The Problem with Farming: Land

I want to be a farmer. I am in a program with a lot of smart, ambitious young people who also want to become farmers. So I have decided that I’m going to keep exploring some of the barriers that people who are just starting out in the food production industry face.

Farming is all about the bottom line. As my mum said this morning “If you can’t make money, no matter how much you enjoy getting dirty or feeding people or driving around in ever decreasing circles in a combine or whatever it is that inspires you to be a farmer, you can’t do it.” And as usual, she is right. You have to able to pay for your own needs, and that can be a pretty high bill if you are running a farm.

One of the biggest expenses facing farmers, especially new ones, is land. The tricky thing about land is that usually the pieces you want are close to your markets. Markets are generally in population centers, and generally, population centers are where land is the most expensive. You have to compete with all those developers who want to build big expensive houses on it, and make piles and piles of money. In British Columbia in particular, agricultural land is expensive because there isn’t much of it.

Prime beef raising land, Kananaskis. Land prices in southern Alberta are increasing due to the development pressures from Calgary, and the desires of wealthy Calgarians to own fancy country homes.

The problem with having expensive land for farmers is that food is a really low mark-up product. Farmers sell what they produce for only slightly more than what it would cost them to produce it. If a farmer has to pay $300,000 for their farm, they would have to sell every potato they grew for $500 a pound, and we all know that isn’t going to happen. The percentage of people’s income that is spent on food has decreased significantly over the last 70 years, and unfortunately for farmers, consumers just aren’t willing to pay what it costs to produce organic, local and sustainable food.

Of course, the government has stepped in to support farmers and keep food prices low in the past by offering farm subsidies, but that has only contributed to some of the biggest problems within the food system today. Farm subsidies were given to commodity crop producers, which led to the rise of huge agribusinesses who produce and process subsidized crops like corn into the cheap, nutritionally void foods we see on supermarket shelves today. These farm subsidies worked out really well for a few major corporations, but they hurt everyone else. Farmers lost money because the market kept getting flooded with cheap commodity crops, small-scale farmers were priced out of business by economies of scale, and consumers started living off of cheap, processed food that has caused countless health problems in our society. Farm subsidies are why you can buy Vector in every supermarket in Canada, but finding locally grown oats and hemp hearts for your porridge will be extremely difficult. This is a grossly simplified version of what has happened, but the fact is that while we insist on paying practically nothing for the food we eat, farmers will not be able to farm. Why? Because they can’t actually afford to. Even if they really, really want to. Which is bad news for people like me.

Me, working on a farm in Italy.

Of course, there are a couple ways around owning your own land. I’m going to take a little break from the gloom and doom posts next, and explore some nifty alternatives.

 

 

The Problem with Farming: Goats and Property Insurance

My mum Sarah is an urban farmer. She is a sustenance farmer, and has always grown vegetables, fruits and herbs for our family. She has a little flock of chickens in the backyard that produce eggs, and she cans, dries, preserves and freezes an impressive amount of the food we eat at home. She saves seeds, builds her own soil, and knows more about sustainable agriculture than most of my professors combined.

The goats, keeping down invasive Japanese knot weed.

Recently, Sarah decided she wanted to try raising goats. She bought 8 females from a farm nearby in the Kootenays, and shortly afterwards, she bought her first breeding male, a billy goat named Uncle Buck. Sarah worked out an arrangement with the local ski hill, Red Mountain Resort, where in exchange for some space on the mountain for the goats, my mum would provide a goat-brushing service. The goats lived on the hill, and every day my mum would go up, feed them some pellets, fill their water troughs, and check to make sure the fences were still intact. Every two or three days, Sarah would move the fence, so the goats had access to fresh brush to munch on. After the goats grazed on the brush, the brush would slowly die back, so the ski hill did not have to pay people to take it all out with a chainsaw. Some friends of my mum offered her their unused barn to store the goats in the winter, and they lived there whenever they were not up at the hill, brushing away.

The goats at the barn yard.

By the spring, the herd had swelled to 22 goats. Sarah planned to raise the kids until they were older, and then use them for meat animals.

One of the kids and I, at the barn.

The arrangement was working out really well. For the last two years, Sarah has had her goats up at the ski hill during the summer. Not only do the goats provide a service to the skill hill, but the cost of raising meat animals decreases significantly when land does not need to be purchased. The barn is an absolutely incredible spot of good luck, as it has worked out to be a free home for the goats in the winter.

The goats and an area they have brushed.

However, recently my mum received some bad news. The dear friend who owns the barn where the goats live during the winter found out that because the goats live on his property, his property insurance would double. The insurance company claimed that insuring the goats would cost as much as insuring the approximately $400,000 house, it’s contents, the out buildings, and the liability insurance associated with the property, because of the potential damage to neighboring properties that the goats could cause.

Mum with her herd.

The strange thing to me is that all two of the neighbouring properties are farms, one of which has a herd of cattle and the other has horses. The property with the barn on it is on the Agricultural Land Reserve, which means that the property is zoned as farm land. My mum explained to me that because she is not selling her goats, she cannot really afford the insurance on top of what she pays for feed and medical costs. She cannot add the goats to her property insurance, which would be cheaper, because although technically they are her property, they do not live on our land. Horses, chickens and dogs do not require extra insurance, although they are just as likely to destroy neighboring property as goats are. The cost does not appear to change depending on the number of goats that live on the property either.

One of the goats, hard at work.

So, what does this mean for small-scale or sustenance farmers like my mum? It increases the cost of raising your own animals. It means that for farmers establishing businesses, the cost of property insurance will probably prove to be unaffordable. It means you probably cannot afford to raise your own animals, even if you have the land and infrastructure to do so. And for consumers, it means that the availability of humanly-raised, free-range, local, organic food is even harder to get then it needs to be. We should be encouraging people to farm on unused land, but issues like this deter new farmers from starting out. Even if you have liability insurance for your small business, if you have animals on someone else’s land, their property insurance will increase.

The insurance companies decided that the goats my mum raised carry more risk then the entire homestead they live on (or horses or dogs), and in making that decision, they have priced a small-scale farmer out of her environmentally-friendly brushing and sustenance farming business.
In my program, we talk a lot about food security. We talk a lot about our food system, and about how best to improve it. The truth is, the best way to improve food security is to get involved in the food system, to grow a garden, raise chickens, maybe have some goats. Unfortunately, insurance companies in British Columbia are making that impossible, and this is an issue that we need to address if we want to see more small-scale farmers in our neighbourhood.

The Problem With Farming

When I tell people I want to be a farmer, most of them give me the same slightly confused, somewhat sympathetic look I assume you’d get if you told someone you were planning on swimming across Greenland. Most people seem to think that being a farmer is a bad idea, for a whole variety of reasons.

I’ve always been drawn to food production though, and despite the fact that I am currently dabbling in ideas of food policy, food security issues, and hunger solutions, I do want to run a farm at some point in my life. I want a small scale farm, and I want to run it the way I think food should be produced.

Lately however, I’ve been hearing some pretty discouraging stories involving some barriers small scale farmers face. I really want to address some of what I view as systemic problems facing small-scale and/or innovative farmers, who are choosing to grow food outside of the factory farm production model. So I have decided to write a few blog posts about some of the problems that I see facing these fine folks, and exploring some ways we can address them, at the policy level or elsewhere. I am studying because I want to be able to change our food system for the better, and I think that in order to do that, we should probably take a look at some of the problems facing people who are out there doing things a little differently. So, the next post will be about a farmer very close to home.