Locally Grown Produce

Hi Brian, I don't have numbers on this, but Joel Salatin's farm (Polyface) does do scheduled deliveries (http://bit.ly/iv6Pp) to certain cities in VA. Purchasers have to pre-order and they then show up when the truck arrives to get their stuff. Not sure if this helps or hurts (or how much) with the carbon footprint.

As an aside, I do remember going to a "local" farmers market once where most of the vendors were from out of state. Which didn't really make much sense to me, but "minimizing carbon footprint" isn't why I go to Farmers Markets.

James P., Bristow, VA
July 14, 2009 8:51am

Great episode. I never critically thought about this issue, and was surprised.

Now I have to look further into it!

David W., Chicago
July 14, 2009 1:49pm

Another interesting ep. As usual 10 mins is not enough to cover every aspect of the issue. I wonder if anyone knows if the environmental damage of food flight kms tips the balance, owing to the gases and particulates being released in the higher atmosphere rather than food trucking kms released closer to the ground.

Tony, Brisbane, Australia
July 14, 2009 2:41pm

I think that people who claim that locally grown food is greener honestly believe what they say. The human brain simply can't wrap itself around aggregates. It's intuitively obvious how a huge ship carrying sheep from New Zealand generates a ton of pollution. It's quite counter-intuitive that growing them at home costs over four times as much.

People just don't see how small actions add up to big effects. Unfortunately, when you start throwing numbers around, their eyes start to glaze over as well... So what are we to do?

Peter, Toronto, Ontario
July 14, 2009 5:26pm

In a war of words, mathematics is the first casualty. Probably could have used a diagram of a few farms with lines to a few retailers and a comparative distribution centre model. Asking someone which has fewer lines may make them reconsider.

Paul, Adelaide, Australia
July 14, 2009 9:42pm

Another great 'cast, Brian. Thanks. I've always been skeptical of the efficiency and reduced carbon footprint claims, so it was good to hear a little about that. We also go to the local farmers market not for any savings or environmental benefits but because my wife likes talking to the people who bring in the produce and chatting her way in to better deals.

My wife's reason for preferring local produce is that it is supposedly helpful in alleviating pollen allergies. I have never checked if that claim is valid or not, but that's why she looks for truly local produce.

Randy, Memphis, TN
July 15, 2009 6:55am

I've been trying to find a local grower who could produce Crunchberries, Frankenberries and Booberries. Thanks to this episode, I can now eat my imported cereal guilt-free!

Thanks Brian!

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
July 15, 2009 8:44am

Nice breakdown of the Local Food phenomenon, I had just assumed it was better to eat local, but I live on the Central Coast of California, and am surrounded by farming and ranch land. I hadn't thought about it from the perspective of someone living without such a huge quantity and variety of food at their doorsteps. Another pro-Local statement I've heard is "Don't eat fruits and veggies out of season." Any merit to this? Seems like it makes sense from an ecological standpoint, no shipping things from warm places to cold places, but are there places in the world that this rule would cause an unhealthily restrictive diet?

Cthandhs, San Luis Obispo, CA
July 15, 2009 1:07pm

I met someone who claimed that big business was killing local farmers - but these arguments are always turned into some "green" argument in which the other person is saving the planet and I am the Devil. Annoying.

Adam D. Jones, Dallas, TX
July 15, 2009 1:28pm

Just wanted to mention-- NYS does produce beef and dairy! The question is, how local is local?

Jacqueline Hovey, Blasdell, NY
July 15, 2009 2:08pm

I never really thought of it this way. It always seemed like a no brainer that locally grown food is more efficient than food from the other side of the world. But, well... sometimes things just are counter intuitive.

Great episode!

Arne Sahlberg, Värnamo
July 15, 2009 2:28pm

Based on this, shouldn't we use the most efficient method for our own communities? For example, I currently live somewhere with a very small growing season, so it seems reasonable that most of my food should be from other places. But say I live in Spain and I'm eating local tomatoes (but not local sugar or coffee or...). That would also make a lot of sense. It seems that eating local would depend more on the crop and where you live than one or the other being fundamentally better.

Question: would the most efficiently produced food automatically cost less? Should we be bargain shopping to reduce emissions?

Bai Meeker, Vestal, NY
July 15, 2009 3:21pm

I am in disagreement with Brian that the fundamental premise of patronizing "local" food-producers is to lessen my carbon footprint. What does "local" even mean? Anyway, the ultimate objective is not efficiency...isn't that a bit Fascist? When we can, my friends and I buy "local" to help maintain a diverse "local" economy, one that affords both choice and gainful employment to the "local" consumer. Are there "greenwashed" eco-nuts out there? Sure. Are they framing the discussion? Not so sure. Let's not let Big Box suppliers off the hook just yet... a bit of a atraw-man with this one.

