The Original How-to Magazine of Alternative and Traditional Crops, Livestock, and Direct Marketing—Established 1984
Editorials...
From the Ridge:
Mar/Apr 2008: Water, Water...
Jan/Feb 2008: Keeping the Fire Going
Sep/Dec 2007: A Look Back, and Moving On
Jul/Oct 2007: The Truth: An Irate Editorial
May/Jun 2007: Carbon Credits
Mar/Apr 2007: A New Year
Jul-Oct 2006: Say No to NAIS
May/Jun 2006: Planning Ahead
Jan/Feb 2006: Reading This Magazine
Nov/Dec 2005: Show Lessons
Sep/Oct 2005: A Farm by any Other Name...
Jul/Aug 2005: Poor Planning: Patenting Life and Preemptive Laws
May/Jun 2005: The Best Show in the Country
Mar/Apr 2005: Our Connection to the Earth
Jan/Feb 2005: Pricing Your Product
Nov/Dec 2004: Better Than Ever
Sep/Oct 2004: A Risky Business
Jul/Aug 2004: Sustainable Ag in Danger in Missouri
May/Jun 2004: Spring Renewal
Mar/Apr 2004: A Mostly Happy Anniversary to Us
Jan/Feb 2004: What Are Your Plans?
Nov/Dec 2003: Ramblings From the Ridge
Sep/Oct 2003: Some Risks You Have to Take
Jul/Aug 2003: Problems with the Farm Problem—Technology is Not the Answer
May/Jun 2003: Planning for the Show
Mar/Apr 2003: Old Breeds and Old Seeds
Jan/Feb 2003: A New Year, A New Cycle
Dec 2002: Start Planning Now! The New Year Brings New Opportunities!
Sep/Oct/Nov 2002: The Show is Here! Ten Years and Still Growing!
Jul/Aug 2002: Saving Seeds Makes Your Farm More Sustainable
May/Jun 2002: 10,000 for the 10th Show
Mar/Apr 2002: Biotechnology is NOT Saving the World
Jan/Feb 2002: Farm Numbers Dwindling? They Don't Have To.
Nov/Dec 2001: The Farm Program. Yes or No? or Why?
Sep/Oct 2001: Nothing is Inevitable
Jul/Aug 2001: A Problem With Soybeans
May/Jun 2001: Changes in Current Farming (and an apology)
Mar/Apr 2001: Trade Show Talk
Jan/Feb 2001: Changing Our Thinking
Nov/Dec 2000: Good Life, Good Money
Sep/Oct 2000: The GM Blues
Jul/Aug 2000: Eurofarming
May/Jun 2000: Doom and Gloom and Optimism
Mar/Apr 2000: Opportunity Knocks
Jan/Feb 2000: 2000 and Beyond
Oct/Nov/Dec 1999: Choosing the Right Solutions
Aug/Sep 1999: Attitude for Success
Jun/Jul 1999: Sex in the Field–and in the Laboratory
Apr/May 1999: The More Things Change...
Feb/Mar 1999: Protecting the Future
Contents:
Home
About Us
Content / Subscriptions
Country Store Books™
Books / Back Issues
Advertising
Writers’ Guidelines
For the Farm
(new and used products
for your farm)
Calendar
Online Resources (links)
16th National Small Farm
Trade Show & Conference™
November 6-8, 2008
• Schedule of Events
• Audio tapes from past seminars & short courses
about Small Farm Today
3903 W Ridge Trail Rd
Clark MO 65243-9525
573-687-3525
(call for fax number)
800-633-2535
smallfarm@socket.net
www.smallfarmtoday.com
Rebecca DeCourley
ChaosDesignArt
Feedback on our web site
The More Things Change...
Editorial from the April/May 1999 issue of Small Farm Today® magazine.
This editorial is my biggest ever–mostly because there seem to be more targets for me to shoot at. I would have stretched these over two or three editorials, but these are all timely topics that need immediate response.
