EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Economics of Organic Farming
Growing local organic food may be the best path toward economic recovery. It may also be key to building stronger and healthier communities.
"Our [struggling] economy is making a compelling case that we shift toward more local food," said Ken Meter of the Crossroads Resource Center in Minneapolis. "The current system fails on all counts and it's very efficient at taking wealth out of our communities."
Meter spoke at the annual conference of the Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education Service (MOSES) held recently in La Crosse, Wisc.
The bank bailouts have stabilized the crisis but they haven't addressed
wealth in local communities, he said. It's likely that change may come
through food because it is the third largest household expense (12.4
percent or $6,133) and $1 trillion nationally. The average consumer
spends $49,638 per year with housing the largest expense (34 percent or
$16,900), transportation number three (17.6 percent or $8,753) and
insurance number four (10.8 percent or $5,336) (http://www.visualeconomics.
"Everyone needs to eat and a local food economy forces us to think differently," said Meter.
Meter shared figures from his study of southwestern Wisconsin where 106,000 residents earn a total income of $2.7 billion. However, 30 percent of the people live below the poverty line. Out of 6,804 farms, 586 farmers sell less than $10,000 per year while 11 percent sell more than $100,000. Only 382 farms sell directly to consumers and 133 farms are organic. Such disparities result in lop-sided and unfair policies that need to be changed to meet everyone's needs, Meter pointed out.
The past 40 years have seen rising sales and new markets for farm products, he said, but the expense of running these operations is mounting faster than the income. In fact, there has been a steady decline in income every year since 1969 except during the OPEC crisis in 1973-74. That's the year former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz ramped up production and sold wheat to the Soviet Union.
However, overproduction eventually led to the farm credit crisis in
the1980s, which resulted in much pain over family farm foreclosures
including over 913 farmer suicides in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North
Dakota, South Dakota and Montana (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/
"A community-based system of agriculture is all about relationships," said Meter who predicts that "over time, communities will choose organic food...because they know the farmer is taking care of the land."
Meter believes that in general, community-based organic farms make four major contributions: good health and nutrition for the population; a fair distribution of wealth among farmers; connections between people since food is so central to American and ethnic cultures; and the capacity for farmers, not corporations, to decide what foods to produce.
Government subsidies keep the industrial food system afloat because farmers are paid to produce below cost, said Meter. In southwestern Wisconsin, it took $434 million to raise $404 million in produce per year. Subsidies amounted to $21 million, which left a $10 million loss. Farmers made up this loss in off-farm income (89 percent of farm family income), renting out land, and other money-making ventures. Since 2002, 53 percent of farmers reported losses after subsidies, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
"This is not a healthy farm economy especially since $135 million in food is purchased outside the region," said Meter. "We need to cut down that $135 million by sourcing food locally."
As it is, the national average of buying local is only .8 percent and the effect is insidious. Wisconsin made $2 billion less on its farm products than it did in 1969. In 2009, it made the same income-adjusted for inflation-as it did in 1932.
"This is a startling reality the general public is not thinking about because it is so far removed from farms," said Meter. "These are losses in the breadbasket of America! This is not a lucrative way to farm."
Meter believes that if buyers commit themselves to invest in organic and locally-grown agricultural products, farm income would change. However, people would have to understand how such a strategy would benefit them and their community at the same time. It would require a sense of community or ownership over a place where people were unified on the basis of trust, mutuality, and support and not just a shared geography.
For example, if people in southwestern Wisconsin bought just 25 percent of their food from local sources, all production costs would be offset and create $33 million in new farm income.
"It is not a trivial thing to source food through local people," said Meter. "That helps fund communities and their schools."
Meter cited several examples where farmers have been able to invest in local and organic production AND make a difference in their communities.
Organic Valley started out in 1988 with $0 in sales and last year it made $532 million.
"This is a stellar example of a farmers cooperative where the price is fair and farmers work to make it good for all" said Meter. "It is strong, sensible thinking."
Black Hawk, Iowa, created 475 new jobs in fruits and vegetables totaling $6.3 million in income for the community.
Will Allen started out with earthworm compost and has reduced Milwaukee's cost of garbage dumping significantly.
A factory shut down in Viroqua, Wisc. and moved its operations to another state. City leaders confronted the company and asked what it would do for the community. In response, the company ended up selling its 100,000 square foot building, which allowed the city to create a regional food processing center, a fitness center, a bakery and cafeteria. The building is now 96 percent occupied.
In Eau Claire, Wisc., farmers, the hospital food service, distributors, and truckers teamed up to create the Food Buyers Co-op.
In Burlington, Vermont, a bakery-to-school program was developed where 2,000 extra artisan loaves were sold for $4 with $2 going to the bakery and $2 going to the school. It created a new profit margin for the bakery.
Such arrangements break down self-interest motives to help move everyone in the community forward, said Meter.
In Northfield, Minn., Home on the Range Poultry created a Latino/Anglo cooperative on quarter-acre sites where they raise chickens. There are 30 to 40 sites and the company owns its own processing center.
