Farmers and Neighbors

I’ve recently begun working with a Rhode Island farmer who has ‘neighbor problems’ and, therefore, Town problems.

The fellow has a diverse farm in a rural community. From a production perspective, it is exactly the kind of operation the State needs – substantial vegetables, free range chickens, a small herd of cows, a small piggery, dog breeding, and a horse training center his daughter operates.

Unfortunately, the current piggery and chicken shed abut a residential neighbor. The neighbor has objected to the chickens and pigs…and the Town has decided to attempt to deny him the piggery and free range chickens by contending with a zoning variance he obtained when he purchase the property in 1997.

He has attempted to discuss changing the land uses to move the piggery and chicken barn (he even spent $8,000 to build a new piggery pad)…but got nowhere. From my perspective, a new land use and farm management plan, with some help from USDA NRCS on conservation practices, would solve the neighbor’s issues and make it an exemplary farm….one we could use to demonstrate practices to new farmers.

But now he is threatened with the loss of his farm livelihood through a Town initiated legal process. I’m hopeful we can gather ‘cooler’ heads and resolve a thoughtful solution.

It’s a classic conflict for densely settled communities. ( See Article)

The Cost of Healthy Eating…Not So Much

If you’re already a kale and lentils kind of person (we know there are a lot of frugal foodies out there) — you won’t be surprised by this finding: According to a new study from some economists at the USDA, eating a healthy diet isn’t necessarily more expensive than a diet loaded with sugar and fat. In fact, fruits and vegetables are often cheaper when you calculate the cost in a smarter way.

The NPR Report…with a link to the USDA Study

A Speech at the Rhode Island GrowSmart Conference

For the past ten years I have eaten well (by that I mean responsibly and consciously). I was eating, of course, from the geography of Rhode Island…a place that mainstream commodity agriculture finds an ‘eccentric farmer’.

A number of things were evident about Little Rhody. It could only feed itself for three days without food coming from ‘outside/in’. It had beautiful landscapes in the middle of the largest wealth centers in America – land prices were CRAZY high (In 2007 the highest per acre ag land price in the country). Even well financed land conservation entities were able to secure only small pieces of environmental protection. Farmers could not convey properties to their heirs without paying large tax bills – tax bills their descendents could not afford without selling their land. The State was also in a profound economic recession – leaving social service agencies stretched beyond their capabilities to provide both food and shelter.

All of these things – and a number of cultural changes – had left the State with a bad case of economic and food insecurity.

At the same time middle America (and Rhode Island’s middle income neighborhoods) had discovered the idea of better nutrition and the local food movement. Whole Foods Market had recently opened its third store in the State – and crowds were willing to pay significantly more for better quality food. A small and energetic group of young farmers were trying to make their way back to the farm. Others were using those locally grown goods to produce baked items, cheeses, cured meats, jams and jellies, honey…the list goes on.

In spite of its utility and ability to get media attention, the food movement was not economically seductive. Industrial agriculture was the money grinder…what does the local vegetable farm know about financial risk management and options trading? The State of Rhode Island (and Providence Plantations) was heavily investing in computer gaming, not farm growth. Local banks had little knowledge of agricultural business models and were hesitant to lend.

I think it helps to think beyond the borders of the farm. Better food (meaning locally grown, nutritious food that is a pleasure to eat) means better health and less dis-ease. Sustainable farming means less energy inputs and negative environmental outputs. Growing more food in a State that consumes more than $1B in food and beverage each year (of which less than 1% is locally provided) would mean more jobs.

With a little arithmetic, I determined to increase from 1% locally provided food to 10% locally provided food is economic growth of $90,000,000 per year – not to mention the reduced health care costs and increased productivity that good nutrition provides.

After a number of discussions we decided to devote a good portion of Company time to Rhode Island food system economic development.

The more I thought about that decision, the happier I was… it would be small in scale (I’ve grown to realize an individual can’t think globally…or at least to do so is a conceit), it would very much depend on working cooperatively (a good thing in my concept of getting Rhode Island out of its funk), and it would work as well for low income neighborhoods as the wealthy suburb (easy to manage issues of equity).

Now for the mechanics (…and the mystery…for growing plants and animals is mysterious).

Let me be boring for a couple of minutes because I think performance measures and accountability are important to Rhode Island in its current situation.

Our work needs to manage two streams – the farm/environment/food production stream and the finance/market stream. We need to be realistic about the capacity of current farm and agriculture folks to either expand their farms or train new, young individuals/families to farm well. We need opportunities to buy underutilized farmland and restorable urban parcels for specialty crop production (…and conservation minded investors to partner with our land fund). We need a farmer financial support system to operate an incentive and lending facility. We need the existing USDA NRCS conservation incentive program to rethink its practice payments for urban and small farmers…and we need an active promotion, marketing, and logistics system for local food producers (Farm Fresh RI is already working on those tasks).

