4 ms·

As a farmer I'm biased, but there's a lot to be said for eating fresh, in-season foods produced by people in your community. The human and environmental costs o

As a farmer I'm biased, but there's a lot to be said for eating fresh, in-season foods produced by people in your community. The human and environmental costs of making sure tomatoes can reach you from 1000 miles away is sickening. We run a 50-member CSA. Produce is picked fresh weekly or bi-weekly from the garden and available for pickup by 50 local families. Are our yields as high as what we might get if robotic pickers and chemical fertilizers were used? No, but nobody is dying or being abused or getting cancer to make sure that a disgusting, mealy, colorless tomato can be on your cheeseburger.

greggyb 11y ago
The environmental cost tends to be lower with the 1000 mile food. Transportation efficiencies of freight trains and tractor trailers dwarf those of the pickups and small container trucks you see with local produce. The overall emissions per pound of produce transported end up lower with the distant food.
- jonah 11y ago
  That's one metric. How about all the others?
  - roel_v 11y ago
    Which ones?
    - legulere 11y ago
      Heated greenhouses so that e.g. tomatoes can be grown out of season.
- tehchromic 11y ago
  uh, what's the cost in fuel emissions when I get a veg from my front yard grown in mulch generated from my own tree?
  - bpodgursky 11y ago
    Depends. Did you even once drive to the nursery or hardware store to pick up seeds, pots or fertilizer to grow it? If so, you have completely negated all energy savings.
    - tehchromic 11y ago
      not quite, since that one trip produced many pounds of fresh healthy food over many weeks, whereas a comparable amount of fresh produce from the grocery store takes many trips. That said, it's a culture of food production that's really where the efficiency lies. That's people saving and trading seeds, helping each other farm and harvest, and bottling and canning for winter. That's not only tremendously efficient if it's done locally, it's also fun.
  - sushid 11y ago
    Probably negligible even if you have a higher-than-average methane output. :p But I believe the parent comment was discussing the cost in fuel emissions for local farmers producing for ~50 families in his area vs. a mega-farm outputting tons of food for cities across state lines.
    - tehchromic 11y ago
      yeah, well I think the mega-farm outputting tons of food for cities across state lines has it's place, however I think, and a lot of research as well as the direction of industry backs me up, that the conventional farming techniques on mega-farms need an upgrade. That is, fewer toxic chemicals, more organic practices, less monocropping, more automation, more high technology, more holistic, integrated, organic solutions to pests, etc. And, on top of all that, local food sources are extremely valuable to a large scale sustainable food system. They're a buffer, and a cultural benefit, as agrarian pursuit is a truly healthy way for society to form its social engagement - it's called deep ecology and it's a human need to be engaged and invested with the cycles of life. It's much better than sequestering behind walls in front of TV's as we do now. So, true that it can't provide all our food, but it can provide a damn good buffer, and a lot more value aside from just calories. Don't buy the myth that farm life is slavery - that's an invention of the last century. Generally farm life, when it is done right, is extremely fulfilling. They even had a word for it: bucolic!
- vacri 11y ago
  Then there are locational issues. For example, it takes more (human-generated) energy to grow tomatoes in NZ than it takes to grow and can tomatoes in Italy then transport them to NZ. It sounds crazy, until you remember that tomatoes in Italy grow on hills and tomatoes in NZ require greenhouses and attendant infrastructure.
readams 11y ago
This is a perfectly valid decision! But you recognize that your local, fresh, in-season food is more expensive to produce and more expensive to consume, but quite possibly with higher quality. This is a luxury consumer good. There's nothing at all wrong with that! Just don't then make the leap to claim that this is a model for feeding the world.
- silentplummet 11y ago
  Do the prices of industrial farm produce include the cost of cleaning up industrial farm pollution such as nitrate fertilizers, organophosphate biocide, and airborne products of fossil fuel combustion? What about the inefficiency caused by the entire massive pyramid of the attendant industries: transportation, chemical manufacture, distribution, marketing? And the cherry on top: the health care burden due to epidemic diabetes and obesity? Think carefully before you decide what is cheaper.
  - readams 11y ago
    You're presenting a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to believe that large-scale farming should be made more sustainable without believing that local, small-scale farming is an improvement. You're also assuming that local, small-scale farming has no impact. In fact to produce the same amount of calories requires vastly more land and more energy and the total impact is larger. Organic farmers also use pesticides and fertilizers; they just use different ones. It's not at all clear they result in less environmental damage. Is spraying a vast amount of nicitinoids over a larger area better than a smaller amount of organophosphates? Not at all clear.
- ndespres 11y ago
  I don't know whether small, local, organic farms are a model for feeding the planet but the premise of the article is flawed in the opposite direction. My produce doesn't beat Walmart prices but then, we don't have the luxury of govt subsidies, scale, and undocumented underpaid labor. Once you start paying people what they deserve, and charging people what it actually costs, the prices are more truthful. This type of food only seems like a luxury product because the scales are tipped so unfairly towards cheap/bad food.

