downbabylon’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Al's mistakes

  I believe that Gore is deeply committed to environmentalism.  I haven't seen the movie, but I liked his book, and he seems well informed about the issues.  

  What I have a problem with is the way his political ambitions have sometimes conveniently trumped this commitment.  The biggest single example of this was the debate with Ross Perot, in which he basically sold NAFTA to a then skeptical American public.  

  At the time there were hundreds of environmental groups who opposed the legislation for reasons to numerous to mention, and many of the issues upon which this opposition was based have indeed come to pass.  Few environmentalists would argue that trade liberalization in general, and NAFTA in particular, have not had a devastatingly negative effect on the environment.  

  I believe that this single political act (promoting NAFTA in the debate) has had a more significant effect on the environment than all of his efforts to raise environmental issues in the public sphere combined.  Simply put, I believe that when taken as a whole, his actions in public and private life have done more harm than good to the environment.

  I applaud his current efforts, but question his credibility as a spokesman for the cause.
  On Gore's new flick, An Inconvenient Truth, improbably succeeds posted 3 years, 3 months ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Response to Tom

  Tom,

  Thanks for your thoughts on my response.  You make a number of valid points.  I certainly don't disagree that it is tough to be a small farmer these days, and I agree that in general few are prospering.  I was not trying to challenge the fundamental tenets of your article.  My points, if I may restate them are simply these:

  First, The USDA numbers seem out of whack.  If you assume a current US population of 300 million, at $70 million in total sales, this means that the average produce bill per capita is $230 per year or $0.63 per day.  Perhaps I am deluding myself, but even in a culture that eats as few fruits and vegetables as ours, this seems low to me.  My point about 'hobby farmers' is that their sales actually are counted in USDA numbers, and can skew them significantly.  According to USDA, over half of all US farms (58%) had sales of less than $10,000 in 2002, and a lot of these folks sell at farmers' markets.  My point is simply that they affect the USDA statistics.  

  Secondly, I still think it's important to point out that there are exceptions.  Again I am not disagreeing with the fundamental premise that it's tough to be a small farmer, and a lot of them are not making it.  But I do think that the exceptions are important.  They point out the need for a different way of thinking about and managing small farm operations in the US, and a lot of new, innovative farmers are using alternative models (Salatin's, Coleman's, or their own) in finding ways to make small farms work.

  I hope you would agree that small farms are an important part of American agriculture, and that we need to find a way to make them work.  In my response, I was simply pointing out that there are people doing this, and I believe that their numbers, and their importance in providing a secure, healthy, accessible food supply in this country is growing.  I think this is a goal that is worth working toward.  I fully agree with your contention that it is a long way off, and that the current system cannot sustainably produce our local food needs.  At the same time, I am hopeful about what I see as a growing small farm movement that can be a vital part of our food system, and I  don't think we should discount its importance or write off its potential.  

  Most small farms certainly struggle, but this is true of American farms in general, no matter what their size.  It is not just small farmers who rely on off-farm work, it is 93% of all American farmers.  Research shows that even with commodity production, economies of scale top out at around 650 acres, and I don't think that a sustainable food future is inherent in the move to mega-farms which ship produce across the country or around the world.  

  I think that what we need is a fundamental change in the way that we think about, and produce our food.  It may seem a daunting task, but change is something that happens gradually, and I think we are beginning to see it in successful, small, locally-based farms.  I agree that their current contribution is not sufficient to meet our local food needs, and that their challenges are significant.  At the same time, I think they are a vital and growing part of a sustainable food future, and that their contribution and potential should be acknowledged and encouraged.

  Thanks again for your thoughts, and for your contribution to the public dialogue on this extremely important issue.On Why "the market" alone can't save local agriculture posted 3 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Not all small farms are the same

  I like the spirit of the article, and agree with a lot of the points made, but I have to take issue with the way some of the USDA's statistics were used .  First of all, farms counted as "small" by the USDA may be mostly "hobby farms" or conventional grain farms, not diversified vegetable and fruit operations. The first two may account for much of the deficit in revenue mentioned, and skew the numbers significantly.  We all know that trade policy, corporate consolidation, and other factors have made commodity production economically unsustainable for conventional small growers, and 'hobby farming' is becoming increasingly common as a tax writeoff, or for individuals interested in growing but not economically dependent on it.  

  It's also important to note that the USDA statistic for "revenue" does not count the equity farmers are building by investing in land and equipment.  So if you gross $70,000 in sales, but make your land payments, buy a tractor, put in a new irrigation system, and build two greenhouses at a cost of $70,001, your revenue is considered negative.  Since many market vendors are new operators actively growing their operations, this can also have an important effect on the numbers cited.  

  In addition, 2% of $70 billion is $1.4 billion, which is not an insignificant sum of money at all.  If the number of markets is correct, each market is taking in an average of over $450,000 annually.  With an average of 22 growers per market, which the cited USDA report estimates, this means about $20,500 per grower.  I know of few growers, small or not, who sell at a single farmers' market, or rely only on farmers' markets for their produce sales.  

  I know several small, direct market growers who also sell to Whole Foods.  Usually they produce a few specialty crops which they wholesale, in addition to the diversity of things they grow for market or CSA.  In my own research with small direct-market farmers in Michigan, though not a comprehensive statistical survey, I have actually found that experienced growers with established operations usually don't have off-farm jobs.  Their small debt-loads, and ability to produce many of the things they need on the farm, allow them to make a living despite their size.  

  USDA statistics also point out that a disproportionate number of market vendors are organic, or use practices similar to those of "certified" growers.  This keeps costs low, and prices high.  Many small farmers also grow high value crops.  There are a significant number of Michigan blueberry growers who have small farms and decent incomes.

  It needs to be pointed out that while a small conventional commodity (corn, soy, wheat, cotton, rice) farm may operate at a loss, many diversified vegetable and fruit farms, especially those who direct-market, are actually able to support a family.On Why "the market" alone can't save local agriculture posted 3 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses