Archive for the 'agriculture' Category

Is It a Farm Yet?

Sharon September 24th, 2009

I know a man who wanted to start a farm.  So he went out and bought 500 acres, fenced it and grew corn and hay, and ran sheep and cows on it, and then he had a farm.

I know a woman who wanted a farm, so she went out at bought 176 acres, four cows, a bull and a tractor, and then she had a farm.

I know a man who wanted a farm so he bought 49 acres, an old barn and a flock of sheep, and raised wool and grew plants to make dyes with and sold yarn, and then he had a farm.

I know a woman who wanted a farm, so she went out and bought 27 acres and raised vegetables, chickens and goats, and then she had a farm.

I know a man who wanted a farm, and went out and bought a house on six acres, built a chicken coop, grew a garden and sold pumpkins at the farmer’s market and eggs to his neighbors, and then he had a farm.

I know a woman who wanted a farm, and she looked down and saw that she had three good acres, and fenced them, and got a Jersey cow,  a garden full of cabbages and some hens, and then she had a farm.

I knew a man who wanted a farm and looked out and realized that he was renting a good half acre, and talked to the landlord and got angora rabbits, chickens and a garden full of raised beds, and then he had a farm.

I know a woman who had a yard full of forest, and who grew shade loving plants under the trees, gathered acorns for her chickens and worms for her ducks and grew mushrooms in woodpiles along the edges of her yard, and then she had a farm.

I know a woman who had a 30×80 lot, and she built a chicken coop, planted raspberries and basil against the house and is trying to convince her partner to let her get miniature goats, and then she had a farm.

I know a man who had no room in his yard for more gardens, but who talked to his neighbors and the city and found two backyards, a vacant lot and a corner of a church, and filled them with vegetables, and then he had a farm.

I know a woman who had no ground at all in her house, but had a balcony with bees on it and a dozen windowboxes full of lettuce and strawberries, worms in her kitchen and the right attitude, and then, she had a farm.

Sharon

Ox-Cart Woman: Self-Sufficiency on Our Farm and What's Left Over

Sharon September 16th, 2009

In Octover he backed his ox into his cart and he and his family filled it up with everything they made or grew all year long that was left over.

He packed a bag of wool he sheared from the sheep in April.

He packed a shawl his wife wove on a loom from the yarn spun at the spinning wheel from sheep sheared in April.

He packed five pairs of mittens his daughter knit from yarn spun at the spinning wheel from sheep sheared in April. 

He packed candles the family made.  He packed linen made from the flax they grew.  H packed shingles he split himself.  He packed birch brooms his son carved with a borrowed kitchen knife. 

He packed potatoes they dug from their garden – but first he counted out potatoes enough to eat all winter and potatoes for seed next spring.

He packed a barrel of apples, honey and honeycombs, turnips and cabbages, a wooden box of maple sugar from the maples they tapped in March when they boiled and boiled and boiled the sap away.

He packed a bag of goose feathers that his children collected from the barnyard geese.

When his cart was full, he waved good-bye to his wife, his daughter and his son and he walked at his ox’s head ten days, over hills, through valleys, by streams, past farms and villages until he came to Portsmouth and Portsmouth Market. – Donald Hall “Ox-Cart Man”

This is Asher’s favorite children’s book, and was one of mine when I was a child.  Hall’s gorgeous language and Barbara Clooney’s folk-art pictures create the impression, not just of a past, but of a different agriculture, and indeed, a different economy than the present one. 
I do not have an ox, or an ox cart, and I travel to market in a Ford Taurus with my children and husband with me, but once year, I take a look at my own resources – the food we grow, produce, forage, preserve – and ask myself “how would my family fare if we had to winter entirely on what we have put aside this year?  Moreover, what would we have that we have made or grown that is left over?

Now obviously, I store a good bit of food that I don’t grow, so this question is somewhat abstract – if one of my harvests fails, I can draw on prior reserves.  Nor do I think that I’m in immediate danger of having to live entirely from the sweat of my (and my spouse’s and a bit of my kids’) brows.  But I ask the question because I think it is an important measure of how we are directing our energies. 

Most people will answer this question very differently than I am – they may be drawing on different resources, not just food production, but what they can salvage, what skills they can sell, what resources they might be a conduit for. An urbanite might look at it differently – but I still it worth asking for an urbanite “could we last a week or three on our garden?”  How about our other resources? 