Aaron Stanley, Dover, New Hampshire
July 15, 2009 4:07pm

In response to Aaron Stanley, buy local is definitely part of the green asceticism in my community. That probably isn't true for everyone, but what started out as "Buy organic, save the world" has become "Buy local, save the world" as more evidence has come out against claims that organic is eco-friendly.

Cthandhs, San Luis Obispo, CA
July 15, 2009 4:19pm

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu from this episode. I swear that you've covered this topic before. Maybe I'm just remembering your post from the Skepticblog.

Also, you need to do an episode on deja vu.

Iason Ouabache, Indianapolis, IN
July 15, 2009 5:16pm

Good article. Just a couple of points...

First, Wikianswers is definitely not the place to find out how many acres it takes to get a cow to market. The real number is closer to an acre and a half of prime, warm climate, irrigated pasture land in aggregate, enough to grow sufficient food crops for a lot of folks in lieu of the cow in some cases for the richest farmland. Many places will require much, much more- and very few will require less.

Second, Brian is right in that different areas of the world sport vastly disparate comparative advantages that contribute directly to the bottom line. The problem is that long distance transport costs often do not. A bottle of Fiji water, shipped to the US on a boat bellowing out a thick black cloud of bunker oil exhaust, certainly sounds like a lot of wasteful energy. Unfortunately, when a consumer goes to the store in a Subaru Forester (at least here in Boulder) to take home a bottle of Fiji water along with 30 lbs of groceries, the amount of carbon expended to drive to the store and back with the water is, on average, more than seven times what it took to get the stuff to the store in the first place. Staggering.

Lee, Boulder
July 15, 2009 6:58pm

I'm grateful Brian referenced Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" during this podcast. I found that Pollan (whose "Botany of Desire" I highly recommend) sacrificed much objectivity and logic in order to reach a conclusion to his main arguement that was more "emotionally satisfying" than the facts would allow.

When I first read in the book about Joel Salatin's farm I remember being somewhat perplexed that although the farm was described as a virtually closed system - i.e., it required the purchase of virtually no external inputs to the operation - the product of the farm at market was considerably more expensive than that produced by other methods. Surely if Salatin's farm was so much less expensive to operate because it bought little feed, no antibiotics, and spent little on fuel, the meat and produce would have to be comparatively inexpensive. Unless, of course, Salatin were gouging his customers. (Surely not - he is far too ethical to do that!)

Now I know the answer: The expensive input was the land itself! The price at market always tells the truth.

Karl Maki, Scottsdale, AZ
July 15, 2009 7:37pm

Brian,
You make some good points here, but I think you missed an opportunity right in the beginning to reference the "claimants." You say, "The claims are..." OK, but WHO is making these claims? Where are the footnotes?

Ben, Austin, TX
July 16, 2009 8:46am

sad thing is i've had this very discussion with a lot of people from my area.

most of the time it deals with people buying sweet corn locally vs. buying it in the grocery store.

i've tried many times to remind people that 1 semi full of corn from a different state left a smaller carbon footprint that the 50+ cars that visit local growers, and now i have more proof, although i doubt it will do any good.

the biggest trend ive noticed with people who feel strongly about a "heated issue" is that once you prove their reasoning and way of thinking are completely wrong, they clam up and stop listening and pass it off in their brain that you are an "asshole not worth listening to anymore".

FFM

FuriousFatMan, Springfield, IL
July 16, 2009 9:14am

Another great podcast! I'm a little surprised you didn't talk about the supposed "Immune System Boosting" properties of eating locally grown food. I hear about that more than I hear the "environmentally friendly" point.

Michael Hall, Colorado Springs
July 16, 2009 11:08am

Thanks for the podcast again Mr. Dunning. This was one of those issues that I was always iffy about when people would invariably bring it up as a defense for organic food. I love locally grown food, from my garden, and the local grape growers. However, I'd never advise that even a large minority of the population obtain their food in this way, as home gardening is so inefficient.

On that note, please consider looking into some of the other claims in Mr. Pollan's books for future episodes. The ideas they espouse seem ripe for skeptical inquiry. To be perfectly honest, I don't trust my own research on it very much due to time and other constraints.

Brandon, Falconer NY
July 16, 2009 9:23pm

My locally grown produce takes a trip all the way from my garden to my kitchen. That might be about thirty steps. So, yeah, it's a bit more green.