"The food systems of the future will also involve rethinking our habits of getting our food cheaply," concluded Meter. "Such change can build wealth in our communities."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




14 Comments so far
Show AllOrganic farming existed up until 50 years ago and only in the recent years did we have to use the funky word "organic" just to knock some sense into people. I am all for organic farming and I think that it seriously needs to replace factory farming as soon as possible. Furthermore, to keep the ball rolling on organic farming, I strongly recommend that people first learn the basics of gardening and get together with others in their neighborhood at least as a hobby. I remember Laurence of Berkeley posting a brochure to be passed around on this. Combine gardening and local organic farming together and we can put those corporate scams such as Monsanto out of business and shake their puppets in Washington really good. One more thing I would request is that advocates for organic farming to emphasize both the economic and ecological benefits together.
A great point so many just dont see.
Virtually EVER farm was on Organic farm a little over 50 years ago.
No it wasn't. 50 years ago farmers, especially orchardists, regularly used chemicals such as lead arsenate. They also drove tractors.
50 years ago the population was not 6.8 billion.
Traditional farm practices are not "organic." Certification for "organic" farming allows you to use "certified" pesticides that didn't exist 50 years ago.
There was not plastic irrigation pipe 50 years ago, nor oil-heated plastic-covered greenhouses, nor pallets of bags of greensand, kelp, and seed meal.
You're fantasizing.
"50 years ago farmers, especially orchardists, regularly used chemicals such as lead arsenate. They also drove tractors."
That is probably a minority unless you exclude small farmers who you should know by now couldn't afford all those fancy gear and chemicals back then.
USan elites have designed the USan industrial food system to maximize economic activity and to achieve world dominance for USan elites. They saturate the USan production system with funny munny in a very careful way. They lend more to the higher rollers and encourage the growth of cancerous behemoths like Monosonto, Cargull and Archie Daniel Midland. USan elites do so with a "strategeric" goal: Political dominance of the planet, via market dominance. USan food travels an average of 1400 miles because that maximizes the munny churn. The munny churn keeps many if not most USans salivating like Pavlov's dog when they hear the munny bell, thereby keeping them enslaved to elites. Obviously we need to go local, and let USan elites starve on the streets like they deserve.
I don't know much about the agricultural subsidies system here in the States, but wouldn't one way to promote organic farming and the local food movement also be to redistribute the subsidies from huge industrial farms to smaller organic farms? Obviously, this is easier said than done, due to influence of big agribusiness on government policies....
Here's an excerpt from wikipedia (which may or may not be accurate):
-------------------------
Organic farming assistance
Welfare economics theory holds that sometimes private activities can impose social costs upon others. Industrial agriculture is widely considered to impose social costs through pesticide pollution and nitrate pollution. Further, agriculture uses large amounts of water, a scarce resource. Some economists argue that taxes should be levied on agriculture, or that organic agriculture, which uses little pesticides and experiences relatively little nitrate runoff, should be encouraged with subsidies. In the United States, 65% of the approximately $16.5 billion in annual subsidies went to the top 10% of farmers in 2002 because subsidies are linked to certain commodities.[16] On the other hand, organic farming received $5 million for help in certification and $15 million for research over a 5-year time period.
Local food is a key part of a mindset and worldview that will really help. I'm not sure the "organic" label helps make the case since it comes with quite a bit of freight about what is organic exactly - some mega-companies use the label and are legally entitled to. It's not a synonym for local and it's locally grown we want, including especially in the back yard and the block, everyone a bit of a farmer.
Andrew
www.radicalrelocalization.com
Andrew, you took the wind out of my sails.
I was about to say: this article is poor because it mixes "organic," "sustainable," and "local" as if they were interchangeable. They are not.
"Local" is good, all good.
"Sustainable" is a myth. NO farming method is sustainable. Farmers grow people, and growing populations are by definition unsustainable.
"Organic" is pure bullshit. It's an ideology that needs to be taken out behind the barn and shot. http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html
The article says:
"over time, communities will choose organic food...because they know the farmer is taking care of the land."
"Organic" farmers don't "take care of the land." They "take over the land." Farming by definition interrupts the natural processes of "succession" through "takeover" of real estate and "drawdown" of resources.
"Farmers grow people, and growing populations are by definition unsustainable."
Farmers do not "grow people." Jobs grow people whether they are farm-related or not.
Your doomsday definition of farming is nonsense. With your vanishing-point mentality, why don't you just kill yourself?
q
"Organic" farmers don't "take care of the land." They "take over the land." Farming by definition interrupts the natural processes of "succession" through "takeover" of real estate and "drawdown" of resources.