It would be easy, as we move towards more serious farming, to devote most of our resources to cash enterprises.  This has been the way of modern agriculture – farmers sell food, and then buy food.  When something has to be sacrificed on the altar of “efficiency”, it is the farmer’s self-sufficiency.  Thus we see the gardens – both home and truck – that once characterized farms erased, and replaced with more fields.  The small scale polyculture that once accompanied even fairly large scale grain farming is gone, and now the farmer’s pork and milk come from the store, just like everyone else’s, rather than from the farm.  The erasure of this food from agricultural lands means that many farmers couldn’t feed themselves any better than city dwellers, unless, for example, they liked an unremitting diet of feed corn and soybeans.

I, on the other hand, am striving for more diversity, and greater self-sufficiency, not less.  Our cash enterprises are important – they are essential, in fact – we need to make money from our farm.  But for us, the process is different than the modern one – the cash enterprises are integral, but so is self-sufficiency, as it was for Hall’s New England farmer. 

This is a radically and fundamentally different vision of agriculture – one that begins from the sufficiency of the producer and moves outwards.  It is the agriculture of the generalist, and thus diversified, and perhaps more importantly, creates an economy of small scales.  If self-sufficiency comes before profit, rather than as a side hobby after it, then time must be reserved from cash enterprises to feed one’s household a diverse and tasty diet.  The easiest way, then, to make money, is to make sure that there is something left over from your sufficiency projects – ie, that while you are knitting mittens or making candles or growing potatoes for yourself, you also add enough to sell to pay the taxes and meet other needs. 

Why prefer this to more profitable models?  Well, there are both aesthetic and ethical considerations, as well as the usual “prepping for tough times” elements.  The practical ones are simple - subsistence labor is mostly untaxed (it isn’t always supposed to be untaxed, but that’s another issue) – to the extent that I meet my needs at home, I do not have to pay extra taxes upon my work, increasing my net.  Moreover, for people with families, subsistence labor is compatible with family life in ways that many forms of cash labor are not – I don’t have to pay for childcare or elder care while I do it.  Moreover, in tough times, subsistence labor reveals its value – it won’t meet all needs, but it can reduce them when cash work is less available or prices are falling.  We are already seeing farmers struggle to be paid enough to justify their labor – in the Great Depression, cash crops failed, but farmers who could keep their land were able to feed their families from subsistence – the subsistence economy is larger, more robust and more vital than the dollar economy.

The aesthetic reasons are simple as well – I think a mix of field and forest, wild and domestic animal, a diverse diet and wide range of plants and insects is more beautiful, more worthy of my time.  Some people may not be able to choose beauty, but I can, and I think it is important.  Ethical is also simple – more creatures live because of me, both live and tame.  The farm can grow more crops, which means it can feed more people even in tough times, when crops fail.  Feeding ourselves means that I depend less on resources that do harm – and reducing my need for cash and my time spent earning it means that I pay fewer taxes to support my war machine and Wall Street bailouts, and I am less tempted to indulge in consumption. 

Now, of course, this is easy for me to say.  I write books and my husband teaches, and if they hardly make us affluent (we would qualify for food stamps in our state, although obviously, we don’t use them), it gives us a leeway in the cash economy (at least for now) not granted to others.  But it is precisely because I can begin from this kind of agriculture, one that starts from the premise that we should meet our needs first, and then go outwards with the extras, that I do it.  I think in the longer term, this model of agriculture has a future, even if it is difficult to enact now, and so I can enact it, and provide something useful to those who cannot know but may later have no choice.

So I inventory, and I evaluate.  Could we feed ourselves?  Keep ourselves warm?  Meet other needs?  How well are we doing at our root project?   More importantly, how would our practices change if we needed to feed ourselves?

As I said,  think this is is a worthwhile effort even for those with small gardens who already know they can’t feed themselves directly.  Ask yourself what of your needs could you meet?  What might you have left over, in various scenarios, to take to market or to add to your cash economy?  Even a small scale gardener with a few beds may be able to produce more culinary herbs than he needs, with some to take to market, and even an urban producer might be able to keep a couple of hives of honeybees, in excess of their needs.  But also figure out the balance – are there needs of your own for food, fertility, fiber that you might be able to fill with a change in practice?  If your practice will have to change eventually, is there a plan for that?