Corporate Food Chains
Fifteen years ago this month, Small Farm Today® magazine started as a four-page newsletter called Missouri Farm. It was born out of frustration with a system of agriculture that was eliminating farmers on a massive scale. The rural crisis of the Eighties was a bad time for agriculture; suicides were prevalent, and foreclosures were frequent. Farmers were looking for alternatives, something that would be a different or better way to farm, but there was no information available. The newsletter–now magazine–was created to help fill this void, provide hope to farmers, and show profitable alternatives to the current farming practices.
At that time, astute rural sociologists, like Dr. Bill Heffernan of the University of Missouri, were warning of the dangers of consolidation in the agriculture/food industry. These modern prophets correctly predicted what would come–but like most prophets, few heeded their words. Now it is 1999, and we are experiencing another Rural Crisis. This one may be worse than the Eighties, because consolidation in the industry has led agriculture to dwindle towards just four or five of what Dr. Heffernan calls "food chain clusters", with just a few companies controlling virtually every vertically integrated aspect of agriculture, from seed to sale and conception to consumption.
These companies create a simplified farm-to-table system, with products that are easily mechanized and transportable, and uniform in size, appearance, and genetics. They are reducing the genetic potential of crops and livestock in this country, breeding just a few genetically-dissimilar varieties of corn, chickens, potatoes, etc., using government and university facilities to further refine and alter these strains. It is interesting to note that over 1,000 varieties of corn and 300 breeds of livestock were bred by farmers before the first agricultural college of experts was established.
The oligopolies that these companies have created are currently legal, but I would argue that they are morally indefensible. The present marketing system has failed, and there is no supply and demand. These food giants argue that farmers have a choice–which is true–but their continued acquisition of little companies continues to eliminate the competition. Soon there will be no choices left.
The farmers that I have been referring to are engaged in what is considered "traditional" agriculture–the buying and selling of commodities like corn/wheat beans and cattle/hogs/sheep through established markets. This does not apply to most of our readers or what is happening in alternative crops and livestock and direct marketing–although the elimination of other markets affects these, too. Although alternative farmers have avoided the traps of traditional agriculture, they seem to be perceived as a threat by the proponents of centralization. The small farm wars of 1999 will continue well into the millennium, as centralized agriculture tries to eliminate any way a small farmer or group of small farmers can compete. If all competitors are eliminated, you will have absolute control over the food system and the people–the ultimate aim of centralization.
In his report to the National Farmers Union on February 5, 1999 (see center insert in SFT Apr/May 99), Dr. Heffernan quoted Dwayne Andreas, former Chairman of ADM, as saying "The food business is far and away the most important business in the world. Everything else is a luxury. Food is what you need to sustain life every day.... (Reuters 1/25/99)" The question then becomes, who controls food growth and distribution–a small group of companies, or the people of the country?
As Dr. Heffernan said, "The centralized food system... was never voted on by the people of this country, or for that matter, the people of the world. It is the product of deliberate decisions made by a very few powerful human actors.... Is it not time to ask some critical questions about our food system and about what is in the best interest of this and future generations?"
It is up to you to ask these questions and demand alternatives. You are a taxpayer and you have paid for everything being done for you–and to you. The Rural Crisis of the Eighties brought forth new leaders all over the country–from the ranks of ordinary farmers. The organic movement was started by farmers, the sustainable agriculture movement was started by farmers, the alternative crops and livestock movement was started by farmers, and the direct marketing movement was started by farmers. The farmers in these movements today are those who believe in decentralized agriculture–which was the model for the world just 25 years ago. This is where you need to be. Every reader, every farmer, and every farm family needs to be a new leader for agriculture, speaking up for the agriculture we all want. Use Dr. Heffernan's report in the center of this issue to talk to other farmers. Show it to your bankers, discuss it with consumer groups, and demand your share of knowledge and research from the university and government institutions.
