DAPNET Forums Archive › Forums › Sustainable Living and Land use › Sustainable Farming › Carl Russell on VPR
- This topic has 18 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
Robert MoonShadow.
- AuthorPosts
- April 9, 2009 at 9:58 pm #40444
goodcompanion
ParticipantA link to Vermont Public Radio’s program Vermont Edition broadcast today, discussing the trend towards smaller farms and increasing backyard food production.
http://www.vpr.net/flash/audio_player/audio_player.php?id=28038
Good to hear Carl on the air. I would have called in but I was watching a 3-year old and also busy packing for the bread CSA.
Just in case anyone was wondering how much Vermont needs an agricultural renaissance, I came across some stunning statistics the other day. In 1974 we had some 2,200,000 acres of class I and II farmland in production. By 2002 only 710,000. According a statewide food self-sufficiency analysis at that time (2002) we would need nearly all of those acres for the state to be self-sufficient in food.
April 9, 2009 at 10:32 pm #51663OldKat
Participant@goodcompanion 7867 wrote:
A link to Vermont Public Radio’s program Vermont Edition broadcast today, discussing the trend towards smaller farms and increasing backyard food production.
http://www.vpr.net/flash/audio_player/audio_player.php?id=28038
Good to hear Carl on the air. I would have called in but I was watching a 3-year old and also busy packing for the bread CSA.
Just in case anyone was wondering how much Vermont needs an agricultural renaissance, I came across some stunning statistics the other day. In 1974 we had some 2,200,000 acres of class I and II farmland in production. By 2002 only 710,000. According a statewide food self-sufficiency analysis at that time (2002) we would need nearly all of those acres for the state to be self-sufficient in food.
Erik,
Did they say if the other nearly 1.5 million acres just “went out of production”, was planted to trees, or ended up under pavement? If the land is still open and just fallow, that could be a good thing for your (beautiful) state. It would mean that the land was resting, maybe recovering and would still be available for future production. If it is in trees, still not a bad thing. Subdivisions and other urban sprawl is a whole ‘nuther matter, hard to see any of that ever coming back into production.
Unfortunately, this same story seems to be playing out from coast to coast. I saw a sign today on a beautiful piece of property that was in rice production last year; future home of “Rooms To Go”, whatever that is.
April 9, 2009 at 11:18 pm #51657ParticipantIt is just one statistic and tells only part of a story. Probably the “lost acreage” was a combination of:
1. Former farmland subdivided for development, which in Vermont means lots of 10 acres or more in most cases. The land in this case may or may not remain in production, but in any case ceased to be registered with the USDA.
2. Former farmland abandoned but not subdivided, left to grow to forest or brush, and so no longer registered.
This being Vermont, little pavement is involved. But a lot of former farmland has changed hands from families with long histories on their farms to owners of what are essentially huge suburban lots, who generally do not farm their plots and commute to their work. I think you could make the case that the land ownership structure we have now in the state is hugely wasteful of both agricultural land and transportation. All these roads that used to be dirt but now need to be paved so everyone can commute to Burlington at 50 mph.
My farm was subdivided by the previous owner from an original size of 300 some acres down to 110, one house lot at a time. The original core of the farm, which I now own, borders 16 ten-acre lots! None of them has more than a small vegetable garden.
April 10, 2009 at 1:24 am #51661jen judkins
ParticipantThanks for posting that link, Erik. I caught the second half of the program today, but missed Carl’s piece.
April 12, 2009 at 6:13 am #51666Robert MoonShadow
ParticipantErik ~ A CSA for bread? Interesting idea. Does it include assorted baked goods, or just different breads? I’ve heard (and seen) of the usual vegetable/fruit & the dairy/cheese & the meat CSAs, never a bread CSA. Does it operate as a ‘stand-alone’ or as part of a larger, more typical CSA? And I wish I had 10 acres of my own, although twice that would fit my intended operation better – 10 would most certainly do me just fine. If I had anything but dialup, I’d be interested in listening to Carl’s broadcast, too.
April 12, 2009 at 11:58 am #51664Participant@goodcompanion 7875 wrote:
It is just one statistic and tells only part of a story. Probably the “lost acreage” was a combination of:
1. Former farmland subdivided for development, which in Vermont means lots of 10 acres or more in most cases. The land in this case may or may not remain in production, but in any case ceased to be registered with the USDA.
2. Former farmland abandoned but not subdivided, left to grow to forest or brush, and so no longer registered.
This being Vermont, little pavement is involved. But a lot of former farmland has changed hands from families with long histories on their farms to owners of what are essentially huge suburban lots, who generally do not farm their plots and commute to their work. I think you could make the case that the land ownership structure we have now in the state is hugely wasteful of both agricultural land and transportation. All these roads that used to be dirt but now need to be paved so everyone can commute to Burlington at 50 mph.
