A Special Place.

Last fall, I had the privilege of visiting an enchanting area of my province along and around the Waterhen River. It's distinctive for a couple of reasons. It's the shortest river in all of the province, flowing out of Waterhen Lake and into northern Lake Manitoba. And it's also the province's most pristine. Environment Canada actually called it "excellent" in terms of water quality, the only Manitoba river to get that rating. I'm posting a few shots here for your enjoyment.
PinP photos.
___________________________________

THE HOG DEBATE RAGES. WHY YOU SHOULD CARE!

Photos Courtesy of "Stop the Hogs."



Dear Editor,

Seldom has there been a more important public debate in Manitoba than the one now raging over the hog industry.
Make no mistake. The issues here are grave.
A powerful industry, represented by the Manitoba Pork Council (MPC), is not only pitting itself against those of us who actually care about our air, water and soil, it's also challenging the very right of a democratically-elected government to govern on behalf of its citizens.
Thrown into this explosive mix are questions about the role of our cherished academic institutions. Are they remaining "above the fray?" Or are they taking sides?
Over a year ago, amid howls and threats from the hog lobby, the government of Manitoba imposed a temporary ban on new factory barns. This was to allow the Clean Environment Commission (CEC) to study how sustainable they are.
After receiving that CEC study a few weeks ago, the government obviously decided, they aren't sustainable enough.
It kept the ban in place in three regions of the province. That leaves open a vast area of Manitoba where they will still be allowed, however.



This map shows existing hog factories.











But that isn't enough for the industry. As usual, it wants it all. It is demanding the government reverse its decision and lift the ban in all areas, saying, with monotonous regularity, that it is being "picked on."
It has once again dragged out a tired old "study" that pigs contribute just a tiny part of all nutrient-loading in Lake Winnipeg. It turns out, that "study" has never been peer-reviewed, published in a scientific journal, or even mentioned in the CEC report!
Perhaps even more disturbing is the knee jerk reaction of a University of Manitoba official to march in lock- step with the MPC's shaky science on the matter. In several media statements, the Dean of the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Michael Trevan has supported the MPC's position.
Significantly, the CEC itself recognizes there are "shortcomings in the current science" surrounding this matter. So just how can Dean Trevan be so sure of himself in this case?
The U of M has had long-standing relationships with the pork industry over the years.
For example, a company specializing in hog genetics, "Genesus," provided the breeding stock at the University's Glenlea Research Station south of Winnipeg.
Genesus is no shrinking violet when it comes to politics. In a recent article on its website, it demands that the Government of Saskatchewan get out of the hog business. The article labels that involvement "foolish and socialistic."
So does the University (and Dean Trevan obviously speaks for his institution) simply share the same ideological bent as its business partner "Genesus?" (i.e. that government has no business interfering in the affairs of commerce?)
The Pork Council already has the backing of the corporate media in the province. That is no surprise.
What is, is the U of M's apparent willingness to risk its reputation as a place of intellectual, independent thought!
Then there's the endless argument over "sustainable development." (That which meets the needs of the present without compromising future generations.)
Listening to the Pork Council, you'd think they are as sustainable as can be.
Never mind that you and I are paying out millions in endless government subsidies so the industry can carry on. (Manitoba just recently announced about $20m dollars would go toward upgrading water treatement systems at two hog slaughtering plants in the province. Not to mention government aid to help slaughter excess hogs plus an unknown amount to help the industry "cope" with the continuing hog barn bans.)
Its sometimes said that, if the industry had to pay for the true social costs of its operations, it would go broke. Interestingly, while it bristles at suggestions of government regulation, it is not so proud as to refuse the corporate welfare so lavishly bestowed upon it by the public purse.

Larry Powell - Roblin MB
(Powell represented "Citizens for Family Farms" in a submission to the CEC one year ago.)

TO PLANT OR NOT TO PLANT! by Larry Powell

The value of planting trees was questioned at a public meeting in Rossburn, MB on Feb.21st. Perhaps up to a hundred people were there, including several students from local schools.
The meeting was called to examine how climate change might affect agriculture.
Two speakers at the meeting actually challenged the role of tree-planting as a way to absorb harmful greenhouse gasses.

