Fridays at Restoration Nation: Farmer in Chief II
Late in his article “Farmer in Chief,” Michael Pollan repeats the chestnut that the average American farmer is 55 years old.
Sounds like American farmers are just a couple of decades from becoming extinct, doesn’t it?
But maybe it’s not quite as bad as it sounds.
This article, from the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, indicates that the census of farmers may underestimate their numbers because only one “operator” is counted per farm, and that is usually the oldest person. The article lists several reasons why farmers are older than other types of workers in the labor force.
What may be more troubling is the small percentage of farmers under the age of 35: 8 percent in 1997. That doesn’t seem like enough of a base on which to build a viable future farming community. Even though the article quotes more favorable Department of Labor stats about farming, there are definitely fewer young people going into farming.
I’m going to assert baldly here that getting more people to take up farming would be a good thing. The question is, how can that be achieved?
I think the first step is to address the issue of land. I was reading somewhere last week that even as the housing market has tanked, the price of farmland has risen. If that is the case, then it would be difficult for a young farmer to purchase land.
Would a twenty-first-century Homestead Act be an appropriate response?
Of course, that’s government intervention, and the idea behind Restoration Nation is to turn restoration into some kind of profit-making activity. So how can Americans encourage more people to take up farming if land is out of reach for beginning farmers?
Here’s one answer: SPIN farming.
SPIN farming stands for “Small Plot Intensive” farming. This website claims that people doing SPIN farming can make $50,000/year on farms under an acre in size. Sound incredible? Well, maybe those numbers are suspect. I know some farmers who told me once they weren’t so sure that that kind of income is as easy to reach as the website says. But SPIN farming would be an easier way to get into farming than trying to buy a bunch of land.
Another idea is to incorporate gardens into our lives in new (old?) and unusual ways. For example, we could add gardens to rooftops, which would provide food and help reduce cities’ heat island effect (that would likely require some rezoning, however). Pollan suggests converting golf courses to farms, but somehow I can’t see the people living around golf courses going for that.
Here’s Boulder County Going Local’s assessment of the county’s ability to feed its residents. And here’s a page for Transition Colorado. I’m not sure how these groups are related, if indeed they are.
What do you think? Would you be willing to plant a large garden? Would you be willing to cobble together a 1-acre farm by combining plots from your yard and your neighbors’ yards?
(To find Michael Pollan’s article, search for “Farmer in Chief.” The original article was published in the New York Times.)
If you liked this post, please share below on StumbleUpon. I’d be grateful.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Running a farm is a calling. I’m not sure how successful a recruitment plan would be. Planting a small garden is one thing. Trying to make a living from farming the land would require a passion for it hard to acquire by rote.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Bernard,
I think that’s very true. It’s possible that doing these mini-farms might help get around that problem, but I do wonder how much food a bunch of mini-farms can produce.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:28 am
You should check out Denver Urban Gardens for some local gardening/farming.
Secondly, it’s government intervention in the first place that’s ruined the farming industry. Too many subsidies and support to Big Farm, keeps competitors out with a too high cost of new entry. Luckily, the organic movement is working to counteract that, but it’s so expensive. So if you don’t farm, at least buy local.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
SF,
I do buy a lot of local food.
The problem is, if the United States drastically reduced its subsidies, I’m not sure it would help small farmers. Reducing subsidies is something that Third World countries have been clamoring for the United States and European countries to do, and although I understand why they want access to our markets, I think bringing in more of their exports would hurt US small farmers more than it would hurt larger farmers.
I’d rather keep the subsidies for the moment, and instead of letting foreign farmers have access to our markets, develop their farming industry for their own markets. Their farming industries were for the most part exploited for colonialism, so there’s a lot that could be done to “localize” them.
This is one case in which localization rather than globalization would benefit everyone.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Reducing our subsidies won’t necessarily allow foreign crop easier access to our markets, but rather making it so we don’t dump our crop on to foreign markets and depress the prices of food, in result driving foreign farms out of business. Right now, subsidies shelter big farms from most market forces, especially subsidies on corn via the latest Farm Bill. Private farms have little to no chance on the currently regulated market that favors the corporate farm.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
SF,
I THINK I would like to see fewer subsidies for big commodity crops like corn and more attention paid to diversifying what farms grow, but it’s a very complicated subject.
Also, we’re not dumping corn now; the price of grains has been rising so much that there have been foot riots in something like 30 countries. Prices have risen in part because US farmers are planting corn to sell to ethanol plants and thus producing less corn for food. I don’t know if that rise in prices is helping some farmers in other countries, but it certainly is hurting people who need to buy grain.