Why small farms can not feed the world anymore...

Unfortunately that zone changing doesn't do enough to grow a lot of things. Our solution is to grow other things. Sometimes accepting reality helps.

What I really want to do is get greenhouses that take advantage of the animal heat. We've done small scale testing of that. It does work.

There is also the problem mentioned above that there just isn't enough sunlight. Artificial lights take energy too.

I've had greenhouses, without heat, for decades in the mountains of northern Vermont. It's iffy. There are some things we can grow right through the winter although they really slow down in January and February. Strategic placement of the mountain helps reflect in more light off the snow but it still isn't summer time. Not even close. Just not enough hours or intensity. But I keep trying. Meanwhile our pastured pigs bring home the bacon and pay the mortgage. They're appropriate technology for our climate.

__________________
SugarMtnFarm.com -- Pastured Pigs, Poultry, Sheep, Dogs and Kids

Not a change of subject but what farm crops are involved in those high and low tunnels? And how small does an operation be and still be considered a farm or just a large garden. My 10,000+ square foot garden last year could easily have gone under plastic and PVC. Would that then have made me a farmer, especially since it was part of a real farm? I have a small greenhouse in my home garden. If I grow a head of lettuce and sell it to my neighbor, am I a small farmer?

Martin

Love it! But due note that Paris France is MUCH farther north than you! Italy and the olives are around the same latitudes. The issue is the temperature not the light!


My next endeavor will be combining the ancient tech of the pit green house with modern growing techniques to see if I can get higher temps over all so I can grow true to type warm season plants passively heated. Figs and olives on this snow mountain top would be amazing.

That will be a long term project tho

If the reason for planting the single head of lettuce was to sell it then yes your a farmer.

P.S. Argumentum ad nauseam

I've been underestimating my position in the world for some time. Inasmuch as I do grow things with the end being to sell them, I've been a farmer all this time!

Martin

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

I see operations around here that do: 2 or 3 acres of low tunnels for greens, 2 or 3 more for high tunnels with veggies, and 5 acres of root crops. They may employ 6 or 8 people.

Online I have seen discussions where folks are upset anytime someone is called a farmer with less than 500 acres.

In Real-Life, I know a lot more 'food-producers' who earn a living producing and marketing food; on 10 acres or less; then I know 'farmers' who have 500+ acres.

Anyone who supports him/herself producing food is a real farmer.




One funny observation I have seen. Look at 'farmers', which ones require a job in town to support their 'farm'? In-Real-Life, from among my relatives and folks I know, a lot more with 500+ acres need outside support, as compared to small scale operations.

You can have 5,000 acres, but if you need a job in town to be able to put food on your table, I would be hesitant calling you a successful 'farmer'.

__________________
http://www.mofga.org/

http://www.mofga.org/Programs/FarmAp...2/Default.aspx

Returning to small farmers and changing food production patterns, Wisconsin has long been one of the top 5 or 6 potato states. With demographics changing, sweet potato store sales keep going up every year. Until recently, it was the mindset of many here that sweet potatoes could only be grown in the South. That was mostly true since the understructure and infrastructure involved did not exist here. It was also true that most varieties were only marginal even when grown in Wisconsin gardens. The development of a variety which was well-suited to the shorter seasons caused a change in many gardens. Now another new one has come along and virtually taken over the market. Several local farmers have been watching it and decided to take a commercial chance here. There will be a ready market for whatever they can produce.

Martin

In the political correctness of terminology, are those really farms? A farmer milking 20-30 cows will always be a farmer and his land will be a farm. If he increases the herd number tenfold and employs 6 or 8 people, is it still a farm or an operation? Swings around to the question that I had about the difference in milking 38 or 102 on a farm. Is it a small farm with barn stanchions for 38 cows or a big farm with 102 free-stall in a shed and employing 6 to 8 non-family personnel? It's a question which has to be given some thought since it's the same farm.

Martin

I have managed to keep things alive for much of the winter, but in January things are pretty much frozen.

What have you had success with? Beets have done the best for me, and radishes did fairly well.

That reconstruction will occur when the cheap oil doubles or quadriples in price. Our present society is built on cheap oil and will collapse in its present form if oil goes to $10/gallon or whatever number.

It's cheap oil that has been a massive subsidy for the gigantic corporate farms. Without cheap oil, large scale AG projects would be possible. Furthermore, the distribution would not be possible either. Feeding the world would not be possible.

Commuting to the city for work is enabled by cheap oil, suburbia. It has caused a massive, temporary bubble in the society by allowing cheap distribution.

In Europe, fuel is considerably more expensive which may explain why small farms are more common. $8/gallon vs $1.99/gallon.

Over the last 50, even 100 years, the move has clearly been from rural to urban. The population shift has been from one to another. This has correlated with the demise of the small family farm. And it's not a coincidence. Because "jobs" in the city pay more - but only temporarily. When the bubble bursts, things will shift back to sanity. The pendulum will swing the other way. Maybe for generations. The city lifestyle is a cheap and a subsidized lifestyle and not sustainable long-term.