Seed Saving Opponents
I recommend that any fans of Monsanto skip this section to keep their blood pressure down. Come to think of it, those who aren't fans of Monsanto have to worry about their blood pressure too.... A bill has been introduced in the Ohio State legislature that would require registration and state level regulation of anyone who cleans or conditions self-pollinated seed. According to the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI, 204-453-5259; rafi@rafi.org), "the proposed legislation is part of Monsanto's corporate strategy to police rural communities and intimidate seed-saving farmers." Here is RAFI's news release:
|
"The proposed legislation is part of a dangerous trend to eliminate or restrict the right of farmers to save and exchange seed–all
in the name of increasing seed industry profits," explains Hope Shand, Research Director of RAFI.... According to the Ohio Seed Improvement Association, the proposal to amend Ohio's seed law originated with agribusiness giant Monsanto last year. Monsanto is the world's largest seller of genetically modified seed. Under U.S. patent law it is illegal for farmers to save patented seed. To enforce its exclusive monopoly, Monsanto has aggressively prosecuted farmers for what the company calls "seed piracy". But seed saving is illegal only if the farmer is saving or re-using patented seed. The Ohio legislation is unfair to farmers because it places an onerous regulatory burden on all seed-saving farmers and seed cleaners - not just farmers who buy Monsanto's patented seed," explains Shand. If the bill becomes law, it would require seed cleaners to keep detailed records on every seed cleaning transaction, to document the name of the farmer, seed variety names and whether or not the seed is protected by patents or breeders' rights. "In essence, the bill discriminates against farmers who are lawfully saving and re-planting open-pollinated seed varieties." Ohio farmer and custom seed cleaner Roger Peters opposes the proposed bill to regulate open-pollinated seed cleaners. "Why should any farmer be forced to keep records on law-abiding farmers who clean their own seed?" asks Peters. "And why should public tax dollars be used to protect the patents of private seed companies like Monsanto?" Background information on HB 85, introduced in the Ohio State Legislature on January 28, 1999: Require all seed cleaners to register as a seed cleaner or conditioner.... Require the seed cleaner to keep records on every farmer and seed cleaning/conditioning transaction. The seed cleaner would be required to keep all records for a minimum of five years and make the records available to the State Director of Agriculture on request. The seed cleaner would be required to document the following information: 1. The commonly accepted name and brand or variety being cleaned; 2. A declaration of any patent, or plant variety protection certificate, issued for the seed being cleaned or conditioned; 3. The name, address, telephone number of the farmer who submitted the seed to be cleaned or conditioned; the amount of seed cleaned or conditioned; and an indemnification statement signed by the person who submitted the seed for cleaning... The seed cleaner or conditioner is required to retain a sample of each type and variety or brand of seed cleaned or conditioned for at least 18 months. The Director of Agriculture may inspect all records, documents and samples required to be kept by the seed cleaner/ conditioner to determine if he/she is in compliance with the law.... |
They are also prosecuting those who "infringe" on their seed patents by saving seed that contains Monsanto proprietary genes. The Washington Post reported on February 3, 1999, that Monsanto is suing Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser for growing their seeds without paying their patent price. Schmeiser denies having ever bought or received their seed, and says seed or pollen must have blown onto his land from a neighbor's farm, or off of a truck carrying the seed. What does this mean for other farmers with open-pollinated seed that might be contaminated by Monsanto pollen? It seems to me that in a rational world, a farmer would have a case against the bioengineering company, for ruining his open-pollinated seed with their genes.
Unfortunately, today's agriculture is not rational.
In other news, Canada has decided not to approve Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), Monsanto's hormone to boost milk production in cows, mostly from concerns over animal safety. Health Canada cited statistics of 25% increases in mastitis, 18% increases in infertility, and 50% increases in lameness. The European Union placed a moratorium on sale of rBGH in 1993 (Reuters News Service, 1-15-99). The Maine Organic Farmer and Gardener (207-662-3118) Dec/Feb 99 issue has a fascinating look at the history of Monsanto. In it, they mention that rBGH has been linked to increased risk of prostate cancer in a Harvard and McGill University joint study, and a connection with breast cancer, as discussed in the May 1998 issue of Lancet. In the MOFG article, Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Illinois says that Monsanto's application for marketing in Europe admits that rBGH produces milk with ten times the levels of the hormone IGF-1 as normal milk. So much for the claims that there are no differences in rBGH milk and untreated milk.