Curt Hull of Climate Change Connection, one of the meeting's guest speaker, said trees may absorb such gasses during their life-cycle, (through a process known as "sequestration) but actually put it back into the air when they die and decay. *(See his more detailed explanation, and another view from the PFRA below.)
Another speaker, Leloni Scott of Manitoba Agriculture and Rural Initiatives, agreed. Ms. Scott claimed tree-planting is over-rated as a way to "sequester" gasses.

Unconventional Wisdom?
Those statements clearly came as a surprise to several people in attendance,including one of the teachers, Audrey Clempson. Ms. Clempson, a Grade 7 teacher at Rossburn Elementary, said after the meeting, her students who were there with her, have been on tree-planting projects themselves. She says both she and her students "wondered" about the statements that tree-planting may not be as helpful in the fight against climate change as previously believed. She says she has written a letter to the Biosphere Reserve asking for clarification.
To Spray or not to Spray?
One farmer in the audience claimed that, rather than causing global warming, farms actually absorb carbon dioxide through the trees and shrubs on their property.
Another person asked why, then do farmers often launch large programs to spray pesticides and kill trees which encroach on pastures used for grazing cattle.
This Ontario-based "fleet" uses Roblin MB as its base to "kick some (poplar tree) butt in what is euphemistically called "forest management."

Uncertain Future.
Some speakers suggested the global phenomenon of climate change may even spell opportunity for farmers, bringing an extended growing season and an increase in productivity.

But Hank Venema of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, (a Winnipeg-based think-tank) warned that the future is not really that easy to predict. Except for the dust bowl of the thirties, Dr. Venema noted the 20th century was unusually wet. But, given the severe weather events which are hallmarks of climate change, we may just as easily face serious drought in the years ahead.
He reminded the audience of our rapidly vanishing glaciers which supply much of the water for the rivers which flow from the mountains across the prairies.
Farming has profoundly altered our prairie landscape, Venema went on, and necessarily so from the point of view of economic development. But he wondered if we have now gone too far. He urged that more natural areas, such as wetlands be preserved and perhaps expanded because they act as buffers against the extremes of global warming.
He noted that, just a few years ago, a severe drought in much of Saskatchewan left many producers short of hay bales for their livestock. It led to the now-famous event in which producers in central Canada shipped bales west to help out. Dr. Venema says Ducks Unlimited released many Saskatchewan wetlands from their protected status in order to free them up for hay production. That was a move which revealed the critical importance of such areas by helping many local producers, he said.
-30-

CURT HULL* "Every living organism has a net zero effect on carbon sequestration. As a tree grows from seed, it draws carbon out of the air and soil and converts it into all of the proteins and fibres and other elements in its makeup. As its leaves, and eventually when its branches and trunk die and decompose, all of that carbon is released back into the environment.
We add to the carbon sink (i.e. we add to the amount of carbon drawn out of the atmosphere and "sequestered") when we create new forests.
A forest is like a bank - a carbon savings account. In a healthy forest, some young trees are growing, some old trees are dying, but there is more carbon sequestered than when there was no forest there at all. When we prevent forests from being destroyed, we allow that carbon to "stay in the bank".
When we burn fossil fuels, we are actually burning ancient forests. Before we burn it, the oil contains carbon that was drawn out of the atmosphere millions of years ago." Curt Hull.
___________________
JOHN KORT PhD
"Dear Larry:

I do have a few comments that I hope may be helpful. I hope that they come across as simple common sense.

There was a statement on your blog that the Grade 7 teacher was concerned that “…tree-planting may not be as helpful in the fight against climate change as previously believed.” Similarly, there was a statement in your message below that trees are “over-rated” as a way to sequester carbon. It begs the question – What do people believe and who’s doing the over-rating? It may be that people have unrealistic expectations about trees – I don’t know. However, nobody should doubt that growing trees absorb carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis is that marvelous process by which plants turn CO2 into carbohydrates and O2.