On to our situation.  First, the garden.  Our potato crop was short this year – I’ve not dug the whole, but I think we will come in at under 250 lbs.  The rain and bad weather were tough on them.  This would be a problem, since we are six people, and 250lbs of potatoes would not last us, were they one of our primary staples.  I grew about 6 bushels of flour corn this year, enough to keep us in cornbread for much of the winter, or to feed a portion of our animals.  If we had to do both, we’d struggle.  I grew 2 bushels of high protein sunflower seeds – these will go mostly to the chickens, but we could eat them.  I also grew about a bushel each of buckwheat, oats and amaranth, which would be divided between us and the animals.   

I put up 1 1/3 bushels of dry beans of various kinds, and another half bushel of soybeans. Protein will be short in this diet, but fortunately, we had an enormous crop of turnips and beets – golden mangels produced gorgeously for me.   Winter squash and sweet potatoes did badly, as did the pumpkins, but I’ve got some to add to our winter delight, and a decent supply of carrots and parsnips. Cabbages, kales and collards did well, however, and will probably last us a good while.

In winter in upstate NY, green things will be in short supply – we’ve been in the habit of eating greens several times a day.  Season extension can keep us in fresh greens through December, maybe into January.  Cabbage will last us until February or maybe even into early March.  And then we’ll rely on sprouts to provide us with green nutrition – I saved some seed from broccoli, chard and collards gone to seed this year, and will collect more seeds, including seeds of edible weeds for sprouting.  But I’ll be wishing I’d saved more seed, and that will have to go on next year’s priority list.

I put up enough jam to last the winter, particularly if we aren’t eating a lot of bread (no wheat).  Sweet things will be welcome on this diet. Our apple crop was small, but I’ve got applesauce from the summer apples.  Dried apricots, peaches, strawberries and cherries supplement things – not nearly as much fruit as our family would like to consume, but we’ll be ok.  The elderberry crop was very good, and I’ve got a lot of them dried and syruped.  I haven’t yet harvested rose hips, but that will come shortly, so we shouldn’t suffer from scurvy or anything.

The hazelnuts are doing ok, but not providing a huge harvest yet.  But the hickory nuts are extremely plentiful this year, providing needed proteins and fats.  If we can race the squirrels, we’ll do adequately, although there won’t be a huge amount of fats and oils, unless we butcher a lot of the livestock.

We’d be making a major shift in sweetening – we eat more sugar than we should, like most people, and since we did tap our maples, but we only have a few good sized ones in our third-growth woods, we’d be using sweetening very sparingly indeed, unless what was left over could barter us some honey or maple syrup from a neighbor.  This would probably be a high priority.

On to the barnyard.  Here we come to the root conflict – how much of our resources do we devote to feeding the animals, and how much to feeding ourselves?  The farm’s later cash flow depends on us making an increase in our kine ;-) – being able to sell goat kids, eggs, wool, meat.  It would be easy to emphasize this.   The animals also provide us, in many cases, with better nutrition – and in the case of dogs and cats, with necessary nutrition.  In a place where vegetable fats are harder to grow than in warm climates, animal fats provide a useful replacement.  But that means shifting some of the grain over to the animals for the winter.

In the net, our property grows grass better than it grows vegetables – our property is steep and wet, and the grass produces more protein for us, more habitat for wildlife, more fertility in the form of manures, more diversity, and a more manageable workload when we add animals. It would cost us something to overwinter the animals – but it would cost us more in the net, both in cash receipts and in long term food quality and quantity to slaughter all the animals (besides the cost in emotion).  The goats particularly make good use of our forest land, at our scale making light use of our woodland and giving us milk in return.

Moreover, there’s the question of manures, which already provide a lot of our garden fertility.  We could switch to humanure to provide that fertility, and to collecting leaves in the woods and hauling them back to our garden, but the balance would be more difficult, and we must then postulate a society in which one can sell produce fertilized with humanure – possible, even likely if we had to, but we’re not there yet.  Moreover, even though we high temp compost our humanure, I’d rather use ruminant manures for a host of reasons, along with human urine.

The sheep (hypothetical at the moment, but forthcoming) don’t need grain over the winter at all, only hay, and we’ve got that.  But we didn’t put it all up – we bought it from our neighbor.  So it depends on how we handle this – if we have to erase anything we didn’t produce, we can’t winter many animals at all, and might as well eat or sell them.  But we could have easily produced by hand (ok, not “easily” – it would have been a lot of hot, hard work, but we have the land for it, the tools and the ability), so I’m going to allow for the hay.  We have enough to winter our goat herd, plus 5 thrifty sheep, particularly if we breed for later lambing and kidding, so that the grass is lush while the pregnant critters are doing the last two months of growing.  We would not breed again in autumn, since that means that kids will have to grow on hay, rather than on pasture.

