Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Would You Call 60,000 Cows Fenced Together on a Dirt Patch a "Farm?"

By Lisa M. Hamilton, Prairie Writers Circle. Posted May 13, 2009.


Between 2002 and 2007, the United States lost 43,603 real farms -- we can't let agribusiness control our food supply.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

When the Agriculture Department released its 2007 census recently, the news appeared surprisingly good: For the first time since World War II, the United States did not lose farms, it gained them -- 75,810, to be exact, for a total of 2.2 million.

But on closer inspection, the numbers aren't so hopeful. The discrepancy stems from this tricky question: What is a farm? The census has changed its definition nine times since 1850, most recently to "any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year."

This loose definition is meant to err on the side of inclusion, but ultimately it just errs. Take, for example, the four chickens I keep in my back yard. I sometimes sell eggs to neighbors, and at the going rate I could make $500 a year. If I got four more hens, my suburban home could qualify as a farm.

Silly, right? But where do you place the lower limit -- or the upper limit? The Cargill feedlot in Lockney, Texas, consists of 60,000 cattle kept in dirt yards and fattened on feed grown elsewhere. Is that a farm? While the census says yes, most Americans would say no.

So then, what is a farm? To answer that, we must first ask: Why do we care? Really, why is it good news when farms -- and, more importantly, the farmers who run them -- increase?

There are sentimental reasons, of course, but there is also a practical reason. Farmers are valuable because they bring human scale to our massive food system. Think of how many people, in the wake of each new salmonella scare, turn to the farmers market. We do so because we know that farmers bring oversight and ethics to food production, contributions that only individual humans can offer.

In the future, farmers' importance will only grow. Their intimate, human-scale knowledge of the land is what will allow agriculture to adapt to climate change. And as the cheap energy that industrial agriculture depends on disappears, it is farmers, with their small-scale innovation and sheer manual labor, who will feed us. Why do we care about having more farmers? Because deep down we know they are essential to a functioning food system.

So I offer this new definition of a farmer: someone who grows crops in sufficient quantity to be a true commercial entity, yet is still close enough to the ground to bring human scale and values to the process. Not the backyard chicken enthusiast, nor the corporation behind the feedlot, but the individual human on the land, growing our food.

Revisit the census with this definition, and the good news vanishes. The USDA's reported increases occurred exclusively in farms with yearly sales of less than $2,500 or more than $500,000 -- that is, the backyard operations and the corporate-scale businesses. In every other category, the numbers dropped or, in one case, stayed the same. Between 2002 and 2007, the United States actually lost 43,603 real farms.

To stop this hemorrhaging, we must shift from blindly encouraging production to investing in a system that values farmers and propagates them. We need to help new farmers obtain markets, land and credit. And we must inspire nonfarmers to enter the profession. Imagine, for instance, a program that puts interns on farms -- an AmeriCorps for agriculture. In this "AgriCorps," participants would learn the skills of farming and experience the lifestyle; hosts would receive valuable labor to bolster their businesses.

Such a program would face an obvious objection: AmeriCorps offers volunteers to public service organizations, but most farms are private businesses. Why should the rest of us help support them?

But maybe we need to reconsider that line of thinking. By defining farms and farmers as purely economic entities, we condemn them to a system that inevitably eliminates them. What if instead we began to see farmers as the public servants they are, and enabled them to be the public servants we need: stewards of our soil and water, pillars of our rural communities, and guardians of our food. Perhaps by redefining what farms mean to us, we can help their numbers grow -- this time, for real.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: agriculture, factory farming

Lisa M. Hamilton is the author of the new book “Deeply Rooted: Unconventional Farmers in the Age of Agribusiness.” She wrote this comment for the Land Institute’s Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kan. Hamilton lives in California.Read more about her.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Reality of Farming
Posted by: Jaipurr on May 13, 2009 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever you read about cattle farming just bear this in mind!
If all land dedicated to feeding cattle for "Big Muck Burgers" and the like was used to grow soya and cereals for DIRECT human consumption i.e. not passed through a cows digestive system, then we could eliminate starvation in the entire world.
That is fact, not propaganda

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Reality of Farming Posted by: jrgjniew
» RE: The Reality of Farming Posted by: Vulcanflu
» let's talk sources Posted by: inverse_agonist
» Global Hunger Posted by: vasumurti
Just say no to interns
Posted by: AndyF on May 13, 2009 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking as a certified organic fruit and vegetable grower with human scale annual sales, while the author's comments are well intentioned, they miss the mark completely as to what is required to improve the viability of human scale farming. There is no lack of people who would like to farm and are willing to invest time and energy in learning how to farm. What we need to ensure is that human scale farms can earn a reasonable return on their investment. The quickest way to get to this point would be to eliminate opportunities for the largest most industrial farms to externalize their costs.

