Agroindustry does one thing very well. It produces massive amounts of cheap food. It has successfully applied the concept of economies of scale to the production of food, and like the assembly lines that it mimics, it has turned a once labor intensive, artisan trade into a capital intensive, high technology industry.
The problem is that tomatoes are not keyboards and calves are not cars. While our current food system may feed lots of people cheaply, we are paying dearly for the severe unintended consequences of this system.
So, first the organic movement and now the local/sustainable movement have offered up an alternative that promises to put the “good” back into our food. Visit a farmers market and rediscover that tomatoes have taste! Return to pasture fed meats and feel better about how the animals are treated while you truly nourish both body and soul.
The trouble is that this bucolic vision runs smack into reality!
If we as a society – producers and consumers – are going to replace one paradigm with another, we better come up with some realistic ways for the providers to make a living while not pricing all but the very well off out of the food market!
The organic movement has already experienced what I’m talking about. Back in the early 60’s and 70’s, organic was the darling of the communes, hippies, and the whole back to nature movement. However, once a few smart, entrepreneurial people started to make a living at it, they adopted many of the same practices that the big agroindustrial folks were using. It was the whole “economies of scale” thing and the need to have volume if you wanted to crack the market. They in essence decided that if they were going to succeed they had to “play by the same rules”. Agriculture is a “commodity” product and “volume” is where you make your money.
While organic today is certainly healthier and more ecologically better than the “big guys”, it has in many respects become the “big guys”. If you minus the chemicals, herbicides, pesticides and soil nutrition sucking practices, but still ship stuff halfway across the country, don’t let it ripen on the vine and produce a product that is pretty but has no taste or nutrition, then the difference between the bad “big guys” and the good “big guys” starts to shrink.
So along come the local/sustainable movement and says, “We can do it better! We won’t make the same mistakes. We’ll concentrate on where its grown or raised and who’s raising it or growing it!”
So now there’s a litmus test. Is it within 50 miles of the market (does 51 miles disqualify?). It’s a family operation (does this mean that childless couples don’t count?). It all has to be raised or grown on your own place (does this disqualify someone who expands their holdings by leasing or works with like minded people to expand an operation?).
And frankly, my biggest gripe isn’t any of these things. It’s the reality of the market place slamming me in the face. I won’t speak to farming, but let me point to the example of meat.
The average family owned ranch in Texas is 200 plus acres and 30 to 40 head of cattle. If you want to do grass fed beef and make a living you have two choices. Sell your meat at the farmers market on a seasonal basis and get a second job, OR figure out a way to expand your operations enough to cover the fixed costs you will have in establishing a name brand and selling retail/wholesale and make selling beef into a full time job.
The second choice means not just raising enough cattle (that’s the easy part – and that’s hard!), but dealing with the regulation requirements, permits, labels, transportation, sales, distribution, marketing, and promotion. It means reaching out further than just farmers markets – you got to sell beef with the emphasis on the word “sell”.
The movement itself likes the first choice. It’s pure and untainted by all the nasty stuff that we dislike about agroindustry. The trouble is, if people can’t make a living raising cattle (or hogs, or chickens, or tomatoes), eventually it’s just easier to make the second job the first job and leave the land. Good agriculture is tough work. People will only do it for so long for the love of the land. At some point, you got to pay the bills! Right now, Central Texas land is going for anywhere from $10,000 to $40,000 an acre -- $2 million can put a kid or two through college!
There’s one more thing (and this is another gripe of mine – I’ve got a lot!). If we’re going to shift the paradigm so that providers can make a living on their land, we have to do it in such a way that we don’t leave the majority of consumers behind!!
I can make a living raising 30 calves a year on my land, but it means I’m going to have to charge you $15.00/lb. for my hamburger. Any takers?
The local/sustainable movement will never produce food as cheaply as the big agroindustrial guys. But don’t dispair! The majority of consumers are willing to pay a LITTLE MORE for good food. People will stretch a little for quality. It’s just not $15.00/lb. But it is $6.00 or $7.00.
There is a middle ground. It is possible. I know, because our operation and several others in Central Texas are inventing and implementing it. It’s has to address the issues of the market while still holding onto the uniqueness of the artisanal good that we all want so badly back in our food. It will have to take some lessons from agroindustry and the “big guys” in organic. It’s going to have to implement “quality of scale” instead of “economies of scale” and it’s going to have to be tech savvy, highly efficient and extremely innovative.
In other words, agriculture must become the 21st Century Industry.
If the wheel has gone flat – don’t reinvent it – get a hover craft! Part III
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