So what’s the best balance between feeding them and feeding us?  In this scenario, I think we’d produce only warm-season milk, drying up the goats over the winter, and preserving their milk during the warm weather as cheese.  This is something I haven’t done – we’ve made some cheese, of course, but not on the scale we would in this case.  We would probably not allow the flock size to rise about 6 or 7 does.  They would give less milk with less grain, but not none, and the majority of it would be put aside for cheese.  We’ve intentionally chosen a breed that produces a prodigious amount of milk on fairly small inputs, and also has a fairly small impact on the forests we would graze them in.

The same is roughly true with eggs – instead of expanding our laying flock, what we’d do is try and figure out an optimum number that can be wintered over – less than a dozen, definitely.  These would provide much-needed eggs for dense protein in early spring as the stores began to run out, and the rest of our flock would be eaten in early winter, canned as soup and meat.  In the spring we’d set hens, and raise what we would on food scraps, forage and a small amount of grain, and eat last year’s layers in the fall. 

Sheep flock, again, would be kept small, with just one or two replacement ewes each year, and we’d eat and sell more mutton, along with the lamb, as we culled sheep.  I would add a few rabbits, fed mostly on weeds and hay, along with a few roots, to provide meat for sale (we keep kosher, although if we had to, that would pass), and organs for the cats, who are obligate carnivores, and also urgently needed (we can’t afford food loss) rodent reducers. 

Had I known that we were going to make a total shift to our own production (ok, we’re not, but again, hypothetically), I’d have added geese, rather than turkeys this year, since they can produce fat, meat, down and eggs on almost no inputs – we’ve had them before, but the market demand for turkey is greater than for goose.  But turkeys are more demanding and don’t forage as well. 

For needs other than food, we could definitely meet them – we have plenty of woods to provide our fairly modest heating needs.  But that would mean more time in the woods for both Eric and I in winter, and a lot less remunerative labor.  It is a delicate balance, cash and subsistence – for now I am content to get wood from a close neighbor who cuts some of it off our property in trade, carefully, wisely, furthering our forestry goals.  Later…we would do it ourselves.

Fertility would be produced by our animal manures, human urine, and compost.  Much of our fertility is provided this way already.  We’d miss kelp and the occasional application of greensand, especially in containers, but we’d be mostly ok.  Humanures are used on woody plantings, and would continue this way. We could also go some small way to providing our fiber needs  with wool and animal skins, and also our medicinal needs (provided no crisis exceeds them).

The first year would be hardest, in our hypothetical situation, because we did not fully plan for it.  Which is, of course, why I store food and feed for the animals – so that we do not now have to practice the sort of husbandry we would practice in the future.  With our reserve of feed grains, we know that we could feed ourselves through this winter on milk and meat, and move over the growing season to our new necessities.  

We’d eat a lot more meat and a lot fewer staple starches than we’d like the first year, since so many animals would have to be culled.  Sweets would be short, and probably tempers as sugar-habituated parents and children changed tastes. We’d miss fresh fruit. Our new management practices would probably kill some of the animals we’d hoped would survive, as they were forced to shift rapidly to a different style of management. 

Our cash economy would shift radically as well – obviously, we’re a farm – by definition we produce more than we need.  But the priorities of our cash economy would have to change – unable to winter over so many animals, we’d sell more breeding stock and meat, and less milk and eggs.    The medicinal herbs might rise in value, if the situation were dire enough, or they might fall rapidly, and be replaced (beyond our own personal supply) with higher value crops.  We are likely to find our primary barter partners among those who have orchards, honey bees, and sugarbushes, since I won’t deny the pull of sweetening – not just due to addiction, but for preservation, alcohol making and other purposes. 

We would sell few vegetables, but some – because we have so little suitable land, my sense is that actually we might do better growing seed – there are few seed producers in my region, and seed can be a high value crop.  So while we would sell our extra root crops and vegetables, I think our best work would be in saving and growing out local seed so that our neighbors could grow their own. 

Our diet would shift radically, away from many preferred foods, towards less preferred ones – more turnips instead of rice, oatmeal as an occasional treat rather than a standard morning breakfast.  Much less sweet, salt and fat…much more meat (for the first season, and mostly early in it, later much less), and fewer eggs, milk and cheese in winter.  Tamales and hoecake instead of wheat bread.