Adam, Ohio
July 16, 2009 10:36pm

Using the 550 acre measure for Joel Salatin's farm is a bit disinginous. The animals/plants etc are raised on 100 acres. The other 450 acres are wooded and if you are going to charge that to the farm then you also have to mention the timber that they are able to cultivate in the winter months. Also keep in mind the other benefits of the 550 acres of non monoculture which are a veritable cornocopia of produce as well as the meat. All of which are pesticide free, with none of the run off to be found on industrial farms.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
July 17, 2009 5:30am

Re: the issue of locally grown vs remote lamb, you didn't explain why requiring feed means more carbon emissions. I assume it's because the feed itself has to be imported.

This suggests a general rule of thumb: transporting a finished product is generally going to be cheaper (in many senses, including a lower carbon footprint) than transporting parts and assembling locally. This is especially the case when "assembly" means maintaining the life cycle of a sheep for years.

That said, I'm skeptical of this article because I don't buy into the premise that "locally grown" means "no distribution centers". Straw man argument.

Ultimately, I think that seeking locally grown food for carbon footprint reduction is putting the cart before the horse. If we want to reduce the carbon footprint, then implement a system that makes carbon emissions more expensive -- say, a cap-and-trade system. Then the cost of various foodstuffs will adjust, economies of scale included, and some local foodstuffs will reduce in price and be consumed more, and other local foodstuffs will be more expensive and will be consumed less.

You didn't mention another possible argument for locally grown food though: biodiversity. Does locally grown food encourage that or reduce it? I would think the former, since economies of scale would encourage specialization.

Paul, Walnut Creek, CA
July 17, 2009 12:16pm

Adam, Ohio:

I am glad that you have an interest in growing your own food, and measuring the distance between your kitchen and your garden in a measure of footsteps.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this article though.

Tyler F, Alberta
July 17, 2009 12:46pm

Not that I'm trying to downplay your points but some of your data is wrong. Specifically in the dairy cows and NY.

In 2007 according to the USDA NY is the third largest Dairy producing state. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Ag_Overview/AgOverview_NY.pdf

Like I said not to invalidate your argument but an interesting point none the less

Paul Schuster, Lockport, NY
July 17, 2009 8:34pm

Paul:
In terms of total dairy production New York is third; however in terms of *per capita* dairy production it ranks sixteenth. (see: http://tinyurl.com/njy536)
Of course, one must then normalize for per capita consumption as well as what type of product (milk, cheese, ice cream, etc.) is produced versus what type is consumed in a given state. Does this make New York a net importer or exporter of dairy products? I have no idea, but the gross production total doesn't tell us much!

Karl Maki, Scottsdale, AZ
July 18, 2009 8:28am

Karl:
I agree with you that imports/exports of milk products make more of a difference in local food issues than gross production. Like I said it was mainly a interesting footnote.

Though in all reality its not like anyone would reasonable consider the milk farms in my neck of NY (western NY) to be local to NYC anyways. Seeing that I am about 350 miles away from the city.

Paul Schuster, Lockport, NY
July 18, 2009 8:52am

For too many people nowadays, "sustainable" or "green" are simply synonyms for "doubleplusgood." Consequently anything green must be good, and anything good must be green. They like shopping at farmers' markets and roadside stands, therefore those habits simply must be more "sustainable" than shopping at the supermarket, because they don't like shopping at the supermarket.

Cambias, Massachusetts
July 19, 2009 6:39am

Cambias - Love the "doubleplusgood" comment.. it's excellent/splendid

Courtney, Seattle, WA
July 19, 2009 12:07pm

I agree, Cambias makes a good point about language. I'm going to turn that around a little and look a phrase that Mr. Dunning used at the start of this episode, and the one before last: "politically incorrect."
Since I had heard Mr. Dunning use this phrase in other podcasts, I sent him an e-mail about it a while back, suggesting it as a possible show topic (what it means to him, where it comes from, why people use it). Of course I know that he has more suggestions than he can possibly get to, but his continued use of this catch-all snide term is problematic to me, in that it gives his arguments the appearance of being less about finding the truth and more about skewering a segment of society. It also gives the appearance of dismissing any counter-arguments prior to them even being heard.
As Mr. Dunning himself might say, "When someone starts his argument with a popular, and somewhat meaningless, catch phrase, be skeptical."

Andrew, Seattle, WA
July 19, 2009 3:55pm

I want to briefly vent/comment on people accusing Dunning and others like him of being "in the pay of some organization".

I've never understood this one. It's a personal attack, it's incredibly hard to prove, and even if he WAS in the pay of "Big {insert branch of economy here}", it wouldn't make him wrong. If an independent person and a mathematics professor in the pay of a university both say 2+2=4, the professor isn't automatically wrong because he is "in the pay of a university that believes 2+2 to equal 4".

I don't understand the people who are so sure they're right that if one disagrees with them, then they must be "in on it" or "in the pay of {insert organization here}". Let's say that what Dunning says IS false. Why does this have to mean he is taking bribes? Isn't it possible for a human being to just be plain wrong?