Of course Curt Hull is right and individual trees have a finite lifespan (some very long) and, when they die, the carbon that they contain has to go somewhere. At equilibrium, a forest ecosystem will have the rate of carbon taken up in tree growth balanced by the rate of carbon loss in tree death and decay. In this case, the forest has a lot of sequestered carbon and it is a carbon reservoir but it is no longer a carbon sink. It would become a carbon source if a forest fire roared through it.

Dry wood is very close to 50% carbon so a forest, including the roots, really does sequester a lot of carbon. Vigorously growing trees are a carbon sink, and the amount of carbon that a tree sequesters every year can be calculated as 50% of its net biomass increase. Interactions with its surroundings may cause some further carbon increases or decreases in the other vegetation in their vicinity. Trapped snow or shelter may increase the productivity of other plants while competition for water, nutrients and light could decrease the productivity of other plants.

People can therefore avoid “over-rating” the sequestration benefits of trees by learning the basics of the carbon cycle.

An important thing to consider is the fate of the wood. If the wood gets buried or is used to build a house, the carbon that it contains lasts well beyond the tree’s lifespan. But, in any case, sequestering carbon in trees is a measure that is effective for a limited period. If we continue to burn fossil fuels in the meantime, we have to know that trees will not compensate for the new CO2 that we’re putting into the atmosphere.

But using the trees as a bio-fuel would allow us to substitute for the fossil fuels. If we plant trees at the same rate as we harvest them and burn them for their energy, the carbon that they release when burned should be balanced by the carbon they absorb from the atmosphere – a closed loop. So maybe “brush management” should consist of sustainably harvesting the encroaching trees and shrubs and using the wood as a bio-fuel, assuming we have efficient bio-fuel burners installed.

One final comment about trees dying and decaying: we need some dying and decaying trees in our ecosystems as habitat for birds, mammals, insects, micro-organisms, etc. This may indeed detract from their value as a carbon sink but it’s important to keep biodiversity on our agricultural landscapes."

John Kort PhD
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada/Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada
PFRA Shelterbelt Centre/Centre des brise-vent de l'ARAP
P.O. Box 940/C.P. 940
Indian Head, SK, Canada
S0G 2K0
Telephone/Téléphone: 306-695-5130
Cell/Cellulaire: 306-660-7100
kortj@agr.gc.ca

MANITOBA DOING JUST FINE IN BATTLING CLIMATE CHANGE! - MINISTER

Some time ago, I sent a a story I had written and researched about the role of Manitoba's livestock sector in the production of greenhouse gases, to the Premier and the Ministers of Agriculture and Conservation (Environment) for their comment.
Please see my original message and story, below, then the government's response after that.
I am presenting them here without comment. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Why not scroll down and send me feedback via email?
THANKS!
Larry
__________________________________

Dear Premier Doer and Ministers Wowchuk & Struthers;

I would very much appreciate it if you could get back to me with your observations on the article below.
Thanks so much for your attention.

Respectfully,
Larry Powell

LIVESTOCK CASTS ITS LONG SHADOW OVER MANITOBA'S GREENHOUSE GAS LEVELS -
by Larry Powell .
Roblin MB Oct. 30th '07

Figures from Environment Canada show that farming is playing an increasing role in Manitoba's levels of greenhouse gases.
In 1990, agriculture produced just under one quarter of this province's emissions. (24.4%) Fifteen years later, by 2004, that share had jumped to almost one third of the total. (32.8%)
Manitoba's growing livestock numbers are believed to be the cause.
This province's beef cattle population has been growing steadily in the past decade, to about 1.3 million today. As well, about five million hogs are slaughtered in the province each year. That number has more than doubled in the past decade.
And therein seems to lie the problem.
In a report submitted to a United Nations meeting on climate change, Environment Canada says a couple of factors contributed significantly to the increase over that period.
Gases produced from manure spread on Manitoba cropland and pastures jumped by more than two-thirds. (68%) But close behind was a source often made fun of, or ignored. That is the flatulence produced mostly by beef cattle. It went up 60%.
Cows produce a lot of methane which, as a greenhouse gas, is 21 times stronger than carbon dioxide, the most common one.
The increasing use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is also a significant source because such fertilizer produces nitrous oxide; 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
The figures on agriculture do not include the emissions produced by farm machinery or the energy used to heat farm buildings.
The one-third share of emissions contributed by Manitoba farms in 2004 compares to just 7 percent which agriculture contributed, overall in Canada that year.
The percentage which Manitoba farms contributed over that ten year period went up by 45%. The corresponding figure for Canada as a whole was 23%.

