Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't deny the economy of scale in any way. A larger tractor will almost always be more efficient. A larger field will be more efficient. A larger herd makes for more efficient practices. Someone farming professionally who plans on selling to established outlets HAS to take that into account. That is not what market gardens, buy local farms, and household gardens are about.
A standard exercise is to take a concept and examine the extremes to find out what the inherent problems are. If there was ONE field stretching across a leveled Kansas, and ONE giant combine, then ONE person could harvest enough wheat for the nation. If that combine broke down, uh-oh! Someone who thinks on a reserve capacity basis would be horrified at the thought of only one combine. Someone who considers only efficiency would be delighted at the concept.
If, OTOH, each person had to plant a plot of wheat, there would be no economy of scale and a tremendous amount of wasted man-hours and resources, but the chances of any one event wiping out all the harvest is far less. Someone concerned with the overall GDP would be horrified at the waste of time, energy, and resources, but an invading country would be hard pressed to destroy basic infrastructure, and a military commander would be delighted at the reserve capacity and redundancy.
WWII was very instructive. The ability of people in the U.S. and England to not only grow their own crops when under stress, but crops for soldiers and those living in bombed out areas proved a powerful weapon and safety net for the west.
Currently, we are in a situation where 10% unemployment is fairly consistent, and minimum wage jobs and part-time jobs are more prevalent. Vast swaths of office workers were made redundant by technology in the past few years. Robotics have emptied out many factories. We have a plethora of people, some of whom cannot be effectively trained to new jobs. The market has an overabundance of labor, and market forces are keeping wages down.
Now take a look at main street. Even while farmers in Florida are getting 25 cents per pound for strawberries, stores are charging ten times that amount to consumers. How do unemployed and underemployed people pay such prices? The answer is that many of them either go bankrupt and depend on aid, or don't, and grow part of their own food.
It becomes obvious that the efficiencies of scale and the use of technology are only a small part of the retail cost of food. The ten to one ratio of the (factual) example is a bit extreme, and used only as an example, but distribution, overhead, and other costs can EASILY double or triple the cost of production, and the commodity markets are such that speculation can drive prices to spikes. Those price factors are out of control of the farmers. A large farmer cannot easily shift from selling to a co-op or large buyer to selling to individuals.
A small farmer can have 1/2 the efficiency and still sell at a lower price direct to consumers and make a small profit. The small direct-to-consumer farmer is a safety valve on what could otherwise easily be another housing bubble or internet bubble. Are they inefficient? Heck yes. Are they working at a disadvantage? Heck yes. Would large scale agriculture love to totally eliminate them? Heck yes.
Man only needs air, water, food, and shelter to survive. Corporate America and governments have worked for years trying to figure out ways to sell or tax these basic needs and then turn the screws even harder. Growing ones own food, drilling ones own well, and owning ones own basic shelter is a threat to such plans. Darn. Heck.
Amen. And super highways, refrigerated trucks, etc are not required to be self sufficient.
Man only needs air, water, food, and shelter to survive. Corporate America and governments have worked for years trying to figure out ways to sell or tax these basic needs and then turn the screws even harder. Growing ones own food, drilling ones own well, and owning ones own basic shelter is a threat to such plans. Darn. Heck.
If only we could get more people to see it that way.
Less CAN be more if we just believe it and live it.
I'd rather bust my back working for " da boss" 12 hours a day than live in a house in winter with no heat bundled up in --wool,fur,etc------to stay warm.
Bundled up inside ones house might be your idea of ---self sufficency living-- but I don't even consider that living.
That's fine, but you have to understand that having a 'cold' house is actually preferred by some folks. During the winter, My place averages 55 - 62 degrees during the day and cooler at night. Yeah, it's nice to save some money on heat, but the main reason it's that cold is because that's where I'm comfortable--I actually like being bundled up a bit, and sleeping in a warm bed in a cold room is heaven.
On the other hand, I suffer big-time all summer. I have a hard time sleeping when it's warmer. I have a hard time working outside (I'd rather be out when it's 20 than when it's 90). I have a hard time doing my running and hiking. My body is just suited to the cold. And it's not that I go around in a tee shirt when it's 30 degrees--I'm bundled up. I just seem to be better adapted to the cold than the hot.