Hey Christ on a Crust, what are your farming creds? Making a statement like this leads me to believe you have never, in fact, visited an organic farm...and if you have, perhaps it was one of the megafarms that have blown the organic model out of proportion, and in doing so, perpetuate the same criticisms as the industrial model. However, it is worth the effort to seek out and visit a small scale organic farm. Likely you will find a biodiverse "eco-system," wherein the farmer has planned for multilevel, multipurpose, often perennial/permanent plantings to provide a multitude of associated benefits aside from a single annual crop cycle. Depending on geography and climate, there may be trees/shrubs/perennial herbs and pastures, restored and re-vegetated waterways, sustainably managed woodlots...Enlightened farming is nothing like "takeover," as much as it is about recognizing natural patterns and processes, learning from them and utilizing the patterns via mimicry to achieve raw materials surpluses that are the foundation of every economy on the planet. "Drawdown" of resources is only seen on farms that do not do two things of primary importance to truly sustainable farming...protect and enhance water resources, and practice perennial biodiversity as a foundation of the farm site's planning. Though some folks would disagree, a third practice of utmost importance is to include grazing animals in the planned cycles and development of the farm. When pastured according to nature's laws, their manure can produce net gains in fertility over whatever crops are removing it. I also think your blanket statement that all local is good is shortsighted. If you lived next to an ArcherDanielsMidland swine factory, I bet you'd have no problem eating those words. I would prefer not to live next door to a farm that air-drops (or delivers via any other method, really) pesticides, since, the wind doth blow, and the groundwater doth flow, and the same with the eau d'pig sewage wafting down or upwind, and if that shit gets in your drinking water, god help you. Watch this video, about an Austrian farmer named Sepp Holzer for a taste of what you claim is not possible in "farming"... http://www.documentarywire.com:80/farming-with-nature Besides, whatever will we do with all the leftover farmland, when big ag falls? There will be no humanity without a relationship to the land. I know organic is real on my farm...and many others, and many hundreds more popping up here, there and everywhere every year! I have plenty of cynical friends, too bitter about the cost of clean food to get past their hang-ups, so, eat what you want! You're only killing yourself, your family, and the natural world you imply you want freed from the big drawdown of human society in the meantime, just to prove some useless point about why organic is a lie.
YOU have made my day!
What are my "Farming credentials?" How about 5 years experience working at a 5-acre organic farm? How about being a gardener and small farmer for 25 years? I work at the farm because it is SMALL and LOCAL. I don't give a sh*t about its organic certification.
What you describe is an organic "fantasy island."
Let me school you about "organic" farming. Here's what happens on a certified organic farm:
Land is tilled with a rototiller
VOLUNTEERS do most of the work
Leaves and scraps and hay bales for mulch are brought in by the truckload
Tractors turn and turn and turn the compost, then load it into spreaders, then the spreaders are driven over the fields
Miles of plastic irrigation tapes are laid out, and football field lengths of aluminum irrigation pipe, then electric pumps are run to irrigate the crops
Plastic-covered greenhouses warmed by oil furnaces protect the seedlings
Woodchucks are trapped and deer are driven away
Bugs are killed through the use of "organically certified" sprays
Stewardess, you have your head up your arse.
Hey Christ on a Crust
I appreciate the huge experience you're bringing here. Experience on the ground.
The online reality is that we don't have it all figured out or know much about each others' lives and are involved in a vast learning experiment with a thin wedge of it visible online. Most of what we know happens in our own lives. Terms we use aren't defined. So we're either going to have thin online allegiances to people we think are like us, or be upset with those who we think aren't. The reality is much more complex.
We can afford to cut each other a lot of slack.
Andrew
By all means, grow everything you can locally, eat locally and support your local growers. We are seeing a sharp increase in interest in the Northeast that is building momentum with CSA contracts and organic coops, et cetera.
And imaginal is exactly right, in the long run "everyone a bit of a farmer" is a good trend.
But, (you could tell that ther'd be a "but"), here in CT we have about 16 weeks of growing season if you start in hotframes or a greenhouse and move outdoors. You can grow some things year 'round if you have the technology (greenhouse or sunroom). But half the year, if you want anything other than tubers and dried beans, any kind of fresh produce, you are looking at imports. Livestock farming here is year 'round, but also dependent on hay and grain from out of the region to the greatest extent.
But the biggest hurdle for local farming is the numbers.
Back in the early 1800s the NorthEast had just about 2 million inhabitants. All of CT, most of RI and MA were clearcut and under the plow or supporting livestock.
And even then we had to import food from the South.
Since then, starting in the 1850s, Farming left New England for Ohio and points west. Connecticut lost over 80% of it's agriculture while the population continued to rise. Since the 1950s, we became suburban, the whole state! We planted houses on most of our best farmland and let the rest go back to woods.
The NorthEast now is home to 40million people.
That in itself in unsustainable. And as world fuel prices rise to meet the downslope of peak oil, imported food from the southern hemisphere will climb out of reach of consumers. We will be faced with serious endemic shortages that no amount of Local Farmers will be able to relieve.
I recently viewed a program, documenting the "100 mile Project." 100 families agreed to to live for 100 days eating only the food items that were grown/produced within 100 miles of their homes.
It wasn't easy, but it was worthwhile. They had to give up coffee and snack foods. They had to make their meals from scratch. They all learned that healthy food actually tasted better.
One important lesson that they all learned was that
"Healthy food does NOT have a bar code (UPC)."