OBSERVATION: Manitoba's factory-farming model does not exactly cover itself in glory with its above-the-national-average performance in the creation of climate-changing greenhouse gases.
Nor does lavish praise from our Agriculture Minister, Rosann Wowchuk, change that fact.
The Minister recently referred to Manitoba's livestock sector as "an industry that is providing leadership to the rest of the country in environmental sustainability!"
Is it any wonder, then that this same government recently told a rural municipality in the province it wouldn't approve the RM's development plan if it did not remove a provision that called for a cap on the size of animal operations? L.P.
January 23, 2008

__________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Powell:
I am writing in response to your letter regarding greenhouse gas levels in Manitoba.

Agricultural emissions appear out of proportion with overall greenhouse gas emissions in Manitoba because other sources are comparatively small, due primarily to the environmentally sustainable hydro-electricity we use as our main power source. In fact, agricultural activities in our province represent just 0.8 per cent of total Canadian greenhouse gas emissions, and are among the lowest in Canada. They are also the lowest of all three prairie provinces.

Manitoba is a leader in environmental sustainability strategies, and the fact that we are updating our climate change action plan, which is among the most progressive in North America, is a clear indication of this leadership. We have been recognized nationally and internationally for our efforts and remain committed to meeting the greenhouse gas reduction targets of the Kyoto Accord.

In my department, we have undertaken numerous initiatives to sustain and enhance our environment, including:

the Covering New Ground Program which has provided over $10 million to fund sustainability projects;
a soil testing program which is helping farmers determine the amount of fertilizer and other management practices that are best for their soil types;
support for the Alternative Land Use Services project, which provides incentives to farmers to implement management practices that contribute to sustainability;
delivery of the national Environmental Farm Plan program to over 6,000 producers, which has influenced sustainable farming practices on over 8.1 million acres of agricultural land.
I note that because of the efforts of my department and the commitment of Manitoba farmers, we have had the greatest participation in environmental farm planning of all three prairie provinces. Through these and other initiatives, Manitoba farmers are contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the benefit of future generations.

Thank you for your thoughts on this important topic of environmental sustainability in agriculture.

Sincerely,
original signed by
Rosann Wowchuk
Minister

Premier Gary Doer
Honourable Stan Struthers

A Testament to Failure (Letter)

The Failed Strawboard Plant at Elie MB.

A tiny fraction of the massive straw piles at the plant. 

now rotting and surely rat-infested. PinP photos.

(Published in the Manitoba CoOperator - Jan. '08)

Dear Editor,

Regarding your recent story about the demise of the strawboard plant at Elie; my heart sinks every time I drive by that site.

It is a testament to the failure of so many things that society ought to be supporting; not relegating to the garbage dump.

Instead of being dismantled and sold to the highest bidder, the plant could still be up and running, diverting waste straw into a valuable building product.

Rather than being gutted, it could still be providing a market for farmers to sell what is an otherwise useless, not to mention dangerous product.

Instead, we can look forward to a future where irresponsible farmers continue to burn their stubble with impunity.

In the process, people unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place, including kids with asthma, will be left to their own devices to cope with the choking smoke.

Motorists will continue to run into each other due to reduced visibility caused by stubble-burning.

Last fall, I was treated to quite a spectacle as I was driving into the outskirts of Winnipeg from the west.

PinP photo.