We do not have room to discuss the failings of Bt-Corn and Bt-Cotton, which Monsanto also has an interest in. I would recommend you write to the Ohio legislature, your local farm bureaus and organizations, and your state and federal legislators and let them know what you think of these developments. Stand up for the right to own open-pollinated seed.
Missing Facts
I need to take a moment to refute the latest statement from Dennis Avery, advocate of chemical agriculture and author of Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastic. Mr. Avery wrote an article called "The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food" last fall, in which he stated, "According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and 'natural' foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E.coli bacteria (0157:H7)." He reported several other statements and statistics to back up his assertions. Unfortunately for Mr. Avery, his information is completely untrue. Three different sources at the CDC have confirmed that the CDC has never done such research or given out statistics at all similar to Mr. Avery's–and has no plans to do so in the future. It reminds me of an old saying of Grandma's, "The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant."
Normally this would be a tempest in a teapot–but several other writers have used his article as fact, and excerpts from this article have appeared in other media. Publications which have contained these "facts" include the Wall Street Journal and the High Plains Journal. The article in the High Plains Journal was an opinion piece against the EPA and organic farms, written by a representative of the Nebraska Farm Bureau! Isn't the Farm Bureau supposed to represent organic farmers, too?
Mr. Avery (and the Nebraska Farm Bureau) also complain about organic farmers' use of manure, ignoring the fact that conventional farmers also use it–and that safety guidelines for its use are in place. These guidelines are often stricter for organically certified produce than for conventional.
This kind of misinformation and pettiness is bad for all farmers. If any reader sees misquotes of this kind, alert your fellow farmers and send a letter of protest to the publication and the source. Any untruth that is heard often enough without contradiction is believed. Let's keep watch on those that rearrange the facts to further their agendas–and make sure the truth gets heard, too.
A Time to Act
In last year's April issue, I discussed the Report of the USDA National Commission on Small Farms to improve research and aid for the small farmer. I found their recommendations to be a good start, but wondered whether action would be taken. Since then, a number of the Commission members formed the independent Time to Act Campaign to promote the Report's recommendations and critique the government's efforts.
Now, a year later, they have issued a Report Card on USDA's response to the Report. The overall response has been mediocre, according to the Campaign, although, they say, "In some cases, USDA has acted 'quickly and decisively.' But in most areas, real change is slow to come. In the hog industry, for example, we could lose half of the remaining family farmers in the coming months. Time to Act is running out. Secretary Glickman and his staff must redouble their efforts to implement the Commission's recommendations if independent family farmers are going to maintain any economic opportunity in agriculture."
They give good grades for Market Development (B+), Beginning Farmers Aid, and Risk Management (B), medium grades for Conservation, Outreach and Organization (C+), Research and Extension, Credit, and Civil Rights (C), and poor grades in Market Access and Farm Workers (D).
Their specific recommendations for the future follow:
|
As USDA moves into its second year of implementation of the Time to Act report, there are several areas of needed improvement that
should receive priority attention: 1. Market Access: Bold and decisive leadership from Secretary Glickman is necessary to utilize the authority granted in the Packers and Stockyards Act. GIPSA should subpoena processors and retailers to access price data for a full-fledged investigation of anti-competitive practices. A fair and competitive marketplace is fundamental to providing economic opportunity to farmers and ranchers of all sizes and every effort must be made to uphold market competition. 2. Civil Rights: Secretary Glickman deserves credit for taking leadership to correct the egregious mode of racial discrimination that has plagued USDA for decades. He must not rest with the settlement of the class action lawsuit, but rather, maintain vigilance... 3. Beginning Farmers: The long-term strength of the farming and ranching sector is dependent on the energy, innovation and promise of the next generation. However, public investments are critical to providing new entrants with the tools, resources and opportunity to get started. 4. Research and Extension: A concerted effort must be taken by the REE agencies to examine, understand and appreciate the research and education needs unique to less-capitalized, more diversified sector of farming. One strategy that REE might employ would be a team of USDA scientists and administrators, along with non-USDA experts and farmers, to conduct this examination and develop an explicit strategy for applying existing resources to meet small farm priority needs. 5. Market Development: The positive steps initiated so far by AMS and Rural Development should continue with even greater innovation and creativity, to assist small farmers and ranchers in exploring and developing new market opportunities available to them. |
Defining Small
I have tackled the definition of a farmer and of a small farm several times in the past, and it seems like it is time to do so again. The definition our magazine has adopted is: "A small farm is any farm that has 179 acres or less, or earns $50,000 or less in gross income per year. A midsize farm is a farm that has 180 to 999 acres, or earns $250,000 or less, excluding small farms. A large farm is 1000 acres or more, or earns over $250,000 per year, excluding small and midsize farms." This definition seems to be the best compromise between size and income.