Safe-Keeper, Norway
July 19, 2009 8:04pm

I agree with your argument that it is environmentally crazy to burn more oil growing local food unsuited to the local environment than is saved in transportation costs. And of course replacing an efficient distribution center based transport system with a point-to-point system also makes no sense. What does make sense is changing our diets to favor locally grown food suited to the local growing conditions. Your analysis where you compare the same food grown locally and at a distance does not consider the shift in diet. Of course to reduce our carbon footprint from food we will not be able to afford the luxury of fresh fish flown daily around the world. Only fishing communities will eat fresh fish. What makes even more sense is favoring foods lower on the food chain, eating the grains ourselves rather than feeding them to cows.

Scott, Centennial, CO
July 21, 2009 11:35pm

One thing I would like to point out is that locally grown food does have the potential to actually taste better. Most fruit is picked before it is ripe in order to survive transport. Thus locally grown food can be picked much closer to being actually ripe and theoretically taste a bit or even a lot better. Explains why growing your own fruits and vegetables tends to taste better (assuming you don't kill them first like I tend to do somehow...)

Ironically organic fruits and vegetables suffer the same shipping shortfall as 'evil commercial' food so I rarely find these actually taste any different. Some organic milk tastes like actual milk, but I think this has more to do with the slow pasturization process used than the cow's diet.

Jason, Boston, MA
July 22, 2009 8:51am

I am a skeptic and in this case skeptical of Mr. Dunnings' points regarding carbon foot prints for locally grown food versus food grown far away. I can not help but believe that a 1000 pounds of tomatoes grown locally where the farmer delivers 100 pounds to 10 stores with in 25 miles of the farm has a smaller foot print than them being trucked to an airport, loaded on a 747 then trucked to a distribution center and then once again to the store. I would like you to further explain where the fallacy is in my assumption. While mathematical modeling and theories maybe good tools I would like a real world answer based upon my example above. Thanks.

Bob Potter, Portland
July 25, 2009 12:02pm

Bob, Mr Dunning did link straight to the math to show this to be true. Also, companies do this math to find out what is cheapest. It makes no sense to ship things from half way across the world if it really is less efficient. Burning carbon for shipping costs money.

It is counter intuitive, but in many cases, true.

If we need the thing that is shipped from across the planet in the first place is a different issue.

Brandon, Falconer NY
July 27, 2009 9:53am

Economies of scale, Bob.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
July 28, 2009 5:56am

The trouble with buying NZ lamb and beef and dairy, from my point of view, is that NZ can't regrow its forests because the land is used for freerange farming.

NZ used to be covered head to toe in ancient rainfores. The land was cleared for farming and the tree logs shipped overseas. When tourists drive the length of NZ they are travelling through a massive meat factory.

I'm not suggesting anyone go vegetarian. Just eat 'wild' meat. i.e meat caught by hunters in forests.

None of the wildlife, except birds, are native to NZ. Possum, pigs, goat & deer are all introduced species.

I think that would probably be the most environmentally friendly was to get food. Then NZ could reforest and travellers would actually get to see the landscape as it should be.

Mind you we'd have no income so you'll need to send some money.

Chris Winn, Raetihi, New Zealand
July 28, 2009 4:25pm

You mention a lot of math around carbon impact of grocery stores and distribution centers and I can't refute that. But what about the products I buy weekly at the local farmers market that come directly from each farm with no middle man? Do they also have a huge carbon impact?

Also, a note about Joel Salatin's farm. It may be an outrageous 550 acres, but think about how many acres of land are rendered unusable every year by a farm that does not have sustainable practices.

Joe Osowski, San Francisco, CA
July 28, 2009 5:11pm

All farms have to rotate crops - it's the only way to postpone soil erosion. In this way, all farms are 'sustainable', at least for a little while. So please, tell us HOW this guy's farm is 'sustainable'. The corporations do research to figure out which plants make their farms more sustainable, and they probably have manpower that 'local farmers' will never have. They are a distributed network of all these brains which figure out all the intricacies of growing food. So, once again, how can that one farm have a more 'sustainable practice' than the monolithic corporate farms? Please elaborate, it sounds like you're spitting buzzwords.

Joseph Bozeman, Norman
July 28, 2009 7:59pm

Hey Chris Winn of New Zealand,
Nothing wrong with suggesting someone go vegetarian. I know plenty of Kiwis who are. And I know plenty of good arguments for it.

Robert, New Haven
July 29, 2009 8:12pm

Hey Robert of New Haven I was wondering if as meat eaters we might have a more beneficial effect on our environment than as vegetarians.
If we could convince everyone in NZ to only eat wild meat, caught in forests and the wider world to not buy NZ's regular free range meat then we could start to reforest NZ...which would be my preference.
But possibly nobody elses.