I think the jobs in the city that attract younger generations completely depend on easy credit and easy gov-made money, of course inexpensive distribution system enabled by cheap oil helps with the phenomenon also.
When the gov runs out of cheap credit, cannot print any more worthless paper money, can no longer subsidize the mega corporate farms, or allow easy credit to corporations that depend on it, the game is up, and sooner than we think.
I suspect end of cheap oil could be one such catalyst but there could be others, like fiat money collapse, and/or easy credit collapse.

Yes, cost of fuel does somewhat explain the smaller farms in Europe but the fuel was in the form of feed. The size of most farms was set up long before oil became an important factor of farming. Instead, they were what could be managed by human and animal power rather than motors. That's why France, for example, has an average of about 100 acres but with a half-million farms over 170 with 60% of the country being agricultural.

Interesting tidbit is average size of farms in the US is shrinking. In 1990, average was 460. In 2007 it was 449. In the US, less than 20% of the country is on cropland.

Martin

Well, I don't like to see nobody fail, but I'm predjudiced towards the small farmer. Always will be, less I lose my mind.
Remember the old fable of the sticks. They are easily broken one, or a few at the time.....but when they are bundled together...can't hardley break'em. Replace the sticks with people, businesses,FARMS,churches,...whatever...I like the security that more than one brings, cause if one fails there is more to fall back one.

The reason for the smaller "farm size" was because of reclassification by the USDA.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/177328...ortsummary.pdf

__________________
U.S. Constitution -10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not really a "chance". Some will likely be successful, some not. But the consumer will win with local produce.

It indeed is going to be a "chance" since there is not as single tuber formed and no facilities for handling them. When harvested in the South, there's still a lot of decent weather for the necessary curing. Here, for maximum production, frost determines when the season stops. If frost is on 20 September, that's the end of the growing season. If it holds off another 15 days, that's very important for tuber production. Late spring and early fall could result in only fingerlings rather than bakers.

There's also no specific storage facilities built. Everything required from planting to curing to storage has to be completed this year. One doesn't just dig sweet potatoes and dump them in a corner of a barn. I suspect that there have been a lot of bank loans involved.

I also would believe that if some fail, the whole industry would be abandoned. If the whole system is designed on a certain number of farmers contracting a crop, and the remaining percentage fail to produce, the curing and storage facilities may be unable to cover costs. Everyone then keeps raising prices until the market rebels.

So, from the information that was presented, what happens this season determines if the same crop is grown next year. Once burned, twice shy. Growers then would still have the ground but switch to something else. This year's harvest will decide if it will work, not the consumer. If there's no product, there's no consumption.

Martin

Martin, My climate is just as harsh as yours... With high tunnels I won't have frost in there till after the November 10th growth crash. Those wanting success can get it.

Marketing thru traditional channels for high dollar crops, to be frank. Is dumb.

P.S. My last 90% last frost is June 1, My 10% first frost is Sept. 21st. I planted tomatoes on april 21st no added heat one layer of plastic except for two times I added covers to the tiny plants.

I think you missed the point of the article. His point was that small scale farm produce and locally produced food is often more expensive, not that factory farming is the 'only' way to feed people. Far from it.

From the last paragraph of the article,

And in figuring out how 'inexpensive' that factory farmed food is, he neglects to factor in the relatively cheap fossil fuel variable. All in all a pretty incomplete and short sighted article, written by someone who sounds like they need a vacation from small-scale market gardening.

And FarmerDale, I appreciate that you are a large-scale farmer. Thats great, but it does not mean 'small ag' and 'big ag' cannot peacefully coexist... each has their rightful place, and the world is a better place for it.

Yes, you may be right in that there are some dumb farmers taking a chance on any high-dollar crop due to the risks that go with it. Used to love the potential big profit from tobacco but the last crop I worked with probably didn't break even. Frost predicted so 8 acres were cut and piled. It rained instead! When case weather arrived, shed was raining leaves from stem rot. Would definitely agree that that farmer and the market system was dumb for such a high-dollar crop, second only to ginseng at the time.

Martin

To be honest, fuel costs are among my smallest farm cost. Fuel is hardly a blip anymore. And the reason Europe has small farms on average, is that they have absolutely MASSIVE subsidies. The people there have gone hungry before, so they make sure farms even if not normally viable, are viable.

The main reason farms get larger, is not due to some conspiracy, but due to economics, and disinterest by young folks. Because there are MUCH easier, and much more consistent ways to make a living, slowly over time, as some families have no one to take over, due to these factors, neighboring farms buy them out. So the natural progression is to be larger.

And finally, as machinery and technology has improved, one man can do so much more than in the past, so more guys actively pursue more land to farm.

I would argue it is much less a "big ag conspiracy", than simple mathematics.

Now, I have nothing against small farms, or new ways to do things: Indeed, on a grain farming scale, I am small potatoes at 2000 acres. I just do not think increasing the number of farms is possible past a certain point. There are limited land resources that are already farmed. There are few who have the risk taking personality. Most find a consistent, steady pay check much easier.