As for the OP, you have to take attitude into consideration. People nowadays place a huge value on minimizing time spent doing a job and minimizing cost. However, that's not the only perspective. If you look at it from the perspective of 'yes, I can do that myself and don't need to rely so much on others,' then methodological preferences shift a bit. The idea is you may spend months of hard work growing potatoes and corn rather than buying them at the store, but YOU are doing it. You spend hours and hours canning fruits and vegetables when you could buy them at the store in minutes not because it's cheaper or easier, but because you're not relying on a cannery or store. You spend hours baking a loaf of bread rather than buying it at the store, not because it's faster and easier, but because you don't have to rely on a bakery and YOU know how to make it yourself.
I guess it's a matter of priority and lifestyle. I'm getting to a point in my life that I really don't care if something is more work (hey, I don't have to waste money on a gym membership if I spend a few hours a day of real, taxing, physical work, right?) or takes more time (I may as well spend that time learning something useful). Lately, I've been doing some 'traditional' sorts of things that are certainly time consuming and a LOT of work. But as I said, so what? I'm not afraid of real physical work. And I've never really found what most people consider 'entertainment' during all that free time they have as all that entertaining anyway (seriously, I haven't been to a movie for at least ten years, and I only went because someone dragged me there). I may as well be doing something that interests me and gets me closer to being a bit less dependent on others. So, for a certain mindset, a task being more work, more time consuming, and less economical really doesn't matter much. It's the idea of being able to do it for yourself. Yes, that's a different perspective from the economic one that everyone seems to place in such high regard these days, but for some, it's just as viable.
Amen. And super highways, refrigerated trucks, etc are not required to be self sufficient.
Sorry but you are dead wrong on this. One of the reasons why imported food is so prevalent today is because the cost of transportation has continued to come down, not go up.
As a sheep producer, I compete directly with sales from Australia which from the aid of massive cargo ships, can move massive amounts of food inexpensively. So can trains and even the trucks you mention.
In referring back to my reply about small tractors being inefficient, consider how much fuel it takes for a small farm to operate. I typically go through 250 gallons of fuel per year and I do not come close to producing 30,000 pounds of lamb. It would take several Maine farms doing that to produce that much lamb and thus much more fuel then 250 gallons. Yet a sheep producer in South Dakota could easily ship 30,000 pounds of lamb onto a truck, fill that truck with 250 gallons of fuel, and at 10 mpg send it to any New England state and burn a lot less fuel to get it here, then we would in producing that same amount of lamb in New England. Now imagine if that lamb went via railroad...
I often hear that buy local saves energy in food production, but that is a real myth. As I have said before many times, there are many reasons to buy local, but a reduction in energy costs is not one of them.
HC you make a good point at simplicity, but unfortunately like much of society you are blaming the American Farmer for a "broken system" that is not actually our fault. The truth is farming is very simple...in my case I put hay in front of a ewe, a ram behind her and 5 months later I get lambs to sell. It truly is that simple. But unfortunately society today demands we farm sophisicated...
They want to hear about soil testing, forage sampling, and who can forget the 900 page National Organics Standards book with every conceivable scenario possible. Honestly do we really need a 900 page document to tell farmers how to farm without using various tools and resources? Of course not, but society demands that from farmers and that is who we sell our crops too. We do what we do because 99-1/2% of society...and our customers..demand it.
As for direct sales...that is inexperience at work there. To some degree I do not know of any major farm around here that does not direct-sell something, whether it be cows, crops, etc. But no sane farmer would rely on direct-sales to make a living. The American People are just too fickle and typically hange tastes every 7 years on average. The poor organic farmers found this out the hard way. They got all geared up for organic farming hoping to make the big bucks, only to have the market fall out a few years later. A few of us who have seen this pattern before, knew it would never last. Big prices in farming NEVER do. Now the organic farmers are claiming foul...but is it, or is it just a change in the American diet towards grass fed only and naturally raised animals at a cheaper price?
