I locally sourced food actually better?

[Glenstache]

I came across this 2011 Freakonomics article today and thought it would be of general interest given the number of threads on various types of diets, food sourcing, and climate issues. The question addressed by the article is whether locally sourced food is efficient enough to overcome the benefits of specialization. In short, crop yields may be lower in local farms that for crops grown in better suited climates, or due to other types of specialization. These lower yields equate to a higher input of chemcials etc per unit food. In some cases it is quantitatively better to ship a food item great distances than try to grow it locally. The article also touches on a few unintended consequences widespread adoption would potentially have.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/

I don't actually have a strong opinion one way or another. We get a delivery of locally grown food every week at our house and it is nice having things that change with the season. That said, I recognize the inherent limitations on what we can grow in Washington and living here I would be hard pressed to find local olive oil (closest I know of is 600 miles away in CA, but still usually comes from over seas).

What do others think on this? What analysis did the article miss?

[JZinCO]

Seems this is better suited to off topic, but
 I think from what I have learned working in a field addressing GHG emissions in the land use/landuse change sector... Local is 'nice', it does have positive economic impacts, but the gains (in terms of reducing negative externalities) are not to be had by reducing farm to market distances. The biggest bang for our buck in addressing the biggest impacts of ag (GHG emissions, nitrification of waterways, habitat loss) will be solved using precision ag, coupled with changes in practices as a strategy towards sustainable intensification. So that sounds so buzzwordy at face value, but we can get into the weeds if you want. Just so we are clear, the majority of emissions have to do with fate of fertilizer application and of soil organic material, not transportation.

[Heather in Ottawa]

It always makes me happy when people take the time to really learn about agriculture. Reducing ghg's and ecosystem impacts is a function of production efficiency. Transportation costs are only a small piece of the production chain.

[kite]

You'll probably enjoy this....

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6058223-just-food

It's a complicated subject.  I eat local foods that grow best near my location:  corn, tomatoes, blueberries,  cranberries, oysters all do well here in the Garden State.  Potatoes, too.  But that's not a complete diet.  There's a line in the book "Just Food" about how the system we have today evolved for some very good reasons:  namely that people used to starve.  Before we decide the system needs to revert back to those days, we need to look at the whole picture.   One small hurricane or hail storm could wipe out an entire region's crop yield and leave hundreds of thousands starving.  With economies of scale and the very efficient systems we have for distribution, people are still alive after a storm, drought or blight wipes out everything for miles around. 

If a particular food thrives near you, eat it because it's probably delicious and cheaper than an imported variety of the same thing.  That's mustachian, and a no brainer. 

[ooeei]

You'll probably enjoy this....

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6058223-just-food

It's a complicated subject.  I eat local foods that grow best near my location:  corn, tomatoes, blueberries,  cranberries, oysters all do well here in the Garden State.  Potatoes, too.  But that's not a complete diet.  There's a line in the book "Just Food" about how the system we have today evolved for some very good reasons:  namely that people used to starve.  Before we decide the system needs to revert back to those days, we need to look at the whole picture.   One small hurricane or hail storm could wipe out an entire region's crop yield and leave hundreds of thousands starving.  With economies of scale and the very efficient systems we have for distribution, people are still alive after a storm, drought or blight wipes out everything for miles around. 

If a particular food thrives near you, eat it because it's probably delicious and cheaper than an imported variety of the same thing.  That's mustachian, and a no brainer.

I agree with this.  Some foods are pretty much made for shipping and long term storage (potatoes, oranges, chicken).  Some foods CAN be shipped long distances and stored for a long time, but end up sacrificing in flavor to do it (peaches, berries, corn).  Sure, you can get most of the "perishable" foods frozen and they'll taste great, but it's hard to recreate that fresh texture you get buying it locally.  Living in TX, I don't even bother eating fresh peaches that don't come from a farmer's market anymore.  Occasionally a grocery store gets a good batch, but the farmer's market ones are always incredible.

As far as efficiency, I think large scale agriculture does great for commodity foods, but you do miss out on some of the quality you get with a small scale local grower for a lot of things.  It's the same as anything else, sure IKEA can make a chair or bed more efficiently than a local carpenter, but is it really an apples to apples comparison (pun intended)?  Living in a world where you engineer everything to give you the exact minimum requirements that will sell a product to the masses, IKEA is the obvious choice.   

In addition, many things can be grown in your own yard without too much effort.  Sure you're using a bit of physical energy to take care of it, but the exercise is good for you anyway, thus shouldn't count the same as the energy used to run a tractor on a giant farm.

[Jack]

The article writer may or may not be ultimately correct in his conclusion, but I don't believe he adequately justified his assumptions, which are as follows:

• People will eat the same mix of produce that they currently do, instead of changing their diet to emphasize crops that grow well locally
• That local farms would necessarily use more carbon-intensive or polluting chemical inputs than industrial farms. (In other words, he completely dismisses organic and/or biodynamic farming as being a viable large-scale solution, and worse, does it implicitly instead of even acknowledging it as a possibility.)

[Guses]

I dream of being the steward of a self sustaining microecosystem where I grow hydroponic veggies that support and clean a basin of pastured fishes.

