always check with your organic certification agency before adopting new practices or using new materials. For more information, refer to eOrganic's articles on organic certification.