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
Farm Numbers Dwindling?
They Don't Have To.
Editorial from the January/February 2002 issue of Small Farm Today® magazine.
Agriculture does not need a subsidy system. Agriculture needs to be able to make a profit, just as any other business in our society does. Unfortunately, when the universities and other farm bureaucracies do not use our tax dollars to offer another way to farm—like sustainable-type farming—then the farmers listen to the corporations' seductive talk.
Worldwide, farmers grow enough food to give everyone a 3,000-4,000 calorie diet. That is enough to get everybody fat! In other words, we are already growing enough food to feed the world! Not everybody gets their share, however, because of the governments of some countries. Transportation and politics prevent food distribution, not food quantity.
The standard argument against sustainable and organic farming methods claims they cannot be done on a large scale and millions will starve. This is a flat lie. Although less than 1% of ag research dollars are spent on organic practices, research from seven state universities and two private research stations on a total of 154 growing seasons for different crops in different parts of the country on both rain-fed and irrigated land, showed that organic production yielded 95% of crops grown under traditional high-input conditions.
Since only 0.8% of all AM-FM radio stations in the U.S. report farm news, and weekly/daily newspapers had a 62% decline in farm writers, consumers are frequently misled on farm issues of great importance to them and their families.
Now I am going to scare you a little (well, it scares me). In the U.S., less than 1% of all imported food is inspected. The consolidation of agriculture puts all our food resources in the hands of a few large corporations. Genetic suicide of monoculture systems make the conventional agricultural system extremely vulnerable to agriterrorism acts on our food supply.
In contrast, a sustainable-type farming system based on local food production gives safety to our food system and adds invigorating growth to the rural community through more jobs, more businesses, and more money staying in the local economy.
If you are a consumer or businessman in a rural economy, the farm situation affects you directly (even in a big city, you are indirectly affected). A recent study of the economics of farming in southeast Minnesota showed:
In southeast Minnesota, 8,436 farms sold $866 million of farm products in 1997, and spent $947 million producing them. This was a net loss of $80 million. The 8,436 farm families had a net income of about $15,000. This was from government payments, rental income, and custom service work, not from producing crops or livestock. (This figure does not include off-farm income.) In contrast, a manager at a fast food restaurant can make $30,000 per year and have no capital investment in the business.
Farmers in the study spent $400 million per year purchasing inputs and credit from distant suppliers. Very little of this money built wealth for local families and businesses. Couple this with the fact that one-quarter of the region's farmland is absentee-owned. Both lending institutions and farm marketing channels are increasingly owned by distant corporate owners who have no commitment to more investment in the region, since their attention has turned to global markets.
The southeast Minnesota residents spent $506 million buying food, almost all from food products outside the state—only $2 million was bought directly from farmers in the region. This means $800 million each year flows out of the agricultural region. This is 10% of all household income earned by the regions 303,000 residents. Almost none of this money builds wealth in our neighborhoods.
Finding Food in Farm Country: The Economics of Food and Farming in Southeast Minnesota is online at http://www.crcworks.org/ff.pdf. Contact the Community Design Center—the report's owners—at 507-467-3446.
Figures 1-3 show a very short history of conventional-type agriculture. If this system was sustainable, then the large farms reaping 61% of farm sales would not have 63% of all farmers under their contract, producing crops and livestock for the big corporations. The farmers would be producing crops and livestock for themselves, whereby they would receive all the profits and not merely a wage from the corporations, whose contracts take away all decision making from the farmers.
In Figure 2, the 9% of farm sales applies to readers of this magazine. This is an area of agriculture that is growing, not declining. It is growing in numbers of farms owned by young farmers with ideas about direct marketing and add-on value to increase income without government payments. These farmers grow food for their community, while most conventional farmers grow massive amounts of commodities like corn, wheat, and beans, whose markets are controlled by the corporations.
Happy New Year and Profitable Farming,
Ron Macher
Publisher/Farmer