We thought a feasible, energetic goal was to provide opportunities for twenty five farmers over ten years to; 1) expand their operations (or start new operations), 2) have adequate financial support and affordable leases for those twenty five, and 3) have staff assistance from us for business and farm management planning.

In order to accomplish that goal, we must create:

1) A revolving farmland fund organized with a ‘lease-to-own’ model holding minimally five properties (both rural farms and urban parcels) and capitalized at $2.5M.
2) A limited development venture integrating affordable residential development on an urban edge farm with multiple farm sites.
3) A micro-fund capitalized at $250,000 to make small incentive payments/loans to new, socially disadvantaged farms with payback periods of five to seven years.
4) Restructured USDA NRCS Program Payments to create more equity for new, limited resource, and urban growers.
5) Improved risk management tools for new, limited resource, and urban growers.
6) Brownfield redevelopment policy that integrates urban market growers needs without sacrificing safety and health considerations.
7) An urban growers’ alliance to advocate and promote urban market growing.

Is their any capacity to increase those numbers? Twenty-five new farm operations will add $1.25M of local production. Remember … to supply 10% of the State’s food required $90M of production each year… that is 72 times 25 farmers… or 1800 new or expanded farm operations!

In order to reach that 10% goal, we would need more than 10,000 acres of new farmland in Rhode Island. Rhode Island has over 60,000 acres of farmland currently, with about 10 percent in permanent protection.

In the bigger picture, can New England provide its own food? I bring this up because a well-respected cultural historian, Brian Donahue, has recently worked on that question and arrived at a qualified ‘YES’. We’d need to add 6,000,000 acres of farmland – most of it pasture – and import quite a bit of grain (even feeding livestock grass and having hogs and chickens free-range in woodlands and fields). Remarkably, it is a feasible task….and Brian Donahue did his study based upon a goal of growing above 80% of our food (we’ll still want coffee, citrus, chocolate, etc.) by 2060. Another New England agricultural thinker, John Piotti (Maine), believes New England has a lot to offer – adequate land, plentiful water resources, and accommodating weather (yes, in spite of us thinking ourselves in harsh ‘winterland’, northern New England is in the same latitude as the growing regions of France – and southern New England is parallel to the growing regions of Italy).

Interestingly, Donahue also assumed we would eat smarter. So our healthcare costs would change for the better and our productivity would increase. He also assumed any growth (he estimates New England will grow only modestly) will be smarter.

That is good for perspective… but let’s get back to May 11, 2012. What can we do today?…and by ‘we’ I mean everyone.

Wendell Berry in his essay “The Pleasures of Eating” answers that question simply. Eat Responsibly….eating is an agricultural act. Eating ends the annual drama of the food economy that begins with planting and birth. He suggests:

Participate in food production to the extent that you can.

Prepare your own food. (I would add to this, select your restaurants carefully)

Learn the origins of the food you buy, and buy the food that is produced closest to home.

Whenever you can, deal with a local farmer, gardener, or orchardist.

Learn, in self-defense, as much as you can of the economy and technology of industrial food production.

Learn what is involved in the best farming and gardening.

Learn as much as you can, by direct observation and experience if possible, of the life histories of the food species.

Wendell says he likes to eat vegetables and fruits that lived happy and healthy lives in good soil.

By eating responsibly we create the demand that lets us save farmland and grow more food. By eating responsibly we fix environmental problems. By eating responsibly we fix healthcare problems. By eating responsibly we can approach our economic dilemma with a happy and healthy body.

Agribusiness Part 2

This morning my wife reinforced that I had been living life in an artificial bubble of NGOs and other private do-gooders -many of them spending most of their time gathering money to maintain their ‘do-gooderness’.

She is right! A year ago I started working with a number of young Rhode Island farmers…and Lord have they changed my ways! There ain’t no abstractions about growing things…and growing things without artifical help.

One of those new colleagues, Greg Gerritt (who is working on compost initiatives) sent this interesting article on monoculture agriculture (and the current issues with weed resistance).

Article

Agribusiness

In doing some Internet research I came across an agribusiness company that was new to me.

Bunge

It caught my eye because I’ve not spent much time looking at agribusinesses…and their website was like visiting a foreign land.

Yes, I work with farmers. Yes, I care about ‘the environment’.

But I do not understand? What are they, Bunge, doing? They have all of this information about corporate responsibility, sustainability, etc.  While reading, you realize they have enormous negative impacts…and they are ‘feeling good’ about starting to change those impacts.

The Farm Bill Debate

At the same time I see farm folks lining up to have their say on Farm Bill negotiations I read this from the Delta Farm Press:

It must have been a lot of fun to show up at meetings in the summer of 2010 and bash your sitting congressman or senator. No one knows how many video clips were shot of Tea Party members shouting down members of the U.S. House and Senate, some of whom had put their careers on the line for farmers.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost, so to speak, and, for the first time in decades farmers are faced with the very real possibility of not having a new farm bill or much chance of an extension of the current legislation when the 2008 law expires later this year.

