Dan Barber on Farming Changes

[nofunlatte]

From today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opi...

Barber (of Blue Hill fame) has an op-ed piece in which he talks about agricultural issues and the changes he perceives are necessary for the future. Folks, this is in the Michael Pollan mindset (which I largely agree with). He raises some interesting points, but I'm a little confused about one issue:

"In fact, small farms are the most productive on earth. A four-acre farm in the United States nets, on average, $1,400 per acre; a 1,364-acre farm nets $39 an acre."

Has anyone read about this before? How were these figures derived? It's my understanding that smaller farms are producing higher-valued products (e.g. fruits and vegetables) than larger farms (think wheat). Think about a sprawling Kansas wheat farm vs. the New Jersey market garden producing blueberries. Surely, then, one cannot compare the two. Or are these figures in Barber's piece based on two differently sized farms that produce the same crop? Anyone have any insight they can share with me? Also, I'm interested in the general impressions/opinions of chowhounds.

[FED]

he doesn't footnote it, but i think you've made some fair assumptions. as much as i support the local/seasonal/sustainable movement, i think it's a dangerous mistake to think that it will feed the country with anything like the prices people have become accustomed to. while it's a terrific alternative for those of us who can afford it, i think it would be disastrous as national policy. anyone remember malnutrition? pellagra?

his heart is in the right place, but i'm afraid he plays pretty fast and loose with the facts. the whole "organic produce is 40% higher in nutritional value" argument has been pretty thorougly discounted (yes, higher in some things, some times; but lower in other things other times ...pretty much of a wash).

[sommrluv]

it's probably twisting of the statistics. Most 'large' farms tend to be one crop producers, even if they alternate. Whereas small organic farms might be family farms that cater to a neighborhood or farmers market, and offer a variety of things , and therefore NEED to vary their goods. In addition, they get gov't money and tax breaks (this is NOT a complaint, they need those things to survive in most cases) and he could be counting that as income.

There are lots of books about how you could support yourself or be entirely self sufficient on 1-5 acres, it's the same concept, basically. You can keep cows(not a ton, several head...selling one or two head a year would bring you quite a profit, pigs, chicken,a huge amount of produce, amount of corn, herbs, etc all on 3 acres.

Can I agree and disagree? LOL. I think he is skewing some facts to support his argument, but he does have some basis. I do like him for the most part.

[FED]

oh, make no mistake, i like him a lot, too. and i do think he's on the side of the angels. where we part company is his belief that this kind of farming is a workable alternative to the present mode.

[HarryK]

It will work in addition to. Not instead of.

That's the difference between Barber's dream and reality as we know it.

[FED]

exactly, as a supplement, it's a dream come true and the hope for good cooking. as a substitute, it's a recipe for disaster.

[nofunlatte]

Agreed. With the both of you. "In conjunction with" as opposed to "instead of" large-scale farming. I do try to eat sustainably, locally if possible, but it can be difficult. Not just costwise, though clearly that is a factor, but in many areas, procuring local, sustainable, and/or organic food can be a problem, especially in winter.

That said, I do think he took some statistical liberties with the farm size/productivity comparison.

[Eldon Kreider]

There are some real problems with calculating farm profitability when the land is owned and operated by the same person who also supplies all fixed and working capital versus all land rented and labor hired with bank or other financing for machinery and working capital. The usual calculation uses some implicit wages, rent and interest costs with profitability being sensitive to the specific values used. By Barber's figures that four-acre farm with $1400/acre profit has a total profit of $5,600, which is not much of an annual income. Who knows how they came up with that number.

In any case getting $1400/acre total revenue, not profit, on any grain is a stretch. Even with 200 bushels of corn per acre, a VERY high yield requiring a lot of fertilizer, would require an elevator price of $7/bushel. September corn futures closed today $6.194/bushel while country elevator prices are often 40 to 70 cents below that. On my own farm in south-central Kansas a yield of 50 bushels/acre for hard red winter wheat would be a great crop. To gross $1400/acre would require an elevator price of $28/bushel instead of today's $7.68 for new crop wheat. Clearly nobody growing grain at any scale is making a huge profit per acre. Small farms with high per acre revenue are producing specialty crops with high labor inputs.

"With a less energy-intensive food system in place, we will need more muscle power devoted to food production, and more people on the farm." He wants our food grown with a lot of hand (or maybe animal) labor instead of using gasoline and diesel powered machinery. I wonder where he plans to find the people willing to do that work.

[nofunlatte]

You bring up some good points wrt revenue calculations. Thanks for putting this into real dollar terms.

[FED]

yes, but i'm sure barber might ask "why don't you grow something like heirloom tomatoes?"