Our garden would change – more beans, more food for animals, more staple crops.  I suspect we’d still rely primarily on roots.  The “flavoring” crops would get less space – hot peppers and tomatoes would still make an appearance, but their economic value to us would most likely be lower if other people were in the same situation.  The question of how much we are called upon to feed others, and what foods are needed in the marketplace and among our neighbors remains open in this scenario – one can only plan so much.

What I find useful about this exercise is the balancing act – how would my practices of gardening and farming have to change?  What kind of husbandry would I be doing? How easy or hard would it be to make those changes, from the present ways?  What can I do to make that transition easier?  Moreover, it makes me ask “what will I be eating?”  How will my diet change?  Are there changes I can make now – finding new recipes for foods we use less, cutting back on things like salt and sugar that we should be eating less of anyway?  How can I diversify now, add more crops, begin to fill gaps in our self-sufficiency, while also responding to markets as they exist now.

I see, for example, that it might be wise to add geese to our husbandry next spring, and bees as well, and that I should be saving more seed now, whether for winter sprout sandwiches or to trade with the neighbors.  There are tracks I can take now that increase our options later.  In other cases, I will continue my current practice, because they meet our needs for now – giving us milk and goats for sale, and helping other people get access to small goats and meat rabbits.  But I will both recognize the need for transitional tools to shift over, and a concrete plan for that shift.

I don’t anticipate a situation where I’m suddenly thrown back on my resources – but I do think that there will be a gradual shifting (and that it is conceivable that it might not be gradual) towards a world in which feeding yourself as much as you can first, makes a lot more sense – back to the world of Donald Hall’s Oxcart Man, who took with him to market only what he had that was left over.

Sharon

Start by Asking the Right Questions – Thinking About the Terms for the Debate on Local and Organic Food

Sharon September 11th, 2009

One of the reasons discussions of whether “organic” and “local” can “feed the world” often founder so badly is the whole set of presumptions that preceed such a discussion.  So let’s talk about those – James McWilliams’ book _Just Food_ and others have stirred up a good bit of controversy on this subject, and lots of people seem to know the answers.  But the real problem is that most people don’t really seem to understand what the questions are.

While I may eventually write a review of _Just Food_, which is a thoughtful, if sometimes weakly argued book, I think it is more important to speak about the terms of the debate, because discussions about food tend to begin from deeply wrong premises.

Consider the common question “can we feed the world with organic agriculture?”  Besides the fact that we haven’t asked what kind of organic agriculture (and people like McWilliams consistently conflate multiple kinds of agriculture, assuming that industrial organic and small scale agriculture are the same, and have the same proponents), people raising this discussion almost never actually ask “did we ever try to feed the world?”  The assumption, of course, is that industrial agriculture has always been engaged in the project of “feeding the world” – Cargill, ADM and Monsanto regularly argue that these are their goals, that their research is required to bring new crops that will make it possible to feed two or three more billion people.

The problem, of course, is that there is no evidence whatsoever that industrial agriculture has ever had the objective of feeding the world.  I am repeating here something Aaron and I say in much more detail in _A Nation of Farmers_ (and with full citation), but if you track the research, what you find is this.  The vast majority of increases in grain yields since the beginning of the Green Revolution didn’t feed hungry people – they went to feed livestock, to make meat in the rich world, and then to ethanol – with the help of the same industrial corporations that we plan to rely upon to feed us.  The same corporations that are going to “feed the world” by introducing new, drought resistant crops invested heavily in ethanol infrastructure, helping move more of the world’s grain harvest into gas tanks, rather than into people’s mouths.

At the same time that corporations were breeding herbicide resistant corn, and struggling to breed (unsuccessfully thus far) drought resistant crop varieties to respond to climate change, they were enabling climate change – encouraging the expansion of industrial agricultural plantations of palm, bananas and grain into rainforest areas that are carbon sinks, using heavy chemicals and encouraging corn-soybean rotations that strip the soil of organic matter and leave soils unable to hold carbon in large quantities, and, of course, encouraging people in the poor and rich world to turn agriculture, which could be a net carbon sink, into a root source of up to 1/4 of the world’s total emissions.

We assume that industrial agriculture is “efficient” – and in some ways, it has been efficient at reducing human involvement in the rich world, and replacing it with humans from the poor world or fossil fuels.  But industrial agriculture also is deeply inefficient – that is, at the same time it works towards a stated goal – feeding people – it also operates to reduce our capacity to feed people.  Imagine that, say, Microsoft were to devote nearly as much of its resources to getting people not to buy Windows as they do to selling it, and that gives you a sense of the scale of the problem.  One of the most basic ways to streamline the food system would simply be to stop the “three steps forward, two steps back” system, and go for one or two steps forward at a time.