If we properly regulated the environmental impacts of large concentrated animal farms and returned the commodity subsidy programs back to their roots, the economic logic of large scale operations goes away and the industry would naturally start to swing back towards smaller more diverse operations. Small farms shouldn't need cheap or subsidized labor to compete, instead we should try to level the subsidy and regulatory playing field so that they can be competitive on their own merits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just say no to interns Posted by: jrgjniew
Some Good News...
Posted by: grumble-bum on May 13, 2009 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand the author's disappointment in how the small farms data shakes out, but I think there is still good news to be found in it.

If there has been an increase in "backyard" farming, then I'd say that's just splendid. No, these sorts of endeavors aren't going to feed the masses in the same way that a viable, small scale concern would. But they help take individuals & even neighborhoods at least partially "off the grid" of factory/industrial agriculture. It's a start, & if you think about it, it's probably not too far off from how humanity used to feed itself for much of history. Of course we need more serious small farmers, but think of how many future ones might be inspired either by growing up in such a household or just living nearby to someone with a small garden & a few chickens or goats.

Earlier this year, I had a chance to attend a long-running organic farming conference here in the Midwest, as part of my job. It was amazing to see how many people attended, & how different they were. From older folks to people of Amish & Mennonite type faith communities, to very young exurban & "hippie" types & their families, many hundreds came together to talk shop & learn together. The energy & enthusiasm was palpable, & the organizers quoted attendance figures that seemed to indicate an almost exponential growth especially in the past few years. Considering the costs associated with farming, it's quite possible that many of those attendees might fall into the lower-earning category that the author describes & thus be lumped in with hobbyists. But with improved business models & over time, many could find their niche & flourish.

& that's just organic farmers. In my business we deal with many more small farmers who for whatever reason (practicality, cost, red tape) choose to go "almost" or "beyond" organic. These small-scale, local, sustainable farms are just as vital to overcoming the stranglehold of MassAg as the certified organic ones. I assume the author is combining these categories, but if taken side by side with the anecdotal evidence I observed at just one organic-related conference, I suspect that the small farm is putting up a valiant fight.

Obviously, we need to see a change in the way subsidies are targeted & the idea of having a "FarmCorp" program seems promising on many levels. But even without such needed policies, I'd argue that small, local farming is actually growing.

In other words, there's hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Horse Farms do not qualify for Ag loans
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 13, 2009 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I realize at first glance this may seem irrelevent, but when you've worked on one you realize how much they help other Ag industries bottom lines. Horse farms use Equipement (tractors,trailers, spreaders, Pick up Trucks).they also use hay,corn,oats,straw ...products grown by other farmers. Additionally we use byproducts like Shaving for bedding, helping increase profits for the mills and utilizing the otherwise disgarded 'waste'.
We also Produce a product, not just new crops of foals, but also those which are Trained for competition, recreation, Jobs (police & rescue).
Not to mention the amount of Vet Services and Cost we incur.Workers we employee.Shows and events we support.Community Services we provide (recreational,Theraputic..).
Yet when I called to find out about the Dept of Ags Loan program, after obtaining my degree in Horse Mgt from the School of Ag at MSU (on top of my bachelors), then working for years on large horse farms, I was Told Horse farms don't qualify for the Start up loans because it's considered a 'hobby'- No edible prodcut is produced.I'm not advocating the slaughter of horses mind you but anyone who has worked their ass off on a horse farm know, it's not a hobby, it's a lifestyle, just like all forms of agriculture.
And the most egregious fact comes from the reality that the US has the greatest Ags schools, turning out Grads who are not afford job opportunities because the Big Agri business perfers to pad their profit margins with low paid,undereducated,slave labor migrant workers.Zoological disease are jumping species not because these workers are lazy (they're not) they are just unqualified to recognize the signs of illness and lack the knowledged associated with infection control, and disease containment...and no one is there to oversee the operations who does (or cares).And if you think the living conditions are substandard for the livestock- check out the living quarters of the migrant workers.
BigAg presents not only a major issue in regards to animal welfare & health, but also worker and community. Plus the SOB's have driven up food prices as opposed to their original claim of keeping them low- 1983 a loaf of bread (on avg) $0.53- Now lucky if you can find it under two bucks- far beyond the 4% living increase, x 26 yrs = $1.57.And far more likely to pay anywhere from $2.50 to 3.50, and that's not the 'designer' loaves.
Big Ag is Killing US, literally- our health, our workers, our kids (hormones & ATB),our environment,our economy and abusing& neglecting the animals in the process.Break Up the Banks that are 'Too Big to Fail' and Break up the Big Agri Corps who have Failed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Don't Eat the Animals
Posted by: vasumurti on May 13, 2009 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter: What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."