By now, most of you have seen reports of the new federal budget proposed by Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee. The proposal would cut $33 billion from federal farm programs or about $10 billion more than the House and Senate Agriculture Committees proposed last fall.

Unlike previous years, this time the House of Representatives is filled with freshman members who have little or no sense of the purpose of farm programs or the stability they provide to agriculture. All most of them know is they think they have a mandate to cut federal spending.

House and Senate Democrats have tried to point this out in their statements about the Ryan budget. Rep. Colin Peterson, D-Minn., and ranking member of the House Ag Committee, said farmers could pretty much kiss any chance of a new farm bill goodbye for this year.

Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and one of the principal authors of the 2008 farm bill, said the Ryan budget poses real threats to programs such as health care and farm programs for residents of his state of North Dakota and the nation.

“The cuts to agriculture programs will especially hurt North Dakota, and would pull the rug out from under thousands of hard working farm and ranch families,” he said in a statement released by his office.

Conrad said the Ryan plan “is a mix of deep reductions in federal spending and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans. It calls for cutting federal support for education and job training programs, energy and infrastructure programs, Pell grants for college students, and health care programs, including Medicare. 

“The House Republican proposal also upends a bipartisan agreement on the amount of federal support for agriculture programs and will make it extremely difficult to craft a new farm bill this year.”

As Conrad notes, the Ryan budget calls for about $180 billion in cuts in the USDA budget, including $31 billion to commodity and crop insurance programs, $133.5 billion to nutrition assistance programs, and about $16 billion to conservation programs. That’s in contrast to last fall’s House and Senate agriculture committee proposal to cut $23 billion in agriculture, conservation and nutrition program funding.

“We had an agreement on what the savings would be out of agriculture and then Congressman Ryan comes along and throws that agreement out the window,” Conrad said. “In order to get this farm bill done now, it’s going to require House Republicans to tell Congressman Ryan that his plan goes way too far and that they’re not going to go for it.”  

The Purpose of Government

Yesterday I attended a small meeting of folks interested in Rhode Island’s food system. They have established a Rhode Island Food Policy Council. They are sincere and want to improve local food production, access to affordable food, etc.

As I listened, I realized that many of them see their task as changing policies in the State to better serve the Council’s goals  – improve zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans, instruction on how to register your business, keeping records, etc. 

On its face, that is a reasonable task. As I listened, however, an anxiety grew. I squirmed in my seat. My hands started to shake a bit. I grew generally uncomfortable.

Then I heard someone express their belief that the problem with expanding farming in the State is that community comprehensive plans do not speak to agriculture…and his conclusion is…therefore you can’t farm.

At that point I became an anarchist! 

The purpose of government is NOT to control the people.

The purpose of government, driven by the will and insight of the people, is to provide guidance and education. Yes there is a need to control certain harmful and irrational behaviors, but even that should be done in a caring manner! 

Deciding to farm in a city is not harmful or irrational. 

Deciding it is important to grow healthy food should be guided by the government… not controlled by the government.

The business of selling your healthy food should be guided by the government… not regulated.

A young urban farmer in Providence recently delivered a speech at the National Farmers Union where she professed that she found her sense of patriotism and love of country through urban farming.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people does not mean that government controls every act….it means love thy neighbor.

I would suggest that the Rhode Island Food Policy Council not aid or collaborate with any person or entity in the State whose purpose is not careful and loving.

Rural Farming Lessons from China

China’s industrial growth has challenged the economic might of the United States, but the country’s advances have not occurred evenly. They have come at the expense of rural development, particularly in regions characterized by unfavorable natural conditions and fragile ecosystems. Although China has attained a high degree of grain sufficiency (about 95 percent) and remains a net food exporter, there are signs of enduring serious problems. Poverty combined with food insecurity and malnutrition continues to affect around 150 million Chinese people, according to recent estimates based on the World Bank poverty line of U.S.$1.25. This has exacerbated the widening gap between the wealthy coastal areas, supported by industrial development, and the impoverished peasants of the northwest and southwest who rely on subsistence production. In addition, agricultural income is generally declining and represents a lower percentage of rural household income; many farmers are losing interest in farming, with women and older people becoming the main agricultural cultivators.

Participatory research conducted in southwest China has resulted in concrete strategies to deal with these challenges. Farmers, led by women, have organized effective local organizations for technology development, seed management, and market linkages, with innovative support from the staff of public research and extension agencies. Collaborative field experiments to improve crop varieties—an approach known as participatory plant breeding—local biodiversity fairs, organic farming practices, new market channels, and new forms of research and policy support are contributing to improved farmer livelihoods and to a more dynamic and equitable process of rural development. Modernizing rural development using traditional and local knowledge stands in stark contrast to the shift to industrialized agriculture in China’s coastal regions. Both approaches will be needed if China is to address the challenges of food security, well-being, sustainable natural resource management, and biodiversity conservation.

The Article