Moreover, when discussing the future, we must talk clearly and honestly about climate change.  Aaron Newton and I also asked “can we feed the world” and spent several years researching the answer.  Our answer is simply this – it depends on the extent and violence of climate change.  More profound droughts, loss of meltwater for irrigated agriculture, which produces 30% of the world’s grains, more flooding, the permanent loss of some land to food production, higher temperatures that reduce grain yields, all of these things move us towards a food disaster.  And what most commentators ignore in the discussion is this – we have pinned our hopes on GMOs – and we have no evidence (something McWilliams cheerfully ignores) that even were there no other concerns about GMOs, that we can increase yields with them.  McWilliams speaks of the importance of creating drought-resistant cassava varieties for African farmers facing climate change as a good use of GMOs.  The difficulty is that several studies have demonstrated that up until now, no genetically modified food (and they’ve been making them for some time now) has ever had a significant impact on yields.   The fact that so far, GMOs don’t work is a fairly big elephant in the room.

And perhaps it would make sense for us to pin our hopes on that elephant if we had no other options – but what people tend to ignore is this – what’s fascinating about research on small scale intensive, low input (some organic, some not – Aaron and I are not organic purists, but we believe that given our fossil fuel predicament, the chance that we’re all going to be able to dump all the fossil fuels we want on food without causing famine by food price rises is ridiculous) agriculture that focuses on soil and sustainable systems is that they often come close to matching the yields of industrial agriculture, but fall short in the best years.  What’s important to know, however is that in the worst years – the dryest and the wettest, these systems come into their own.  Greater amounts of organic matter mean both more water in the soil in dry years and better drainage in wet ones.  Greater diversity of crops means fewer complete losses.  Right now, the only proven tool we have for responding to climate change in agriculture is small scale, low-input, diversified small farms – period.  We can debate about what the best hypotheticals are, but the proof is all firmly on the side of one model.

Aaron and I spend a lot more time on this question in our book, but it is important to note that our current agricultural model does not either intend to feed the world, nor does it do so.  The UN FAO reports that at this point, two *billion* people in the world live on the product of low input, small scale, non-industrial agriculture.  I often hear people observe that without fossil inputs on a large scale we can feed only half a billion or a billion people – McWilliams puts this figure at 4 billion, which is at least more credible.  But we are already feeding 2 billion people that way.  Moreover, large scale industrial agriculture is not presently feeding the world – 85% of the world’s farms are small farms, smaller than 5 hectares.  These farms produce nearly half of the world’s total grain, and much more than half (since they are usually diversified) of the world’s total food calories.  Local food may not be feeding New York City and the I95 corridor, and it never will – I know of no rational thinker who believes so.  But local food *is* already feeding much of the world – the majority of the world’s poor don’t eat a Caesar salad that travelled 1,500 miles – they don’t even eat rice that travelled that distance.

The correct *QUESTIONS* are not being asked.  To what extent can local food *continue* to feed the world?  How can we begin to grow food in a way that doesn’t undermine our capacity to feed ourselves in the future?  What are the best demonstrated ways to adapt to climate change?  How should add complexity to discussions of organic or local to create ways of eating that actually lead to a future where everyone gets food?  How do we make the best use of our limited resources, in a world of limits?  Until we ask the right questions, we will never get decent answers.  

Sharon

In the Long Term, Small and Local Wins. In the Short Term, Not So Much

Sharon September 1st, 2009

Several people have noted that in _A Nation of Farmers_ we spend a lot of time talking about very small-scale agriculture – home gardening, farms spread across multiple yards, very small home farms – and less time talking about farming for a living – and this isn’t an accident.  One of my standing bits of advice to people who want to become farmers is this – do it.  But make sure someone in your household keeps a job with a paycheck.

This, of course, limits the scale on which anyone can do this work – if you have to farm around your night-shift at Walmart or substitute teaching, or driving deliveries, this cuts into your time for the farm.  If you have to watch the kids and farm at the same time, because your partner is off earning the health insurance and mortgage, you are going to spend a lot more time taking people potty and getting snacks than you would if you could farm full time without kids.  So why aren’t I advising more people to farm full time?