Racing along the edge of a huge stubble field near the highway, was a farmer on an ATV (similar to the one above), burning his excess straw.

He had ingeniously rigged his vehicle with a propane tank and a boom. It was creating a long trail of fire behind him, ensuring the entire field would be ignited. On the far side of the same field, smoke billowed hundreds of feet into the air.

That night, the street outside the home where we stayed in the city, was enveloped in smoke. 

The next morning, newscasts were filled with reports of traffic snarls and a major accident in the city which critically injured a truck driver; all thanks to stubble smoke!

There was a day when governments who claim to be "social democrats" (like our present one), would have nationalized the plant and operated it as a crown corporation, like Manitoba Hydro.

Instead of requiring that our gasoline contain the questionable fuel additive, ethanol, for example, why not mandate the use of environmentally-friendly strawboard in new construction?

But I guess solutions like that are beyond the reach of our collective political intellect.

Instead, we can look forward to the continued rape of our forests, not to mention untold millions of additional taxpayer dollars being squandered on things like gambling casinos and sports bubbles in Winnipeg!

Larry Powell
Roblin MB

Livestock Casts Its Long Shadow Over Manitoba's Greenhouse Gas Levels

- by Larry Powell

Photo by PinP.

Compared to other provinces, Manitoba doesn't produce a lot of greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. (Only PEI, Newfoundland and the northern Territories emit less.)

But, when it comes to agriculture, we punch way above our weight.

In 2004, (the latest year for which figures are available) virtually one-third of Manitoba's emissions, 32.8%, came from farming. That's the highest percentage of any province in Canada!

The national average in Canada that year was just 7%.

Back in 1990, Manitoba agriculture produced 4,400 kilotonnes (kt) of emissions in * carbon dioxide equivalents." By '04, that number had grown to 6,350 kt, a whopping increase of 45% (compared to the national average of 23%).

Manitoba's growing populations of hogs and beef cattle are said to be behind the numbers.

Those numbers are buried in the almost 500-page National Inventory Report - Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada," which Environment Canada presented to a United Nations convention on climate change last year. To quote from the report, "The expansion of the beef cattle, swine and poultry industries, along with increases in the application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer in the Prairies resulted in a long-term emission growth..."

The province's beef cattle population has been growing steadily in the past decade, to about 1.3 million today. As well, about five million hogs are slaughtered in the province each year. That number has more than doubled since the 90s. (Source; Government of MB.)

Environment Canada says a couple of factors contributed to the increases.

Gases produced from manure spread on cropland and pastures (which would no doubt include millions of litres of slurry from factory hog barns) jumped by more than two-thirds (68%).

But close behind was a source often made fun of, or ignored. That is the flatulence (euphemistically called "enteric fermentation") produced mostly by beef cattle. It went up 60%!

Cows produce a lot of methane and nitrous oxide which, as greenhouse gases, are way more potent than carbon dioxide, the most common one. (Methane is at least 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide; nitrous oxide - 310 times.)

Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is also a significant source of nitrous oxide. Such fertilizer is being used more and more on cropland. 

And the figures on agriculture don't even include the emissions produced by farm machinery or the energy used to heat farm buildings.

PIGS, CATTLE, CHICKENS AND THE WORLD.

Photo courtesy of FAO.

The impact of livestock on the ecosystems of the world is enormous.

A MAJOR REPORT last year by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is stark.

Ominously entitled "Livestock's Long Shadow," the report singles out animal agriculture, including intensive livestock operations, as a significant contributor to climate change, air pollution, the degradation of land, soil and water and the reduction of biodiversity.

The FAO ranks the livestock sector as one of the top two or three of the most significant culprits when it comes to environmental damage. It describes the problems attributable to livestock both on a local and global scale as "massive" and "urgent."

Livestock production, including land used both for grazing and growing feed-crops, covers a staggering 30 % of the land surface of the planet!

It is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America and in the degradation of range-land, mostly due to overgrazing.

Perhaps the most shocking revelation of all in the report is that livestock accounts for no less than 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, a higher share than transport! 

