This week we're planning the planting calendar for the year - more or less finessing spreadsheets for hours and hours. While on the computer I happened to check the Tiny Farm Blog and found a very insightful quote on the subject of scale that I'd like to share with you because it is a subject that is important to the business end of farming and often overlooked:
[Mike farms a total of 2 acres in Southern Ontario]
"This idea of SCALE has been on my mind quite a bit, lately. More and more people these days seem to want to get back to the land and start farming, and the farming they want to do is usually of the tiny variety. Like what’s pictured on [my] blog. Small-plot growing is understandable, accessible, hard work, economically tough, genuinely community-building, fun…all of that stuff. Big tractors and combines and other imposing (and EXPENSIVE) machinery don’t figure into the picture. In my few years of market gardening, I’ve only ever driven my Kubota compact tractor, and I know nothing practical about larger scale growing gear.
This is interesting for the simple reason that, if “we” (referring, at least, to Canada and the US) are going to change what we eat, where it comes from, on any sort of large scale, it’s difficult to imagine our part of the world, with its convenient supermarkets and complex food chain, suddenly fed mainly by hundreds of thousands or MILLIONS of postcard tiny farms. Gathering food for tens and hundreds of millions of people from all those tiny farms would be…complicated. So it seems to me, there’s tiny farming and mid-size farming, and figuring out how they fit together. Hmm…"
There is no right answer to what is the "appropriate" scale but there are some reasonable limits. I suspect that Tiny Farm is as small as you can be and still make a living and I seriously doubt that a 1600 acres lettuce monocrop is sustainable. There is a big middle ground. "Appropriate scale" really depends on what you want to do with your life, whether your techniques are sustainable for your soil and climate, and what your target market is.
Chelsea and I came to farming as environmentalists and pioneers, but economic success is what keeps us farming. Activism doesn't pay the mortgage. The most important variable to us is economic. We've got to be able to make a decent living - more than just pay the bills. We believe that farmers should be respected just as much as any other small business entrepreneur, and financially rewarded as such. This is not merely because we are proud; it is the key to making sustainable farming into a movement capable of feeding the continent. The simple fact is, if it isn't profitable - people won't do it (and worse, banks won't loan money on it).
Here are some of the reasons that encourage us to be smaller.
- More face to face interaction at the farmers' markets.
- A higher profit margin per item (especially if you only do retail)
- Less employee drama - aka no employees.
- Less administrative costs.
- More hands in the dirt time.
- Less upfront investment.
- Oklahoma needs 10 times more local and organic produce than is currently growing.
- More labor saving equipment (thus lowering our prices for the customer).
- More full time helpers - and pay them well (Green Jobs)!
- More wholesale clients - with more predictable and consistent demand.
So that is our dilemma! I'm not done with the planting calendar just yet so I'm not sure how big the farm will be but I'm guessing we will rotate through about 12 acres next year. Hopefully that will allow us to hire a few full time employees as well as some summer help. With any luck we will be able to get some new farm tools too!What do you think about appropriate scale?
-Don
It is an interesting conundrum, isn't it? For most of history, the overwhelming majority of the population was involved in agriculture and only agriculture, and in most parts of the world, this barely created enough food to go around (not that it did (or does) go around evenly--there are obviously so many sides to this discussion!).
ReplyDeleteNow the developed world, at least, feeds its mostly urban population on the products of a small percentage of farmers and ranchers. Most of the techniques used by these giant-scale agribusinesses aren't sustainable in the long run environmentally, but what else can sustain a largely urban, industrial society? What scale of food production can maximize both environmental and societal (for lack of a better term) sustainability and responsibility?
The fact that you guys want to be able to send your kids to college indicates that you probably don't want to return to the days when everyone had to work full-time at feeding themselves--which, ultimately, is what micro-scale farming leads to. I don't want to return to those days, as much as I love gardening myself and would like to expand my agricultural repertoire personally. The trick, I guess, is to figure out how big is big enough to support a society of colleges, hospitals, enterprise, and all that's good about the developed world, without falling into the 20th century's "bigger/faster/stronger/more is better no matter what" mindset that disregards the consequences of innovations. Small-scale farming and local farmers' markets are the beginnings of figuring out this solution, but they just can't feed this many people, even if their eating habits change--and food culture is yet another conundrum needing to be addressed if anything other than giant-scale monoculture is ever to be profitable.
Which is, I guess, all a convoluted way to say that I can't wait until spring when I can get more of your tasty food and contribute to your future childrens' future college fund. ^_^
Also, if I had seen you had a poll before it closed, I would have voted for lamb. But is it weird that that's because I can feed lamb by-products (well, and meat, but like I'd leave them any) to the dogs and pork isn't as good for them? Lamb is delicious, but as a human, I'd eat either of them.