My farm was subdivided by the previous owner from an original size of 300 some acres down to 110, one house lot at a time. The original core of the farm, which I now own, borders 16 ten-acre lots! None of them has more than a small vegetable garden.
Erik,
This exactly what I was hoping HADN’T happened to your state. Everybody I talk to tellls the same tale, regardless of where they live in this country. I wonder if other parts of the world are so short sighted? I’m NOT saying people don’t have the “right” to subdivide their land, and I am NOT saying that others don’t have the “right” to buy it; I AM saying that for the food security of our collective society it IS NOT a good idea to do so. What we can do about it is beyond me though.
BTW: You have perfectly described what has happened where I live as well. 30 years ago it was land within 10 to 15 miles or so of the city, 20 years ago it had moved out to 20 to 30 miles, ten years ago it was 40 to 50 miles and now it is 60 to 70 miles out or more (which is where I live) Beyond that & you start getting into people coming the other way, fleeing from other cities. Very discouraging.
April 12, 2009 at 12:47 pm #51658Participant@OldKat 7975 wrote:
Erik,
I’m NOT saying people don’t have the “right” to subdivide their land, and I am NOT saying that others don’t have the “right” to buy it; I AM saying that for the food security of our collective society it IS NOT a good idea to do so.I couldn’t have put it better.
But, the glass-half-full part of me sees some possibility of redemption in the situation. I am already farming three of the plots originally carved off the farm rent free as a service to the homeowners. They in turn can qualify for a tax break as their land is being used on a long-term basis by a farmer as defined by VT law. There is the possibility of the farm regrowing a bit this way.
Another scenario is that if food and energy costs both continue to increase, those who can farm rural land to good advantage will be sorted out from those who can’t, and that the farmable acreage will change hands again.
Interesting that most people do not pay rent to cut hay around here, and some even charge money to cut hay off others’ land if the parcel is small (under 10 acres). An indication of how little value is in the whole idea of agriculture around here.
April 12, 2009 at 1:39 pm #51665Participant@goodcompanion 7978 wrote:
I couldn’t have put it better.
But, the glass-half-full part of me sees some possibility of redemption in the situation. I am already farming three of the plots originally carved off the farm rent free as a service to the homeowners. They in turn can qualify for a tax break as their land is being used on a long-term basis by a farmer as defined by VT law. There is the possibility of the farm regrowing a bit this way.
Another scenario is that if food and energy costs both continue to increase, those who can farm rural land to good advantage will be sorted out from those who can’t, and that the farmable acreage will change hands again.
Interesting that most people do not pay rent to cut hay around here, and some even charge money to cut hay off others’ land if the parcel is small (under 10 acres). An indication of how little value is in the whole idea of agriculture around here.
Same thing happens here. In fact I lease a property that was split into smaller pieces & have already picked up one 25 acre piece that was carved off of it. I am going after an additional 200 acres that was carved off it as well. The owner has zero interest in using his property, can you believe that?
Interesting how comparable situations can be half way across the country from each other!
April 12, 2009 at 1:58 pm #51652Carl Russell
ModeratorWhat you guys have been discussing is the basis for much of my objective in getting VPR to focus on small-scale (Back-yard, in their words) farming. As I said in the interview farming is a bundle of land-use and animal husbandry practices that are not limited in their validity by scale alone. Although there is an efficiency with the use of large tracts, it by no means is the defining measure of effectiveness of producing food.
As has been said, I’m not sure what we can do to reverse the trend to subdivide land into smaller lots, but I do know that people who find themselves trying to respond to their need for good food by farming small tracts of land are going to be a big part of any successful future.
I understand the drive for people to cast themselves as farmers, those hardy individuals who wake early and engage in the activities of working earth and animals all day, every day, but this image can be, and probably will be, an impediment to growing a vital food system.
We are losing parcels that can be used for large scale production. In some areas like Vermont, our landscape doesn’t offer much opportunity for such farms. And we have a populace with varied life experiences, and career interests. So opening our definition of “farming” to include all facets of the experience is, in my mind, one of the first steps to reclaiming our farming culture.
Carl
April 12, 2009 at 2:59 pm #51659Participant@Carl Russell 7981 wrote:
Although there is an efficiency with the use of large tracts, it by no means is the defining measure of effectiveness of producing food.
Carl
I agree completely. A range war of “farmers” vs. “suburbanites” is not productive. Still, it’s worth keeping in mind what our land ownership structure was before, how it worked, and where we are now, and how we got here.
My guess is that our effectiveness at producing food from plots of all sizes will rise in direct proportion with the severity of our problems. Prior to really severe economic drivers taking hold, a few individuals, some of them maybe calling themselves “farmers,” some of them not, will build up their skill-sets and biological capital, but for a real sea-change I think it will take more than an act of will.
The big turning point in my mind is industrial food becoming more expensive than the cost of producing a local equivalent. I think we are at or near this point. Most producers I know are still adding a good percentage to supermarket prices out of habit, maybe, but it seems to me that a diligent producer could go head-to-head with the supermarket on price now, in many areas, and make a living. That wasn’t the case a few years ago.
April 12, 2009 at 4:04 pm #51653ModeratorProbably the BIG turning point will be when prices are more dramatic, but I also know that people are beginning to understand that food is not a widget, produced by a mindless mechanical process. People are realizing that they yearn for the relationships that real food represents, to people (family who share it, and community that desires it, or produces it), to living organisms, to Earth, and to personal satisfaction from sensory experience.
There is a lot of talk about lowering energy consumption, reducing carbon foot prints, etc., but the real sea-change will occur, in my mind, when people reclaim a human relationship to food, and realize that there is only a limited number of ways to get that. A major component to that will be a revival of the agricultural community, in other words everyone in the community realizing the role they play in our food web, from the way they use their land, to the way they manage their nutrient stream, to the food products they consume.
Carl
April 12, 2009 at 4:40 pm #51660Participant@Carl Russell 7989 wrote:
A major component to that will be a revival of the agricultural community, in other words everyone in the community realizing the role they play in our food web, from the way they use their land, to the way they manage their nutrient stream, to the food products they consume.
Carl
I guess I have less faith than you do that consciousness-raising will do the job, or even a substantial part of the job. It’s so hard for even a tiny group of people (american people in particular, maybe) to arrive at consensus on the most basic of questions. The only real shared experience we all have is that of the consumer–not much of a point of departure.
The agricultural systems I’ve witnessed that used highly complex traditional practices (southern france and morocco) did so simply because that was what was done. Things were done in a certain way and that was that. Most farmers could go on at great length about the “how,” but had limited ability to discuss the “why.” But those systems put food on the table. The beauty in those systems was shaped by constraint. Now some major constraint is coming our way too, so maybe we’ll also get some beauty.
April 12, 2009 at 11:46 pm #51654ModeratorWell I didn’t mean that I thought it would happen any time soon. I do see seeds of hope though. There is a growing consciousness, and I think that it is the basis for a successful future.
Carl
April 13, 2009 at 4:49 am #51667ParticipantI agree with Carl’s point on defining what a farmer is; my experience in this regards: last summer, while selling at the new farmers’ market in the next town over (the county seat), I was asked by an aspiring market-gardener, what was it that made someone a “real” :confused: farmer & not “just” a gardener. My reply: the intent. I grow & sell my products – produce, herbs, goats, & rabbits – intending to make a profit. The two ladies who shared my booth, on the other hand, were there only to sell off their surplus (perhaps at a great enough price to pay for their overall seeds used) while socializing with friends & neighbors. They saw it as a social event – which is great. I saw it as a marketing venue = ‘relationship marketing’ – which is also fine. This gal then asked me if she’d be a “real” farmer (there’s that weird term again) if she only had 1/4 acre or so. Here’s where it ties in with Carl’s observations: I told her that farm size is irrelevant – it’s the farmer that makes/defines the farm. I told her she shouldn’t let anyone else define her actions or position in life. If she was growing food to the best of her ability to sell with the intention of creating a profit (and hopefully enough profit to actually live on), then she could call herself a farmer if she felt that that was what she is – and no one – including the government – has the right to say otherwise. This, of course, is just my personal view – and I told her so, as well. And also like I told her; if she’s enjoying what she’s doing, she’ll probably eventually realize that the label (or lack thereof) is pretty much meaningless… the reality comes from within, not from others. She’s already reserved her own booth for the year & will probably steal all my customers. Me and my big mouth. 😮
April 13, 2009 at 11:54 am #51655Moderatorgoodcompanion;7993 wrote:…The agricultural systems I’ve witnessed that used highly complex traditional practices (southern france and morocco) did so simply because that was what was done. Things were done in a certain way and that was that. Most farmers could go on at great length about the “how,” but had limited ability to discuss the “why.” But those systems put food on the table. The beauty in those systems was shaped by constraint. Now some major constraint is coming our way too, so maybe we’ll also get some beauty.I also think that we are at an end to the reflex application of agriculture. We have run the gambit from scratching the soil to grow a few grains to the mechanical production of food widgets. We are faced with the realization that growing food does work simply by repeating customs, but without thought, or understanding, it can turn into devastation and depletion. I really think that we are headed for a new cultural understanding of farming, not only because I think we need to, but because it is a logical adaptation of a failing system.
Carl
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.