 Don’t get me wrong – I want to see more full-time farmers.  But while in the longer term, I think that small scale agriculture is going to win, in the shorter term, Walmart and the economy are going to devour a lot of small farmers.  The trick, as you are planning your course of adaptation, is to learn the skills now, maybe obtain the land if you can get it, but hold in reserve for the time when you can make a living doing the work.  Don’t get me wrong – if you are already trying it, or called to do the work, I encourage you.  But have a backup plan – we need you, but you need to make a living.  With less than 1% of the US population involved in agriculture, the average age of farmers at 59 years old and the average age of small farmers at 65, we need, waiting in the wings, a relief force.  But we can’t pay them yet.

Had oil prices continued to rise without affecting the economy, we might have seen the gradual evolution of a local farm economy as local providers were increasingly able to compete with industrial ones.  But that, as we all know, didn’t happen.  Instead, volatlity is the name of the game – and that means that most Americans will never know, from year to year, how much basic needs like their utility bills and groceries are going to cost them.  And when price rise and jobs are lost – people stop paying premiums for their food.  That $7 gallon raw milk stops being a necessity for your family’s health and starts being a luxury, easily replaced by $4 gallon milk at WalMart.  The CSA share cost seems more and more onerous.  The grassfed meat may taste better, and be better for you, but, well….

We’re already seeing this – organic and raw milk dairy farmers are struggling just like everyone else – organic milk sales are expected to drop by 15%.  Organic food sales slowed to a 6% year over year growth last year, up from 26% the year before – still growing as of January, but expected to decline overall this year.   The truth is that people are committed to organic and local – but only so far.  And small and niche producers just plain can’t compete with larger farms with contracts.  They depend on affluent consumers who care about good food to keep going – they need people to be able to afford their food,  and to care enough to buy it.

Meanwhile Target and WalMart and the rest of the industrial producers are pulling out all the stops to convince us that their organics, their faux-local food is just about the same at half the price.  Never mind that for this food we pay twice – in agricultural and corporate subsidies, in health costs, in welfare and food stamp payments for the farmers and the WalMart employees.  The vast majority of people will, for a while, probably go back to WalMart and the rest’s milk and vegetables because they are trying desperately to get by. 

In the very long term – local food is likely to win this battle – the larger scale industrial middlemen can’t succeed in an era of high energy prices in proportion to buying power.  Their margins are tight, and higher energy costs and other factors are likely to drive them out of business – eventually.  But we’re not there yet, and their death throes are likely to be long and painful, as they devour market shares of small farmers. 

In the longer term, there will be a shift to paying more of our limited incomes for food – we’ve never paid less.  Toby Hemenway and I once discussed this, and despite some differences, we both agree we’re headed rapidly (over the next decade or so) to a life where people in the US and other rich nations spend 30% of their income on food.  But that’s a long and painful shift – one in which other costs decline proportionally, and in which a lot of people are ground between the stones of declining budgets, not enough food to go to the end of the month, and their desire for decent health and good food.

This is why I don’t spend more time exhorting people to take up full time agriculture for a living – I wish I could, since it is so desperately needed.  But my own view of the future is that a lot of farmers will be driven from their land and run out of business – we are down to less than 1% of our population farming – but my own estimate is that the crash in farmers is going to come down further still – and that believe it or no, we’ve got a ways to go.  I suspect we’ll lose as many as a half million farmers in the next few years – and I say this with great sorrow and fear.  The combination of one more economic straw on the camel’s back, aging and foolish agricultural policies are going to bring us to the brink of disaster – without the people we need most to pull us back.

So please, grow that garden, start that little farm as a side income, begin your retirement agricultural venture, and please, if you can, buy local, buy from the good guys, not the huge industrial organic farmer, but the little guy who still raising grains in your neighborhood.  Train your kids to grow food.  Learn as much as you can.  Talk to the old farmers, get to know them, help them out if you can.  Because in the end, we will need you all.  The time is coming, but it isn’t yet, and there’s hard stuff in the middle.

Sharon

Waiting for the Next Wave of Farm Bankruptcies

Sharon September 1st, 2009

Here’s something we definitely can’t afford – more farmers driven out of business.  And we’re about to get it.  The USDA projects that net farm incomes will drop 38% over last year, and 15% over the 10 year average.  While costs will drop over last year, mostly because of the decline in oil and oil-based input costs, they are still 5% higher than in 2007 – so incomes have dropped like a stone, while costs have risen overall.  This is not a recipe for good things.

These are particularly disastrous numbers for dairy farmers – who never really benefitted from the grain price boom, since so many of them were dependent on grain feeds anyway, on people who overplanted corn and wheat in response to meteoric price rises a year and a half ago,  and livestock farmers.  Where I live, a heavily dairy area, farmers are going out of business rapidly – and this follows decades of gradually losing dairy farmers. 

All over the world, Dairy farmers are facing disaster – they demonstrated in London and Brussels over falling milk prices.  In my own region, up to 20% of existing dairy farmers will face bankruptcy or foreclosure if these conditions persist.

From the Wall Street Journal, comes a painful echo of times past:

Gene Gourley, who raises 60,000 hogs every year on his farm in Webster City, Iowa, is losing as much as $30 on each hog he sells. He said Thursday that he is rethinking plans to buy a trailer for hauling feed to his livestock. “With hogs losing so much money, you’re basically burning up anything you could have saved,” said Mr. Gourley. “You just don’t have the equity to go buy new upgrades.”

In a bad year, farmers with a cushion or an understanding bank can endure disastrous prices.  In a bad decade, farmers disappear rapidly.  And we can’t afford to lose them – the idea that we can replace our agriculture with shadow farmers in other countries doesn’t add up with the reality of energy dependency, with the future of many of those regions under climate change, or with the disaster that globalization has been for everyone.

Moreover, this is how we end up in my personal nightmare – back into the disaster of the Great Depression, in which farmers overproduce, but cannot afford to sell their food, and lose their land, while people go hungry.  Think it couldn’t happen?  I wouldn’t hold my breath.  I’ve quoted this passage before, but it bears repeating – it comes from David Shannon’s collection of primary sources _The Great Depression_  – Consider this testimony given by Oscar Ameringer before Congress in 1932.

“During the last three months I have visited…some 20 states….In the state of Washington I was told that the forest fires raging in that region all summer and fall were caused by unemployed timber workers and bankrupt farmers in an endeavor to earn a few honest dollars as firefighters. The last thing I saw on the night I left Seattle was numbers of women searching for scraps of food in the refuse piles of the principal markets of that scity.  A number of Montana citizens told me of thousands of bushels of wheat left in the fields uncut on account of its low price that hardly paid for the harvesting.  In Oregon I saw thousands of bushels of apples rotting in the orchards because of the cost of transporting them to market. …At the same time there are millions of children who, on account of the poverty of their parents, will not eat one apple this winter.

While I was in Oregon, the Portland Oregonian bemoaned the fact that thousands of ewes were killed by sheep raisers because they did not bring enough in the market to pay the freight on them.  And while Oregon sheep raisers fed mutton to the buzzards, I saw men picking for meat scraps in the garbage cans of New York and Chicago.  I talked to one man in a restaurant in Chicago. He told me of his experience in raising sheep.  He said he had killed 3,000 sheep this fall and thrown them down the canyon, because it cost $1.10 to ship a sheep to market and then he would get less than a dollar for it.  He said he could not afford to feed the sheep and he would not let them starve, so he just cut their throats and threw them in the canyon.

The roads of the West and Southwest teem with hungry hitchhikers.  The camp fires of the homeless are seen along every railroad track.  I saw men, women and children walking voer the hard roads.  Most of them were tenant farmers who had lost their land and been foreclosed.  Between Clarksville and Russellville, Ark., I picked up a family.  The woman was hugging a dead chicken under her ragged coat.  When I asked her where she had procured the fowl, first she told me she had found it dead in the road, and then added in grim humor, ‘They promised me a chicken in every pot, and now I got mine.’

In Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas I saw untold bales of cotton rotting in the fields because the cotton pickers could not keep body and soul together on 35 cents for picking 100lbs.  The farmers cooperatives who loaned the money to make the crop require $5 a bale in payment. That means 70 cents a day for a picker who can pick 200lbs, and that doesn’t provide enough pork and beans to keep the picker alive in the field, so that there is fine staple cotton rotting down there by the hundreds and thousands of tons.

AS a result of this appalling overproduction on one side and the staggering underconsumption on the other side, 70 percent of the farmers of Oklahoma were unable to pay the interest on their mortgages.  Last week one of the largest and oldest mortgage companies in that state went into the hands of the reciever.  In that and other states we have now the interesting spectacle of farmers losing their farms by foreclosure and mortgage companies losing thier recouped holdings by tax sales that could never meet the value of the land.

The farmers are being pauperized by the poverty of the industrial population and the industrial population is being pauperized by the poverty of the farmers.  Neither has the money to buy the product of the other.” (David Shannon, _The Great Depression_ 26-28)

Think farm incomes don’t affect you?  Think again.

 Sharon

« Prev - Next »