Chris Winn, Raetihi, New Zealand
July 29, 2009 9:17pm

From NZ here, do not want the place reforested. I care about the environment though, but that's because I care about myself and don't want to be screwed over by screwing over the environment.

No surprise to me that greenies and local diet people are often wrong, they seem to assume for some reason that nature is benevolent, some silly kind of mother gaia thing perhaps.

I think that the real problem is simply population size... But what can be done about that. People have a right to live and pass on their genes, though I think people should have less children, but I'm certainly not one to advocate people should stop breeding, I'd love to have one or two children of my own some day.

Nice article anyway.

Josh, Auckland, New Zealand
July 29, 2009 11:24pm

Karl,

You seem to be missing the point. You're looking only at the price of Salatin's meat, but there are plenty of other factors to consider in making a purchasing decision. What about the far superior quality of the product? Or the fact that they're not benefiting from corn subsidies the way larger operations are?

I'm pretty sure that nobody who actually read the book would think Salatin or Pollan were ever arguing their product was cheaper than the $0.99/lb ground beef at your local supergrocer.

As a matter of fact, it's this "lower price" mentality that led to the mess we're in now. Of course if Salatin style meat were cheaper than the alternative it would be a dominating choice and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Jeff Evans, Chicago, IL
July 30, 2009 3:00pm

A large part of Salatin's farm is left as bush, so I think it's disingenuous to count the entire 550 acres against his animals if he only uses 100 of it for active farming. I don't have a copy of the book any more so I can't find the numbers.

Here's what I found from a quick google though: According to Pollan's book, Polyface Farm each season can produce an astonishing 40,000 pounds of beef, 30,000 pounds of pork, 10,000 broilers, 1,200 turkeys, 1,000 rabbits and 35,000 dozen eggs.

I'm not sure how that stands up against traditional agriculture, but it seems pretty impressive. I agree that it's stupid to have everyone drive up to the farm to buy it all individually, but this kind of critical analysis is good to have and I think there are a lot of things in a lot of places that are better locally. Apples grow well in Ontario but people want granny smiths so they're imported. A triumph of marketing more than anything else I would reckon.

Anyway, nice blog you have here. Not sure how I stumbled here.

Charles Horslin, Kitchener, Ontario
August 02, 2009 2:01pm

Jeff, I'm curious, what about Salatin's beef is "far superior" to supermarket beef of the same grade? Do you believe you could tell the difference in either appearance or taste? What would the tipoffs be?

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 04, 2009 4:06pm

Interesting take. However, I thought one of the points of locally produced food is that you eat food that is sutiable to produce in your area. That means no tomatoes in the winter in Canada, and no livestock that require high-energy-cost feed and heated living accombodations. That means many people would have to store food over the summer, or pick food with long shelf lives, dramatically limiting variety in their diets. (This is why I don't eat food only produced locally) But yes- if you're comparing imports to greenhouse-raised food, I'm sure you're right. People sound like they want to eat locally without sacrificing variety. You can't have something for nothing. I'm sure they never question why it's more expensive, either.

Salatin doesn't sound so bright, thinking that requiring people to drive to him for a few pounds of beef saves carbon. In fact, the modern supermarket is probably really good for reducing carbon emissions since EVERYONE gets EVERYTHING they need in one stop, often transporting 100 pounds of food home at a time.

Adam, Lieziert
August 06, 2009 3:39pm

I'm not sure how this disproves that a local, true farmers market isn't environmentally friendly. Yet, living in an agricultural state, local has the traditional meaning; perhaps in other areas it's different.

I buy at the farmers market for quality anyway, not to artificially boost my ego with the arbitrary feeling of being "green".

Bryan, Ames, IA
August 13, 2009 11:13pm

I think Adam nailed it. That's exactly what local should mean. You do not eat what you haven't got. why do people feel like they have to eat the same foods all year round. If you eat the produce that is in season it will be cheaper and better tasting. It also means if you live in Chicago you just don't get to have tomatoes on your hamburger...tough shit. In the Ideal local market scenario your grocery store would operate much the same as it does now just with fewer choices. There should be efficient distribution just not over thousands of miles. "locally grown" has fallen prey to the marketing mentality that is part of the sickness of this country.

- Any and all labels should be viewed with skepticism. I don't shop at farmers markets cuz I don't time. But they sound wonderful.

Josh Hansen, Chicago
August 25, 2009 8:15pm

There seems be a conflict of interest in personal choice:

1. We want our food consumption preferences to be independent of our geographical location.
2. Different areas of the world have different climates suitable for different produce.

Unless locally grown produce can find a way to accommodate both of these points economically, it will continue to be a niche.