---John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation

One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.

A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day. This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.

A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year. Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.

One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human's daily total. One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from 9 million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then. By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.

"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined."

---Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York

Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health. Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain. Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.

The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Don't Eat the Animals (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on May 13, 2009 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture. While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.

Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals. By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world's land resources.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

33 percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only 2 percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."

---Jeremy Rifkin, author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Reality check Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: eality check Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» i don't see a single valid argument here Posted by: inverse_agonist
» RE: Let's take a look at your arguments. Posted by: inverse_agonist
"Reality Check" indeed!!!
Posted by: Elendil on May 13, 2009 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While humans are indeed "omniverous", the fact remains that the OPTIMAL human diet, not the average, normative one, would seem to be a near-vegan one. Just because humans CAN derive nutrition from eating dead animals doesn't mean this is the healthiest diet for us as a species. I am a Seventh Day Adventist, so most of my friends are vegetarians (not many are true vegans, but perhaps 50% of them are pretty close) - and as a group we are healthier than the average by a significant degree. As far as vegans often appearing anemic, this is only true for complete vegans: it does appear that an absolutely animal-free diet is difficult to implement in practice: B12 and a few other things are difficult to obtain from purely plant-based sources (although if you include yeast, which is not a plant but a member of the fungi kingdom, B12 and most of the other nutrients often deficient in a purely vegan diet are supplied in abundance). I have found from 27 years of "fine-tuning" my diet, that i personally am healthiest when eating fish a couple of times a week, with no other animal products at all. For most, vegan diets are not practical, BUT it is an ***absolute certainty*** that at least 70% of the animal-based food in the diets of "first world" people could be easily and very healthfully eliminated - as has been detailed above, the ecological results alone would be staggering!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOTS MORE FARMS THAN REPORTED
Posted by: Birdland on May 13, 2009 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Using the $1000. criteria to define a farm means my neighbors basement is a farm. He makes about $75,000. a year off those plants. But he doesn't pay taxes on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LOTS MORE FARMS THAN REPORTED Posted by: jonestown kool-aid
No, I'd call that a feedlot
Posted by: AdamG on May 13, 2009 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, most of our food these days come from places that produce an ingredient for a recipe for disaster. Unless we actively seek out, find and help directly support the type of food production that will ensure a future, we are screwed. And where we can't find it, we better make it.

Stop being victims unless you like bread lines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EARTHLINGS
Posted by: Klaus on May 13, 2009 2:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google and watch "EARTHLINGS". It is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen depicting how humans are affecting the entire animal kingdom. I highly recommend this documentary to anyone who does not want to be willfully ignorant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Megafarms
Posted by: travelertoo on May 13, 2009 6:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These farms pay a lower fed. tax rate than the small farmer and pay NO local or state sales tax because all farmers just show a card and they don't have to. Some also get paid for not farming at all. Farmers get almost as much WELFARE as Citibank and the others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cows & Republicans
Posted by: Jaffe on May 13, 2009 7:26 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Free the cattle, let them roam as they do in India.
Capture the Republicans, strip them, stick them in the cattle pens, force-feed then slaughter them. Feed them to the billion-fold who are hungry.
Turn off your cellphones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not cool! Posted by: Quist
» RE: Cows & Republicans Posted by: Jaffe
Agriculture USA
Posted by: Onedayatatime on May 20, 2009 3:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a fact that Agriculture in the US is slanted toward corporations who care more for profit than stewardship. Taking care of the land and the animals on it is what FAMILY FARMERS AND RANCHERS have been taught to do for generations, yet those same caring families who produce your food (whether meat, grain or vegetables) nearly always lose their generational farms due to "death taxes" of 45 to 75% or put them so far in debt after they take out a loan to pay the taxes that they can't survive. The average age of a farmer or rancher in this country is 60 years old. Their kids see the hardships at home and go to the city to make a living wage. Young adults who would love to farm or ranch can't get a start up, nor can they make a living when Corporations,Commodities markets under cut their profits and fuel,seed, and feed prices put their balance sheets in the red.
I urge you all to see the DVD "Buffalo Lessons"
put out by Superior Livestock Company. It's an eye opener. When the family farmers and ranchers are gone, be afraid! Agribusiness (ConAgra, Cargill and Tyson)in this country is big business here and across the globe. Do you care?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement