Really enjoyed this!
Some of my favorite clips:
In 2019, an average acre of farmland in California was worth $12,830. Even in Iowa, the flatland of the former prairies in the NW region of the state (land better for growing corn) can go for $9,300 an acre.
With this book, I want to talk frankly about the financial realities of farming, because farmers can make a difference only if they can make a living. They need to sustain themselves in order to sustain our land and food.
The whole experience also made clear for me why most farmers buy genetically modified seeds and the sprays that go with them - it takes a lot of the guesswork out of the process and in the end makes a farmer's life much easier.
Finding and accessing land is the #1 issue for most aspiring farmers today - a cost so exorbitant that most people can't even consider farming unless they were already born into a family already in the business. And while 55% of Iowa's land is rented out - most often by families who don't want to farm but want to keep the land - it is hard to justify all the time and money needed to farm sustainably when it is someone else's property.
Family farms can be of any size, with any type of production, owned by virtually anyone, making any amount of money.
Landownership in the US has been closely tied to monetary wealth in the game of White privilege.
After the first years of investment, farms continue to make very little money, often for generations. The median income for farms in 2019 in the US was a whopping $296, a positive number unlike those in the four previous years, as a result of $14.5 billion in market facilitation program payments by the Trump administration.
The simple truth is that the vast majority of farms do not make enough money to support their own activities, let alone the families who run them.
The biggest hurdle for farmers is their own mindset. Struggle is largely accepted as a way of life, part of the mythology of farming; hard work should be accompanied with personal sacrifice on a farm, the agrarian story goes, trade-offs endured for the simplicity and peace of living on the land.
Today, farms that consider sustainability or food justice a top priority often don't pass on the true costs to consumers. Instead, some farms supplement boxes with food grown elsewhere, perpetuating a romantic image of farming by never revealing info about pests and disease, crop disasters, or labor issues.
Values can drive you for only so long before the economic reality sets in that you can't afford the lifestyle you want to live.
History shows us that new ideas, no matter how important for society, cannot survive unless they become socially and economically viable for participants. If sustainable ag remains powered only by moral and ecological ideals - ideals accepted not only by consumers but also by farmers themselves - the change we are eager to see is not likely to stick.
It is likely that the low cost of food is in fact contributing to the lack of money in the wider community. Even for poor residents who don't work in the food system, the answer is not cheap groceries (sold at the expense of the farmer) but a living wage that allows everyone to afford prices that reflect the real cost of production.
10% of farms in the US received almost 60% of government payments.
Back when subsidies were first introduced during the Great Depression, fruits and veggies were not included because they were not mass marketed and therefore not impacted by the huge booms and busts of the international stage that had caused so much chaos for farmers. Much later, in the 90s, when decoupled payments were first introduced, fruit and veg growers fought to exclude specialty crops from the subsidy structure. They feared that if fruits and veg were part of the same system as corn, wheat, an cotton, farmers could get paid for their corn base acres but choose instead to grow cherries and kale. They could sell the produce for less than it cost to grow because it would, in effect, be subsidized. They could sell the produce for less than it cost to grow because it would, in effect, be subsidized. So the law specifies that the decoupled payments do not apply if farmers choose to grow specialty crops on their base acres- if they decide to grow blueberries or apricots, for example, they lose commodity payments for that acreage.
Checkoff programs are controversial in that, although 100% organic growers with certification are exempt, the programs don't really cater to smaller producers trying to sell products locally. A small scale avocado grower for example, would be charged the involuntary tax, but her farm arguably does not benefit from, and is potentially hurt by, money used for research on how to transport avocados over long distances.
There is also a practical problem with supporting farmers in growing large amounts of fruits and veggies: they are perishable, which makes the products difficult to transport and store. If a farm or a nation ends up with an excess of corn, it can be put away for later use. Not so with broccoli. And in a national emergency, with crops failing because of a huge drought, for example, reserves of wheat and peanuts can be used to fill bellies more readily than we might be able to distribute zucchini.
Even if the machinery they own could be used to grow greens and carrots instead of corn, to whom would a farmer in deep rural Iowa sell hundreds of acres of vegetables?
Despite the myth that independent farmers believe the government should stay out of their business, even farms with the largest yields are not self-sufficient enough to function on their own without government assistance.
Farm payments have in fact become entitlement programs - programs in which a vulnerable group - farmers - receives protection and support regardless of poor business decisions made.
