Acres USA and a cup of coffee always get me going. In the November 2012 issue I read that according to the 2007 census, (the 2012 census won't be out until 2014) the number of farms in the U.S. in
the 1-9 acre and 1-49 acre categories grew by 53,000 and 56,000 respectively
since 2002. In spite of the slow economy, America’s Farmers
Markets have been growing by nearly 10% in the past year alone. With access to these markets,
small farmers are opting out of relying on unpredictable commodity prices that may
not offset expenses. If we’ve learned anything, it’s that sustainable
and transparent pricing and practices go hand in hand.
The USDA defines a small farm as one grossing under $250,000
per year. Because farms are defined in terms of income, growing one’s own food isn’t
included in these statistics. Yet increasing numbers of people are trading in
the treadmill for a rural lifestyle and a chance at self-sufficiency.
The Smart Growth movement has much to say about what urban
areas will look like but is rather silent about those places in between. In Whatcom County, Washington, the very same folks who support CSA’s are imposing assaults and limitations on rural areas. In
urban-centric circles, rural life is just another word for sprawl. And large-scale
farming is preferable because it doesn’t intrude on the view shed. Yet large scale farming of monoculture crops are detrimental to healthy soil life and the watershed.
It seems as if the back-to-the-land and Smart Growth
movements are in conflict with each other. One group strives for land-based
economics while the other seeks to preserve ‘open space’ that can be observed
and admired from afar. This is preservation of
views, not farmland.
39% of the nation’s small farms are smaller than 49 acres. An
unknown percentage of families supplement their incomes by producing and
consuming several thousands of dollars worth of farm products each year. Small
scale farming within a few miles of a city can perform an important task in the
overall preservation of agriculture by providing a buffer between city
residents and the nuisances of larger-scale farms and by providing a wide
variety of specialty foods to those residents.
In Whatcom County and others like it, high land prices for
smaller parcels, a stagnant economy, and lending restrictions are taking their
toll. The idea that large farms have always dominated the country is a modern
artifice. And if urban areas get too populated, residents will look to areas
outside the city to call home.
What might Rural Smart Growth look like? Simon Fairlie, an
author and farmer paints a picture in his essay; “Can Britain feed itself?” Fairlie proposes that re-ruralization
would free up space for market gardens inside or on the periphery of cities and
reconnect city dwellers with their food. It would break up large mechanized
farms into small farms and hamlets and result in more people working from home.
Polycultural income streams from land-based enterprises would link local needs
with local resources. Landscapes
would look like mosaics and provide employment.
Using a basic diet, Fairlie compared Chemical Ag with and without livestock with Organic Ag with and without livestock and Permaculture with and without livestock on 100 acres. Chemical Ag without livestock fed the most people - 20 - but at what cost to the environment and health? Organic Ag and Permaculture were about equal with feeding 8 because of the need for cover crops, fallow fields, fodder and pastures. However 100 acres of Permaculture-based Ag provided food, textiles for clothing, animal feed, fuel for tractors, heating fuel and timber for the home. With all of these land-based enterprises providing for all these needs, the countryside would become more, not less populated and provide employment. This is Rural Smart Growth.
But will people even want this type of employment? There seems to be a disdain for farmers and employment that requires physical labor. This is rather odd when you consider how much money and time is spent at gyms. Think of all those calories being burned without accomplishing anything productive whatsoever! Personally, I think there are worse occupations one could choose than a land-based enterprise that works in cooperation with nature and contributes to community resilience.
Using a basic diet, Fairlie compared Chemical Ag with and without livestock with Organic Ag with and without livestock and Permaculture with and without livestock on 100 acres. Chemical Ag without livestock fed the most people - 20 - but at what cost to the environment and health? Organic Ag and Permaculture were about equal with feeding 8 because of the need for cover crops, fallow fields, fodder and pastures. However 100 acres of Permaculture-based Ag provided food, textiles for clothing, animal feed, fuel for tractors, heating fuel and timber for the home. With all of these land-based enterprises providing for all these needs, the countryside would become more, not less populated and provide employment. This is Rural Smart Growth.
But will people even want this type of employment? There seems to be a disdain for farmers and employment that requires physical labor. This is rather odd when you consider how much money and time is spent at gyms. Think of all those calories being burned without accomplishing anything productive whatsoever! Personally, I think there are worse occupations one could choose than a land-based enterprise that works in cooperation with nature and contributes to community resilience.
