Economy and Agriculture: The Future

As I explained previously, the number of farmers and folks who live on farms is at an all time low in this country, having dropped from 90% in 1790 to less than 1% today. Why is that, exactly?

Well, the way conventional farming works these days makes it very hard to make a living just by being a farmer. According to the EPA, 40% of farmers list another occupation other than farming, and another 14% of farmers are retired. The implication is that farming is just not that lucrative.

Au contraire, says the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. According to a 2010 study of theirs, farming can have quite the economic impact for a region... but you have to do it right. 

The study analyzed the impact of expanding fruit and vegetable production in six states in the upper Midwest (IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, WI). The study looked at 28 different fruits and vegetables, but did not include crops that are already being grown in ample quantities (e.g. sweet potatoes, corn and apples). The study examined two different scenarios. The first looked at the economic impact of increased production on the farm level; the second scenario at the impact of increased production for 28 metro areas in and around the six states.

In the first scenario, the study found:

• Increasing production of 28 fruits and vegetables in the six states could mean $882 million in sales on the farm level, more than 9300 jobs and $395 million in labor income. 
• If half the increased production were sold in producer-owned stores, this would mean 1405 establishments, 9652 employees, and over $287 million in labor income.
• Only 270,025 acres would be needed to grow the needed produce, roughly the same as the cropland in just one of Iowa's 99 counties.
• The job gains would be significantly higher than the number of jobs produced by the same number of acres under conventional production. For example, increased fruit and vegetable production in Iowa would result in 657 farm-level jobs, compared to just 131 jobs currently available with the same land under corn and soybean production.

In the second scenario, the study found:

• Increased fruit and vegetable production for the 28 metro markets would result in more than $637 million in farm-level sales and 6694 farm-level jobs - there are currently only 1892 jobs available under corn and soybean production in the area.
•  An additional 6021 jobs would be created due to the farmer-retail direct economic impact of the increased production.

Here's what I take away from this study: there is no substitute for diversified farming. Growing a large number of different crops not only makes a farm more marketable to consumers (who wants to just buy corn all the time?), but insures that if you have one crop fail due to a poor year, you have a back-up with your remaining crops.

Also, diversified farming is far better for soil health - growing the same crop in the same area will deplete the soil of necessary nutrients. Not to mention, the deer will know exactly where to find your green beans. Tricky devils.

So now we can agree: farming can, in fact, be enough to make a living. But there are still obstacles for those who are trying to make it in the farming business. So stay tuned in the days ahead for Part III!

Economy and Agriculture: The Past

 
It seems like every day I hear yet another story about the recession, the unemployment rate, or the number of jobs created or lost. Understandably, I suppose... given the tenacity of our country's economic lows, and the failure of the "good times" to show so much as the tip of its nose, it is not surprising that the story of America's economy is on the front page more often than not.

Dean (of Dean and Susan Vidal, owners of Brightwood Vineyard and Farm, where I spent much of 2011) was fond of talking about how sustainable agriculture - specifically, small family farms with a local focus - could be instrumental in turning our economy around.

History agrees with him. One theory I've heard (although one I can't cite because I don't remember where I read it... sorry, I know you're probably really upset about that) is that one reason the Great Depression hit so hard was that, up until that point, the majority of American citizens lived on farms. Their needs as consumers were fairly low because they grew and made most of what they needed, so recessions never seemed to have as much of an impact or last for too long.*

Interesting. Let's examine this idea further.

By the 1930s, there had been a significant exodus from the countryside to the cities, thanks to the Industrial Revolution. In 1790, farmers were 90% of the labor force. By 1860, it was 58%; by 1900, 38%; and by 1930, the beginning of the Great Depression, farmers were 21% of the labor force. According to the USDA, the number of people living on farms declined from around 40% in 1900 to around 27% in 1930. While the Great Depression would have been devastating regardless, it's likely that having the lowest percentage of people to date living on farms worsened the situation. (And the Dust Bowl probably didn't help.)

So back to the present.

Today, less than 1% of Americans say they are farmers, and only 2% live on farms. The number of farms has decreased from 6000 in 1900 to around 2000 today, with the average farm nearly doubled in size. But perhaps most telling: the average number of commodities per farm has decreased from more than five in 1900 to less than two. And as Michael Pollan famously investigated in The Omnivore's Dilemma, many of these farms are only surviving thanks to government subsidies for crops of soybeans and corn.

Although most people probably don't think the state of agriculture in our country has much, if anything, to do with the ongoing recession, I think the opposite. If more people grew their own food instead of shelling out their increasingly scarce dollars to purchase it, would this recession have been so bad, or lasted so long? History says no.

Frankly, I think updating our food system to one that focuses on diverse production, a local focus, and an interest in the environmental conservation of their land and soil health can have enormous economic benefits.

And if you come back soon, I'll talk about how that works in Part II.





*Incidentally, who knew there were so many recessions in American history?