greggyb 11y ago

The environmental cost tends to be lower with the 1000 mile food. Transportation efficiencies of freight trains and tractor trailers dwarf those of the pickups and small container trucks you see with local produce. The overall emissions per pound of produce transported end up lower with the distant food.

jonah 11y ago
That's one metric. How about all the others?
- roel_v 11y ago
  Which ones?
  - legulere 11y ago
    Heated greenhouses so that e.g. tomatoes can be grown out of season.
tehchromic 11y ago
uh, what's the cost in fuel emissions when I get a veg from my front yard grown in mulch generated from my own tree?
- bpodgursky 11y ago
  Depends. Did you even once drive to the nursery or hardware store to pick up seeds, pots or fertilizer to grow it? If so, you have completely negated all energy savings.
  - tehchromic 11y ago
    not quite, since that one trip produced many pounds of fresh healthy food over many weeks, whereas a comparable amount of fresh produce from the grocery store takes many trips. That said, it's a culture of food production that's really where the efficiency lies. That's people saving and trading seeds, helping each other farm and harvest, and bottling and canning for winter. That's not only tremendously efficient if it's done locally, it's also fun.
- sushid 11y ago
  Probably negligible even if you have a higher-than-average methane output. :p But I believe the parent comment was discussing the cost in fuel emissions for local farmers producing for ~50 families in his area vs. a mega-farm outputting tons of food for cities across state lines.
  - tehchromic 11y ago
    yeah, well I think the mega-farm outputting tons of food for cities across state lines has it's place, however I think, and a lot of research as well as the direction of industry backs me up, that the conventional farming techniques on mega-farms need an upgrade. That is, fewer toxic chemicals, more organic practices, less monocropping, more automation, more high technology, more holistic, integrated, organic solutions to pests, etc. And, on top of all that, local food sources are extremely valuable to a large scale sustainable food system. They're a buffer, and a cultural benefit, as agrarian pursuit is a truly healthy way for society to form its social engagement - it's called deep ecology and it's a human need to be engaged and invested with the cycles of life. It's much better than sequestering behind walls in front of TV's as we do now. So, true that it can't provide all our food, but it can provide a damn good buffer, and a lot more value aside from just calories. Don't buy the myth that farm life is slavery - that's an invention of the last century. Generally farm life, when it is done right, is extremely fulfilling. They even had a word for it: bucolic!
vacri 11y ago
Then there are locational issues. For example, it takes more (human-generated) energy to grow tomatoes in NZ than it takes to grow and can tomatoes in Italy then transport them to NZ. It sounds crazy, until you remember that tomatoes in Italy grow on hills and tomatoes in NZ require greenhouses and attendant infrastructure.

readams 11y ago

This is a perfectly valid decision! But you recognize that your local, fresh, in-season food is more expensive to produce and more expensive to consume, but quite possibly with higher quality. This is a luxury consumer good. There's nothing at all wrong with that! Just don't then make the leap to claim that this is a model for feeding the world.

silentplummet 11y ago
Do the prices of industrial farm produce include the cost of cleaning up industrial farm pollution such as nitrate fertilizers, organophosphate biocide, and airborne products of fossil fuel combustion? What about the inefficiency caused by the entire massive pyramid of the attendant industries: transportation, chemical manufacture, distribution, marketing? And the cherry on top: the health care burden due to epidemic diabetes and obesity? Think carefully before you decide what is cheaper.
- readams 11y ago
  You're presenting a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to believe that large-scale farming should be made more sustainable without believing that local, small-scale farming is an improvement. You're also assuming that local, small-scale farming has no impact. In fact to produce the same amount of calories requires vastly more land and more energy and the total impact is larger. Organic farmers also use pesticides and fertilizers; they just use different ones. It's not at all clear they result in less environmental damage. Is spraying a vast amount of nicitinoids over a larger area better than a smaller amount of organophosphates? Not at all clear.
ndespres 11y ago
I don't know whether small, local, organic farms are a model for feeding the planet but the premise of the article is flawed in the opposite direction. My produce doesn't beat Walmart prices but then, we don't have the luxury of govt subsidies, scale, and undocumented underpaid labor. Once you start paying people what they deserve, and charging people what it actually costs, the prices are more truthful. This type of food only seems like a luxury product because the scales are tipped so unfairly towards cheap/bad food.