Domestic animals produce 37% of the world's anthropogenic (caused by human activity) ammonia, which is blamed for acid rain and the acidification of ecosystems.

The sector consumes an estimated 8% of the global water supply - already facing scarcity and contamination. Says the FAO, it is probably the biggest contributor to eutrophication (a process which robs water of its oxygen content), dead zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, and the emergence of antibiotic resistance.

All of this seems even more bleak when one considers that meat consumption, already on the rise for some time, is expected to double by 2050!

Manitoba's livestock populations may seem puny in the overall scheme of things. But, according to at least one benchmark, we are pretty much in line with that dark picture painted by the Food and Agriculture Organization. That's in the category of greenhouse gas production.
The FAO says livestock produce 18% of the world's emissions, more than cars, trucks, planes and trains!

In Manitoba, we are hard on the heels of that figure - just over 17%! 

Unfortunately, the practices of too many producers are not helpful. Despite government educational programs urging them to provide a buffer along riparian areas (the banks of public waterways) to protect against the effects of livestock waste, these bulls have full access to such a waterway, a creek which flows into a popular fishing lake about a kilometre downstream from where these pictures were taken!

POSTSCRIPT:

Given all of this, it will be interesting indeed to see how the Manitoba government fulfills its promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below 2000 levels by 2010!

Does this government's warm embrace of the factory-farming model now need to be re-examined?

Will government officials like Agriculture Minister Rosanne Wowchuck now tone down their rhetoric about the livestock sector? (She recently referred to it as "an industry that is providing leadership to the rest of the country in environmental sustainability!")

Is it now time for the government to reconsider the directive it gave to a rural municipality this year, threatening to withhold approval of its development plan if it did not remove a cap on the size of animal operations?

I've been told it's "bad form" to brag. If it is, I'm about to display some.

When I ran as a candidate for the Green Party in the 2002 Manitoba election, my campaign brochure read;"Manitoba's support of the Kyoto Accord is commendable. But, at the same time, it is shamelessly boosting the establishment of more factory farms that produce massive amounts of methane, perhaps the worst greenhouse gas known!" I stand by those remarks and still believe them to be true.

THANKS FOR SUPPORTING EARTH DAY TOO!

One of our vendor tables.

About a hundred people (and two lovable alpacas -r.) turned out at a country residence in west-central Manitoba on Sept. 1st to enjoy "Earth Day Too," a celebration of the growing "eat local" movement.
The open-air event attracted eight vendors from the Roblin/Inglis/Grandview area. Their "wares" included fresh veggies, organic meat, free-range eggs, preserves, honey and maple syrup.


Restoring a connection between food producers and our customers is critical. The wave of fast and processed foods that is sweeping North America today, bringing with it an epidemic of obesity and disease, must be resisted.
The situation has grown so grave that experts are now predicting that we are actually raising a generation that will die before their parents do!
I believe that buying local, eating local and making fresh, healthy food more readily available are among the ways of combating this alarming state of affairs.
As John Ikerd mentions in his article (below), the environmental and social costs of large, industrial-style agriculture are enormous.
Please check out a short video at the following address which nicely sums up why you should consider supporting the "eat local" movement.

In recognition that not everything is available locally, (as well as our moral commitment to help those in other parts of the world) there was a display of "fair trade," organic coffee, tea and chocolate as well.

What is “Fair Trade” and why should we care?

Fair Trade is an alternative approach to international trade. It is a trading partnership between producers, traders, buyers and consumers, which provides a more equitable and sustainable form of exchange.

At the heart of Fair Trade is a central principle: a commitment to pay producers a fair and stable price - one that covers costs plus a reasonable return. It is also a commitment to support safe and healthy working conditions for producers without exploitation. It is a commitment to produce goods in an environmentally sound and sustainable manner.

Fair Trade is the polar opposite of today’s dominant economic model – globalization. That model can only survive by corporations keeping workers down – paying them the lowest possible wage and not worrying about working conditions or the very sustainability of the industry. Why? Because it’s all about “remaining competitive.”