According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, we have 1,911,859 farms in the United States. Of that number, 79.1% fit the above definition of a small farm. These small farmers contributed $52.369 billion dollars (26.6%) of the total gross agricultural revenues in the U.S. I have also assembled the data for several states:
| state | small farms in state |
as % of total farms in state |
as % of total gross farm income |
| Alabama | 38,237 | 92.4% | 62.9% |
| California | 63,213 | 85.3% | 29.1% |
| Kentucky | 74,241 | 90.5% | 41.0% |
| Missouri | 83,621 | 84.6% | 28.0% |
| Washington | 23,850 | 82.2% | 28.0% |
The magazine's definition above is a narrow definition of a small farm compared to some. For example, the USDA National Commission on Small Farms (NCSF) preferred a definition of $250,000 gross income or less––which fits 94% of the farms in the U.S. They wanted to include the midsize farms that were in trouble to get government help for them, too. The reason a broad definition like this is dangerous is because it allows agencies to justify their expenditures on a broader base. Let's use the numbers above. How many people believe the land-grant universities in Alabama spend 62.9% of their extension research budget on small farms? Or even a mere 28% in Missouri and Washington? Yet that is what should be spent, according to the amounts those farms contribute to the state. If a state university is called upon to justify its agricultural spending using this definition, it would probably have a hard time doing so. But if it were to use the NCSF definition of $250,000 or less, it could easily justify its expenditures for mid-size research on corn, wheat, beans, and other traditional farming practices. This definition is a direct order for institutions to do nothing. A broad definition hurts, rather than helps, small farmers.
It seems obvious that there are three types of farms–small, medium, and large–and each requires research, educational materials, and aid appropriate to their specific needs. Support for small farmers is definitely necessary. According to the Ag Census, small farms are increasing at a rate of close to 2% per year nationwide. They are nontraditional farmers who may come from a business, rather than a farm background. They bring computer, business, and marketing skills to agriculture. Because they have no preconceived notions to slot them into narrow traditional monocultures, they are frequently very successful in their new enterprises. They are more open to alternative and sustainable ideas, and prefer a decentralized agriculture, separate from the centralized corporate agriculture.
Small farmers are the salvation of the entire agricultural system. The Census shows the average age of farmers is 55. The Small Farm Today survey showed the average age of a small farmer is 40. These are the farmers of the future. They are the age group that can become successful on a small acreage and move into medium and large (large does not imply corporate here) farm acreages in the future. They have the education and the desire to make it happen.
Anniversary
As I mentioned at the beginning, this is the 15th anniversary of Small Farm Today® magazine. In our 15 years, we have seen an increasing amount of small farmers and interest in small farms. Along with this, there are increasing numbers of farmers' markets, new generation cooperatives, and direct marketing outlets. This has been encouraging to me, even as we appear to be entering a new Rural Crisis.
I would like to thank all our readers, both past and present for their loyalty and enthusiasm. It is the small farmers and those who want to be small farmers that make our magazine a success. We intend to continue providing you a useful magazine in the next century. Let us know how we're doing!
Happy and Profitable Farming,
Ron Macher
Publisher/Farmer