ReplyDeleteI could totally hook you up with a market for organ meats and other by-products for most any animal you hypothetically ever decided to raise, though. In case you don't have said market yet and that factors into your calculations.
I like your point that the population in industrialized (or post-industrialized) countries is not involved with agriculture. It is something like 1% of the population now that grows food for the other 99% - a totally new arrangement in a broad historical context. That has its upsides and downsides as you pointed out.
ReplyDeleteI think farming is a good business to be in and a healthy way to live ones life, and I wish that more people could have that oppurtunity. If we could get that 1% on up around 5% or so, while providing stable employment in rural economies I think it would positively benefit rural communities and the culture at large. Important issues such as soil and water conservation, wildlife conservation, and farmland preservation wouldn't seem so abstract to most people if they or somebody they knew was involved with agriculture.
I hope that there is a medium between gargantuan economies of scale and millions of "postage stamp" sized mini- farms trying to feed the masses. Some crops are particularly well suited for large scale: commododity crops and grassfed cattle are good examples. I know that you can't make a living off of 10 acres of wheat or 10 head of cattle, while it is possible to make a living off 10 acres of vegetables. So there is room for diversity of tactics as we all try to make the system of agriculture work for us and the earth.
One final point I'd like to make is that urban gardens are an often overlooked part of the equation. They are producing food and teaching people about agriculture, in places that would otherwise be occupied by lawn. Lawn is the most resource intensive crop in the US and the least beneficial. Gardens also provide food security for households, as well as specialty and high-value crops that otherwise might not be available. For example, I don't think I can afford to grow butter beans even though they are one of the best vegetables there is - but a gardener can justify growing a few plants.
Well, I better stop rambling and get to work!! btw Katie, it looks like it might be a while before the lambs come around - but we would be happy to hook you up with organ meat.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI do believe our society is slowly becoming more aware of its food chain, and thus more concerned with the issues you mentioned. And while increasing the percentage of the population making a living in agriculture could have a positive effect, I think increasing the percentage who have even just a tangential involvement could be even more important. That is, only so many people can be farmers, but many more can buy from them, help them in other ways, and/or have small gardens or even just a few pots of herbs of their own. I think "growing food" and "basic animal husbandry" really should be taught in schools, both as basic useful skills and to make people more aware of the impact of their eating decisions, not just in a touchy-feely "oh those poor animals" or "it's cool to 'go green'" way but in a practical, tangible, this-is-where-eggs-come-from kind of way. I mean, I certainly wish I had more of an education in those areas. I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to turn a lamb into a lamb chop if it arrived gift-wrapped on my doorstep. I'd end up with a grumpy old pet sheep and an empty stomach.
ReplyDeleteI like your point about different crops being suited to different scales; I hadn't thought of it, but it's so obvious. It shows how quickly things have changed--my grandparents were reared on cattle ranches, and they could have told me that right away. But, see, that's the point--feedlot cattle made such operations obsolete, and the land's been rented to oil companies for decades now, with any food-production potential that space has wasted.
Certainly I love my own tiny urban garden! So much of my life begins to revolve around that little plot of land: how best to coax food out of it and how best to cook the results. As delicious as your food is, nothing tastes better than that which I've grown myself. It does so much to increase your awareness about all the food products you use: do you really want to put those tomatoes that you sweated for months over in a salad of lettuce grown by some stranger and trucked in from who knows where? Moreover, I think it makes one less wasteful in general. I try not to waste food, but I feel even worse about it when I grew it myself. Looking back, I see all sorts of ways I could and should have preserved last year's bounty, and I hope to do better this year. But once you start thinking about how to get the most out of your produce, you start to do the same with everything else you consume, which is good all around.
As for lawns, coming from the southwest, I do not understand the midwesterner's obsession with them at all. Why bother? Xeriscape it and have done.
I figured you were speaking hypothetically and/or rather in the future with the lambs, but if and when they do arrive, I'll certainly want more than just the organs! Just saying I'll be happy to get it all. ^_^
Scale is a huge issue for me, also. I have the corner on a specialty market in my area---farm raised,free range Muscovy duck. I worked hard to build a wholesale market to fine restaurants and then added retail at the farmers market. But I have more demand than I can fill and not enough acres, time, or physical ability to handle more ducks. So what now? Is it possible to form farmer associations---i.e., assist other farmers around me in adding duck to their range of production so that we can supply demand and all get a little piece of the pie. Who sets the price and who gets the sale if the demand drops? In the end it seems like I am just setting myself up for someone with 30 acres and tractors and big barns to steal my product and sell it cheaper. So frustrating! www.ruffledfeathersandspilledmilk.com
ReplyDelete