Fair Trade is exactly what our own Canadian farmers need to survive; it is what our forestry, mining and factory workers struggle to achieve. It is trading with a conscience, and recognition that if we are to survive we need each other and a healthy planet.


Tamella and Karen look after one of the "veggie" tables.

Among the non-food vendors were Brenda and Georg Neuhofer, who brought the alpacas.

Wool from the alpacas is woven into beautiful products like scarves and gloves.










One of the musical "acts" designed to brighten the day.


My Top Ten Reasons for Eating Local - by John Ikerd

10. Eating local eliminates the middlemen. Buying food locally saves on transportation and energy and virtually eliminates wasteful spending for unnecessary packing and advertising, which together account for more than 20-percent of total food costs. Total middlemen profits, however, make up less than four percent of total food costs. Local sustainable farmers generally cannot afford to operate on as small a margin of profit or return to their land, labor, and management as can large-scale, global, industrial operations. In addition, industrial producers don’t pay their full costs of production; they externalize some of their costs on nature and society by exploiting natural and human resources. So, eating local may not be cheaper for food buyers, but it certainly reduces the negative social and ecological consequences of our food choices.

9. Eating local saves on transportation. The most recent estimates indicate that the average fresh food item travels about 1,500 miles from its points of production to final purchase.[9] Reducing transportation doesn’t save much in terms of dollars and cents, since total transportation costs amounts to only about four-percent of food costs. However, the ecological savings may be far more significant. Energy for transportation is virtually all derived from non-renewable fossil fuels. In addition, transportation is a major contributor to air pollution, particularly carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. So eating local can make a significant contribution to sustainability, even if only by making a strong personal statement in favor of reducing our reliance on non-renewable energy and protecting the natural environment.

8. Eating local improves food quality. Local foods can be fresher, more flavorful, and nutritious than can fresh foods shipped in from distant locations. According to most surveys, this reason would top most lists of those who choose to eat locally. In addition to the obvious advantage in freshness, growers who produce for local customers need not give priority to harvesting, packing, shipping, and shelf life qualities, but instead can select, grow, and harvest crops to ensure peak qualities of freshness, nutrition, and taste. Eating local also encourages eating seasonally, in harmony with the natural energy of a particular place, which is becoming an important aspect of quality for those of the new food culture.

7. Eating local makes at-home eating worth the time and effort. Obviously, preparing local foods, which typically are raw or minimally processed, requires additional time and effort. But, the superior natural quality of local foods allows almost anyone to prepare really good foods at home, with a reasonable amount of time and effort. Chefs at high-end restaurants freely admit they prefer locally grown food items in part because of their ease of preparation. Good local foods taste good naturally, with little added seasoning and with little cooking or slow cooking, which requires little attention. Home preparation of raw foods also saves money, particularly compared with convenience foods, which makes really good food affordable for almost anyone who can and will prepare them from scratch, regardless of income. Preparing and eating meals at home also provides opportunities for families to share quality time together in creative, productive, and rewarding activities, which contribute to stronger families, communities, and societies.

6. Eating local provides more meaningful food choices. Americans often brag about the incredible range of choices that consumers have in the modern supermarket today. In many respects, however, food choices are severely limited. Virtually all of food items in supermarkets today are produced using the same mass-production, industrial methods, with the same negative social and ecological consequences. In addition, the variety in foods today is largely cosmetic and superficial, contrived to create the illusion of diversity and choice where none actually exists. By eating local, food buyers can get the food they individually prefer by choosing from foods that are authentically different, not just in physical qualities, but also in terms of the ecological and social consequences of how they are produced.

5. Eating local contributes to the local economy. American farmers, on average, receive only about 20 cents of each dollar spent for food, the rest going for processing, transportation, packing, and other marketing costs. Farmers who sell food direct to local customers, on the other hand, receive the full retail value, a dollar for each food dollar spent. Of course, each dollar not spent at a local supermarket or eating establishment, detracts from the local economy. However, less than one-third of total food costs go to local workers in supermarkets and restaurants, most of the rest goes outside of the local community. So the local food economy gains about three dollars for each dollar lost when food shoppers choose to buy from local farmers.