The fact is that even if subsidies farmers disappeared tomorrow, farmers would still likely produce corn and soy in Iowa, although arguably not as much, simply because they don't currently have many other choices of what to do with the land. We are not a nation that consumes large amounts of barley or rye, for example, crops that could be integrated into the corn-soy rotation to help improve the soil, reduce pests and weeds, and lessen the need for fertilizer.
You need only one bull to impregnate up to 25 females.
In the 1960s, customers spent close to 20% of their income on food, and farmers received almost 1/3 of that. Today, although Americans incomes are much higher, they spend only 10% of it on food, and farmers received eight cents for every dollar spent.
In terms of environmental impact, our grass-finished beef was as good as agriculture gets. Southern Iowa is naturally green and lush from March to November, and, in contrast with Cali or Nebraska, no irrigation is used on farms in this area, ever. No chemicals, fertilizers, antibiotics, or clearing trees.
Yet to be clear, beef is still beef, and the rate at which Americans, and an increasing number of people around the world, eat it and other meats is not sustainable. Cattle emit impressive amounts of methane - and in order to raise large numbers of animals, ranchers move massive numbers of them through the system quickly by fattening them on grain, which requires valuable water and nutrients, chemical fertilizers and antibiotics.
Josh and I both feel that all meat - be it beef or chicken, pork or fish - should be consumed sparingly. The simple mathematical fact is that if humans raise livestock only on pasture, w/o irrigation or grain, there will not be enough for everyone to eat meat every day.
In this corner of the world, most hog facilities are built to house 2,490 pigs, staying below the 2,500 magic number that kicks in environmental regulations. A facility with 2,500 hogs for example must be more than 1,800 feet from a neighbor's house and 2,500 feet away from a park, but with fewer than that number of pigs, growers can put the buildings virtually anywhere.
With each hog generating 1.3 gallons of poop each day, keeping 2,400 pigs in a confinement facility will mean finding a place to dump almost 94,000 gallons of pig shit each month.
As I say to my students, you can't imagine someone doing a quilt of a gestation crate or a watercolor painting of a confinement facility.
So much of farming is out of your control. Even in the best of times, everything from the weather to world politics impacts your bottom line, not to mention your daily schedule. This, I believe is one of the reasons so many farmers have turned to genetic modification and company contracts, chemicals and government programs, "solutions" that give them a feeling of control over the elements and help create certainty in their lives.
The movie Biggest Little Farm covers for a grand total of zero minutes the enormous costs the farmers must have incurred in buying land outside of LA, building a state of the art worm composting facility, and putting hundreds of fully mature fruit trees with a fancy road winding up between them.
For us, putting ecological benefits and romantic visions of a fully diversified farm before our own financial stability and our sanity would be simply substituting one unsustainable system with another.
98% of farms in the US are considered family farms, yet almost 40% of all farmland around the country is rented out by nonfarming landlords to those who operate the farms. In Iowa, more than half of all farmland is farmed by renters, generating rental revenue of $3.7 billion for the landowners. This system creates very little incentive for the farmers renting to improve the soil or install infrastructure when they have only a yearlong lease. The vast majority of leases in Iowa are annual, even though most land has been rented to the same person for more than a decade. So most farm operators opt to grow annual crops that need little to no long-term nurturing of the ground and can thrive on trucked-in fertilizer, never tackling longer-term issues such as erosion and carbon sequestration.
LANDBACK is an Indigenous-led movement that encourages White owners to return land to local tribes around the world, putting more land back into Native control for long-term ag, forestry, or other projects.
The policy changes made in the bill are, w/o a doubt, critical. Yet I worry that when advocates rest all their hopes for reforming the food system on policy, they forget that these are government agencies we are talking about. Offices that are notoriously inefficient, clouded in layers of changing bureaucracy an administrative issues. There is a reason so few people attend city council and school board meetings - government procedure is bureaucratic and often tedious; democracy is messy.
But a whole messed-up system cannot be fixed with a single idea or even multiple ideas. The way food travels to our table - most often through a long, convoluted chain that yields the farmer little - has evolved over hundreds of years and will not be untangled w/o attention to the whole web of issues it has created. Yet, there is much we can do as individuals, as farms, as groups of farms, and as a nation to improve the system, all of which start with changing the stories we tell about farming. We need to move away from the romantic tales of farming to understand that while farmers feed people and take care of land, they also need to be able to take care of themselves and their families.
These solutions need to grow up from the grass roots - not come from top-down policies - from the farmers and want-to-be-farmers, the nonprofits and the academics, the customers and the processors (and even the government employees) who are passionate about food. We have power in our numbers, and although the issues are complicated, we can each work on one small part.