I am all for going back to simplicity...heck I am a farmer and I live it everyday, but there is no way I will bet the farm on the rest of the nation buying into that. In fact society today thrives more and more on complexity which includes regulation. The 900 page organic National Organics Standards prove that easy enough. No thanks, I'll sell on the wholesale market where the price is a bit lower, but predictable, trackable and reliable...some key things in an industry where we buy everything at retail prices and sell them at wholesale prices...the only industry that does such a thing!
One thought I had yesterday while I was out farming (clearing land no less for more agricultural land on my farm), was how a great analogy could be made between hobbies and commercial enterprises.
I am a hobby woodworker and enjoy toying in my workshop with wood, and every time a dozen lambs die I cannot help but wish I could make a full time living at doing woodwork rather then sheep farming. And thankfully I live in America and can make that choice.
But think about it for a minute. Imagine if there was no major furniture corporations out there, and everyone had to rely on the local woodworker to get their furniture. Not just a small scale commercial woodworker, but a hobby woodworker, someone that might lose interest at any time and go on to try another hobby. I mean how many of us have lost interest in a hobby and moved on? What would happen to society if no reliable, cheap supply of furniture could be found? Believe it or not, I do not need a piece of furniture to last 200 years, sometimes I just need a cheap shelf to hold a few phone books and a telephone, and who can forget that I am a foster parent who must fill a bedroom with kids that will most likely destroy it. Surely I don't want an expensive piece of furniture to give the children what they need! And the same can be said for food. For the poor and working poor, they need and deserve getting inexpensive fruits and vegetables...thankfully this is not Russia where they stand in line for meats and veggies. Good gobstoppers I hardly consider our farming system broken by walking through my grocery store!
What you are proposing is, we have more hobby farmers out there. I am not so sure that is a great idea. Already you are saying the system is broke, yet the majority of the professional farmers today (60% of that 1/2% of the population) is hobby farmers already who meet the definition of "making $1000 dollars in profit or more per year". Do we as a nation want MORE people who are inexperienced, unreliable, and can bail out of an enterprise at anytime for lack of interest to be in complete control of our national food supply? I for one sure the heck don't. Commercial farmers can bail out as well, but at least the investment is a lot higher and thus commitment level.
There is plenty of room for small farms for sure, but what people fail to see is that we need big farms too. The problem with the system right now is, the system favors mega farming and small farms, but not the mid-sized farms that are an excellent balance between efficiency and diversity. The problem arises because no one can define what a mid-sized farm is. For people in the city, a 100 cow farm on 400 acres is "big", yet for where I live, a 100 cow farm on only 400 acres is small. A 500 cow farm is mid-sized, but in California where a 5000 cow dairy farm is common, a 500 cow farm is indeed small. Whatever we define them as, the safe, continuation of a cheap and plentiful food supply consists of mid-sized farms thriving and being profitable.
As I said before, the author is right, the teeny, tiny farm is just not going to cut it.
Last edited by BrokenTap; 04-11-2010 at 05:27 AM..
This is a very interesting thread, I'm enjoying it very much, lots of points of veiw from different experiences, different areas of the country, all respectively expressed. Thank you all for the thought provoking read.
A couple of thoughts...
The author defines the teeny tiny farm, as someones back yard, in town (.06 of an acre I believe), I don't believe anyone who has planted a seed would think that something that small would feed you through the year - even providing you had perfect growing conditions.
There is a difference between feeding my family, and feeding the nation.
We as a culture, would have to change our eating habits to only eating local foods, in season, or foods that have been "put up" when in season. Are we ready to forgo the salads all winter long (I live in Maine, growing season is short, winters are long)
The assumption (and he made a lot of them) that everyone would have to grow grain, I had a problem with. My land is not suitable to grow grain, however the people up the road have suitable land for grains, but as a community we would have the grains, we wouldn't need to have it shipped in. Or, you could do what other cultures have done, and he did mention, shift to corn; or in my case bean flour (I can grow beans here)
In the event of a collapse, the turn around peroid is 5 to 10 years, according to the article. That's an awful lot of stored food a city/town person would have to have to be able to "ride it through"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