American farmers, on average, get to keep only ten to fifteen cents from each dollar they receive; the rest goes for fertilizer, fuel, machinery, and other production expenses – items typically manufactured and often provided by suppliers outside of the local community. Farmers who market locally, on the other hand, often get to keep half or more of each food dollar they receive, because they purchase fewer commercial production inputs. They receive a larger proportion of the total as a return for their labor, management, and entrepreneurship because they contribute a larger proportion to the production process. Those who sell locally also tend to spend locally, both for their personal and farming needs, which also contribute more to the local economy. So, eating local contributes to both the local food and farm economies.

4. Eating local helps save farmland. More than one million acres of U.S. farmland is lost each year to residential and commercial development. The loss may seem small in relation to the total of more than 950 million acres of farmland, but an acre lost to development may mean an acre lost forever from food production. We are still as dependent upon the land for our very survival today as when all people were hunters and gatherers, and future generations will be no less dependent than we are today. Our dependencies are more complex and less direct, but certainly are no less critical. Eating local creates economic opportunities for caring farmers to care for their land, even when confronted by development pressures on the urban fringes. Their neighbors are their market, as well as their community. Wherever people are willing to pay the full ecological and social costs of food, farms can be very desirable places to live on and to live around. Eating local may allow new residential communities to be established on farms in urbanizing areas, with residences strategically placed to retain the most productive land in farming. These new sustainable communities could be built around the common interest in good food and good lifestyles of members of the new food and farming culture.

3. Eating local allows people to reconnect.
The industrial food system was built upon a foundation of impersonal economic relationships among farmers, food processors, food distributors, and consumers. Its economic efficiency demands that relationships among people and between people and nature be impartial, and thus impersonal. As a result, many people today have no meaningful understanding of where their food comes, and thus, no understanding of the ecological and social consequences of its production. By eating local, people are able to reconnect with local farmers, and through local farmers, reconnect with the earth. Many people first begin to understand the critical need for this lost sense of connectedness when they develop personal relationships with their farmers and actually visit the farms where their food is produced. We cannot build a sustainable food system until people develop a deep understanding of their dependency upon each other and upon the earth. Thus, in my opinion, reconnecting is one of the most important reasons for eating local.

2. Eating local restores integrity to the food system. The new sustainable food system must be built upon personal relationships of integrity. When people eat locally, farmers form relationships with customers who care about the social and ecological consequences of how their food in produced – not just lower price, more convenience, or even an organic label. Those who eat locally form relationships with farmers who care about their land, care about their neighbors, and care about their customers – not just about maximizing profits and growth. Such relationships become relationships of trust and integrity, based on honesty, fairness, compassion, responsibility, and respect. Eating local provides people with an opportunity not only to reconnect personally, but also, to restore integrity to our relationships with each other and with the earth. In today’s society, there should be few, if any, higher priorities.

1. Eating local helps build a sustainable society. The underlying problems of today’s food and farming systems are but reflections of deeper problems within the whole of American society. We are degrading the ecological integrity of the earth and the social integrity of our society in our pursuit of narrow, individual economic self-interests. As we begin to realize the inherent benefits of relationships of integrity within local food systems, we will begin the process of healing the ecological and social wounds that plague modern society. Thus, my number one reason for eating local is to help build a new, sustainable American society.

NOTE: John Ikerd is a noted farm economist.
Although he is American, I believe his observations are universal. L.P.


Eating Local Helps Prevent Disease Spread
Submitted by Danielle Nierenberg on September 8, 2007 - 1:32pm.

Thanks for reminding us that eating local is the best defense against the unintended--or malicious--spread of foodborne pathogens. Last year's outbreak of pathogenic E. coli from Californian farms is a perfect and deadly example of how the long distance transportation of food (people were infected in numerous states and at least 3 people died). For more information on eating local, check out my colleague Brian Halweil's book Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global Supermarket