Jim, Texas
August 28, 2009 10:33am

You make some good points, to be sure. A few comments:

1) On Salatin's shipping policy, this is what his site says: "COMMUNITY: We do not ship food. We should all seek food closer to home, in our foodshed, our own bioregion. This means enjoying seasonality and reacquainting ourselves with our home kitchens." It's about knowing where your meat comes from and building dependable local food systems that are not reliant on cheap oil and resilient to change. He's not suggesting that people drive hundreds of miles to get his beef (and he discourages people from doing that). He's suggesting that if you're too far away, you should find something closer to you.

2) On the size of his farm, I think it's deceptive to say that his farm requires more acreage per head therefore it's less efficient. How many people live and work on the farm? How much of the land is forest, or a natural river? How much of that land was completely unusable before the Salatins came in and transformed it? This isn't just a numbers game.

3) On distribution centers - what is a farmer's market but a distribution center? It's not like the farmers are driving to your house to drop off food.

4) I think you're talking to the wrong people about why they shop at farmer's markets. I hit my local markets a few times a week, and I and everyone else I know who does so because the food there is just higher quality and a better value than elsewhere, and you can talk to the people who grow it about their methods.

Adam Fields, New York
September 01, 2009 10:06am

Jeff Evans:
Actually, you seem to be missing *my* point. Salatin's farm is described for all intents as a closed system; i.e., the only inputs are the land, the sun, some rain, fences and cages, human labor and lots of happy thoughts. Thus, once the land is paid for and some minor capital investment made in equipment, the production as described is cost free save for the labor. Pollan seems to consider Polyface Farms a not only ethically superior model, but an economically superior one as well; on that basis the product *should* be of superior quality at the same market price. Thus my confusion that the product should cost more if everything operates as described.

The meat, etc., may well be of a higher quality than that found in the average supermarket. And if people want to make a special trip to the farm to acquire it on that basis, or because they are willing to pay a premium to feel better about themselves remains their personal choice. My point was that Pollan's description of the operation and the lessons he drew from it were incomplete and designed primarily to support his preferred conclusion.

Karl Maki, Scottsdale, AZ
September 03, 2009 12:24pm

"One of Salatin's rules is that, in the interest of a minimum carbon footprint, he won't ship his beef at all; customers have to drive to him to pick it up."

What is the source for "in the interest of a minimum carbon footprint"? Has he explicitly said that carbon is why he won't ship beef?

According to this story in the USA Today, while he won't ship food, he will accept tourists from the other side of the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2008-04-17-agritourism-local-food_N.htm

"The 550-acre farm about three hours southwest of Washington, D.C., produces healthful, "humanely raised" pork, beef and poultry that earns swooning praise from chefs at regional restaurants. And it draws more than 8,000 visitors a year from as far afield as New Zealand and South Africa — including a handful of acolytes willing to shell out $1,000 for a guaranteed audience with its charismatic owner.

Polyface's pilgrims are part of a small but expanding cadre: gastronomy-minded, eco-conscious vacationers who already scour farmers' markets and seek out menus emphasizing seasonal, locally sourced items but who also want to see firsthand what it takes to get that artisanal goat cheese or grass-fed steak from field to fork."

Timmeh, Yokohama, Japan
September 07, 2009 7:45pm

Like all aspects of life which touch on so many issues saying, locally produced food is better then imported is just too simplistic. However much as I agree with most of what Brian says I think on this issue there is an important point that has been overlooked that is difficult to measure but none the less important and that is the social dimension. Compare many small towns in the UK and the US with similar small towns in France, where local production is seen as a vital and integral part of local life. France has many laws protecting small local producers. Compare a small town in the US with shopping Mall to the French town with its numerous different shops and markets. Now I am not saying that the produce is any better in the French town but there is so much social added value from still having a situation that promotes a diversity of production and distribution rather than having local mall monoculture. Visit France and see for yourself. Now what I am saying is not scientific but is a result of experiencing the two situations and societies. There is no right or wrong in either, it is one of choice. The choice being do you wish to live in a society that encourages local production and employment with its social added value, or do you see this as unimportant factor in. I think these more social arguments are far more difficult to resolve coming down in the end to choice and value judgements and political beliefs.

Eric Robinson, Edinburgh
September 10, 2009 12:35am

Per Eric Robinson:
"The choice being do you wish to live in a society that encourages local production and employment with its social added value, or do you see this as unimportant factor in. I think these more social arguments are far more difficult to resolve coming down in the end to choice and value judgements and political beliefs."

The flip side to this social welfare argument, however, must be recognizing the harm that agricultural protectionism inflicts upon the poorest of the poor in the world. When a society wishes to lift itself up today it must join the global economy. For the poorest countries, which lack almost any infrastructure or modern institutions, economic engagement, at the beginning, almost necessarily has to begin with agricultural exports. When the richest countries of the world (in the politically attractive interest of protecting the "family farm") erect barriers to the product of poorer countries, we help ensure they will stay poor.

For me, the marginal loss in social welfare experienced through the demise of "local" agriculture is dwarfed by the massive social cost of keeping billions of humans living in poverty.

Cheers!

Karl Maki, Scottsdale, AZ
September 15, 2009 2:31pm

Your information on Salatin is not entirely correct, if I remember correctly he has customers come to him for a number of reasons; to save his own time, to cut the overhead of owning refrigerated delivery vehicles, and to prevent going to farmers markets and returning with unsold product. He may have other reasons as well, such as consumer confidence in seeing where the product is humanly raised.

I work with a number of farmers and ranchers who follow the local food philosophy with the number one reason being to maximize return of profits to the farm by selling direct to their customers. A premium product such as grass-fed or "natural" adds to this margin. Making money on the farm is "sustainable". Loosing money with market prices and high overheads is not.

The typical model of distribution while competitive per pound of food versus C02 puts less money in the pockets of producers.

Also your pasture stocking estimates are askew, Salatin's farm is mostly forested, not all acres are pasture. His 100 cows are finished on pasture and the pastures are managed in such a way as to build the soil based on natural models. It would be more acurate to look at dollars per pound for food produced per acre minus overhead and inputs vs. a traditional beef pasture stocking rate sold at auction.

It's no secret that many farmers and ranchers are struggling to balance market prices and operating costs, local food gives the farmer more control over their means of survival.

Erik Ross, Red Bluff, California
September 29, 2009 12:11pm

In response to Karl Maki's 9/15 post:

The problem with your argument, on the poor country side, is that the exporting farmers are rarely if ever poor farmers. The ones who export are usually the large, highly-capitalized (i.e. already rich) farmers, many of whom receive subsidized credit and tax relief from the government for their foreign exchange-earning activities. And many times, these capitalized farms have expanded at the expense of their less capitalized (i.e. poor and not poltically connected) neighbors. When and if small farmers do get a chance to export their produce, the 'middlemen' (sometimes private, sometimes government, sometimes both) usually end up with the lion's share of the profits.

This isn't a defense of rich country's protectionism, mind you. I would say, however, that if I HAD to pay for my government to protect agriculture (as I do now, in spades!), I'd rather it go to small, family producers than to the Archer Daniels Midlands of the world. Vibrant rural areas can be an alternative to urban poverty.

William R. Nylen, DeLand, FL
October 07, 2009 12:21pm

Mr. Nylen, I appreciate your thoughtful response and concerns, but one has to start somewhere.

If you are insisting that poor countries have to get their public and private institutions right first - that wealth and rights distribution is fair and equitable prior to trade - they will never improve their lot. Institutions generally follow rather than lead the process.

By the way, U.S. government protectionism in the area of agriculture - though it may be couched in terms of protecting small farmers - is exactly about enriching the likes of ADM, who are eager to return a portion in the form of campaign contributions.

Regardless of what the expressed rationale is for any such policies, the root impulse is rent seeking, which process generally benefits the already wealthy and well-organized.

Cheers!

Karl Maki, Scottsdale, AZ
October 10, 2009 10:29am

I appreciate the insight provided here. In the true vein of science and in addressing greenhouse gas emissions as a global community there will be many releases of data,today and tomorrow. We continue to refine our processes and our beliefs and must recognize that there's no instant solution. I would like to see the references for the information you cite. That is crucial in this argument and crucial for researchers to build upon previously recorded data. Please share. Thanks.

B. Jewell, Savannah, GA
November 13, 2009 11:47am

I was ready to argue on this one, but after reading I have to agree. Thanks for cleaning the mental pipes again.

Kenneth Braxton, Orangeburg, SC
November 30, 2009 9:18pm

Wow, you have a lot to learn on this stuff. Part of the problem here is that you do cursory research on a lot of subjects, which is great for debunking ghosts or astrology (easy pickings), but not so great for a complex subject like this. You skipped a lot of reasons for doing things Salatin's way, and totally missed the fact that his cows eat grass, not corn, so he saves money and acres on feed. Plus, research the health differences of grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef. Also, realize that he expects to feed his neighbors, not people driving from hundreds of miles away. Noone's arguing that it isn't nice to sometimes get fruit from some other country when it's out of season. But supporting local growers that produce the right food for your climate will make things easier as the oil supply begins to dwindle. Or are you skeptical about that as well?

Matt, USA
January 18, 2010 11:28pm

Matt

- Although he leaves out many of the reasons why Salatin farms the way he does, he isn't dealing with those reasons. The point he is making is that Salatin is not environmentally friendly. You say it is healthier? Sure,that's a different topic, but it doesn't produce less Co2 Emissions, which is the argument. And unless he is only feeding people he can walk to, then yes, he is producing Co2 in transportation very, very inefficiently. The oil supply is dwindling not because of a truck up to its capacity in meat, but because of a fleet of SUV's each carrying 5 pounds.

Jay, Toronto
January 25, 2010 9:18am

I learned a lot on this episode.

Just for the record: The farmer's market in South Austin, TX, does include food from a number of actually local farms, rather than distribution centers.

Abby, Austin, TX
February 23, 2010 12:02am

"Plus, research the health differences of grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef."

I think I will. So far, I've come across the naturalistic fallacy ("cows don't eat this or that kind of feed in nature, thus it MUST be wrong") and a false argument that hormones in the feed is causing early puberty in humans (which is ridiculous not only because we know that kids enter puberty earlier because of better nutrition, but also because... wait for it... because most kids don't eat feed).

Øyvind, Norway
April 08, 2010 1:16pm

Since when does less fuel = green?
Is that all environmentalism is now?
I'll update my dictionary.

Terri, Nashville, TN
April 12, 2010 8:35pm

Øyvind,

You didn't research the health differences of grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef, did you.

Here are the claims
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1200759-2,00.html

"When animals are 100% grass-fed, their meat is not only lower in saturated fats but also slightly higher in omega-3 fatty acids... Ground beef and milk from grass-finished cattle also have more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which recent data suggest may help prevent breast cancer, diabetes and other ailments. Moreover, grass-finished meat is higher than grain-finished meat in vitamin A and vitamin E, two antioxidants thought to boost resistance to disease."

Here's the latest study showing that CLA lowers the risk of heart attack.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/lf_nm_life/us_milk_health

Max, Boston, MA
June 04, 2010 8:54pm

While Joel Salatin might want to rethink his distribution method, Brian Dunning might want to rethink his critique of Polyface Farm's land use.

Joel Salatin's farm is 100 acres of pasture and 450 of forest. In addition to the pasture-intensive beef cattle, it supports a nontrivial flock of 30,000 chickens. I'm not a farming expert, but Polyface seems plenty efficient from here.

greg, Deerfield MA
June 25, 2010 8:37pm

All this discussion makes me wonder: are "local" farms more likely to internalize externalities that bigger farms can simply write off as the "cost of doing business"? If so, and if the differences are significant, it seems like the best argument for shopping local. Until then, off to Wal-Mart for some cheap meat!

Quinton, lawrence, ks, usa
June 29, 2010 4:48pm

I was disappointed that the incomplete information about Polyface Farm wasn't discussed in the recent corrections episode. It's a key piece of "evidence" that helps tarnish the appeal locally grown resources, yet it is entirely misleading and plain wrong. Again, Joel Salatin's acreage is mostly forest, and should not be included in the pasture tally.

Brian, do you read your comments?

Polyface Farm is probably not the miracle place we would like it to be, but it's such a huge step in the right direction that I think you should correct your report and reassess your judgment.

greg, Deerfield MA
July 05, 2010 9:50pm

Joel Salatin was on the movie Food inc. Food inc. looked like a movie that needs its oun skeptoid episode but much of the movie's ideas have been coverd in many different skeptoid episode.

Friend Brian Dunning on facebook for you cann't

Aaron Kenyon, San Antonio, Texas
August 17, 2010 8:23am

greg, that wood lot is needed by Joe to maintain his farm, and thus it's perfectly valid to include the forest in the tally. Other farms get this needed material from other locations. I do agree that the land needed to produce the material for the standard farm should be included however.

While I admire Joe's self-reliance, I don't see much at Polyface Farm that I'd want implemented on a large scale, let alone call a 'huge step in the right direction'. There are lots of new, innovative practices developed in agriculture all the time though.

But the main point was the horrendously inefficient and ecologically unfriendly delivery method, the whole subject of this podcast.

Brandon, Falconer
August 17, 2010 1:06pm

I have issues with the claim that it should only take 1/2 acres per head. In that part of the country the best you can realistically expect to get out of the land is 4 Animal Unit Months (AUM) which means that it takes 4 acres of land to feed one cow calf unit per month. Most of his land has Frederick-Christian and other Frederick complex soils which will likely have productivity in the 6-8 AUM range. Since most of the farm is forested I dare say his land use efficiency is pretty good.

Soils maps can be found at websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
I used a Soil Survey from a nearby county (Montgomery) to look up the Frederick series which is 8 AUM.

Your points about distribution seem valid, and I do see Mr. Salatin as being a marketer over anything else.

Scott D., Maryland
September 09, 2010 10:07pm