I would say that it depends on what you mean by better. Local grown tomatos taste fresher than tomatos that were shipped from halfway around the globe. By the measure of taste, they are better.

[bacchi]

The article writer may or may not be ultimately correct in his conclusion, I don't believe he adequately justified his assumptions, which are as follows:

• People will eat the same mix of produce that they currently do, instead of changing their diet to emphasize crops that grow well locally
• That local farms would necessarily use more carbon-intensive or polluting chemical inputs than industrial farms. (In other words, he completely dismisses organic and/or biodynamic farming as being a viable large-scale solution, and worse, does it implicitly instead of even acknowledging it as a possibility.)

Yep. For some crops, organic farming produces almost as much yield as conventional farming. Berries, in particular, are a very good organic crop. Legumes, when done in rotation, are also very close to conventional farms. Rotation can also increase yield in industrial farms, of course, but is rarely done.

http://csanr.wsu.edu/narrowing-the-conventional-organic-yield-gap/

[Kaspian]

I don't understand how/why it all works the way it does.  There's no reason for our grocery stores to be stocking apples from California, artificially ripened with gas on the transport truck, when they already grow perfectly good ones here just down the street.  Where do ours go?  Probably Costa Rica or Zimbabwe or something. Potatoes, carrots, berries, same thing.

Whether or not it's 100% "economically efficient"?  I don't care--growing locally would probably get some of those damn transports off the highway and save 10,000 or more lives a year or something. 

The latest in crazy--Canada freezes chickens, sends them to China on a boat, China defeathers/guts/cleans them, sends them back to us on another boat.  ...What in the serious name of fuck?!  (I wish I was joking.)

[FI40]

The latest in crazy--Canada freezes chickens, sends them to China on a boat, China defeathers/guts/cleans them, sends them back to us on another boat.  ...What in the serious name of fuck?!  (I wish I was joking.)

Well we know shipping is dirt cheap. And we know Chinese labour is dirt cheap. We also know Canadian labour is expensive. So it kind of makes sense, economically, if not in any other way :)

[Knitwit]

That Freakonomics articles reminds me of an interesting piece in the New York Times several years ago regarding this very topic. The author, who I can't remember, talked about mutton. Every ton of mutton that's raised in New Zealand and sent to the UK for consumption creates about 2000 lbs of CO2 emissions (shipping emissions included). By contrast, every ton of mutton raised in the UK and consumed in the UK creates 6000+ lbs of CO2 emissions. (Sorry, figures are approximate.) This is because NZ is ideally suited for raising sheep, whereas the UK has poorer quality pasture and sheep must be given supplementary feed, which comes with its own chain of raising/processing/shipping/etc.

So, is local always better? Environmentally - not always. However, taste? Freshness? Supporting a local economy? You can't do better than local.

To answer the OP's question, my opinion is that local food is better in some ways, but worse in others. I think consumers need to pick what's most important to them.

[Jack]

Supporting a local economy? You can't do better than local.

The article we're discussing here points out that even that isn't true, due to the concept of comparative advantage.

[music lover]

Here's an interesting article about "food miles":

"Perhaps most interestingly, just 4% of total emissions were final delivery transport from the producer to the retailer, which is what most people think of when they talk about food miles."

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-miles

[Knitwit]

Supporting a local economy? You can't do better than local.

The article we're discussing here points out that even that isn't true, due to the concept of comparative advantage.

Fair point! I admit I got really excited about the Freakonomics article and skimmed over parts of it. It's not often that I read something that supports my (personal) view that local food isn't always what it's cracked up to be. I know a lot of people who think only about the "food miles" (thanks music lover) of their produce without thinking about all the resources needed to grow that food on the land available.

[dragoncar]

Isn't there some kind of invisible hand that can sort this all out for us?

I personally like to buy things that are in season locally because they are cheap and fresh.  I wouldn't pay more for locally sourced food.

[Thegoblinchief]

The Freakonomics piece has come up on here at least a couple times in the past. Interesting to note that the discussion so far is friendlier to local food versus absolute price efficiency than past MMM threads.

I write quite a bit about locavorism in my journal and on my blog. We tailor our diets to what can mostly be grown here, with a few exceptions like grain (I buy direct in bulk from a farm co-op a couple states over), plant oils, occasional Alaskan salmon, and occasional out of season or imported produce. I'm still largely at the bottom of the learning curve in figuring out the best times to buy, best vendors/varieties, and what things I'm willing to pay a premium for without compromising our financial goals.

Fundamentally having flexibility/curiosity about your dietary patterns is the key. It's amazing how much food preparation and seasonal knowledge has been lost in just three generations of the supermarket economy. I've learned some things from older family/friends but much of my knowledge has had to be learned via research (cold, dark winter is great for that!)

Things I like:

-Quality/freshness and variety you literally can't buy in the conventional supermarket system. I can't even count the number of compliments I've gotten on the superior taste of things I've served from fresh, frozen, canned, or dried produce at peak (whether we grew it or sourced it)

-100% of the dollars go to the farmer instead of 1/3 or less, which makes small operations much more viable than they would if they had to sell wholesale.

-Many growers here use very low input methods but don't want the extra cost/paperwork of full organic certification. Some of my favorites use IPM, which is the best possible way to grow at commercial scale, pulling the best ideas from both conventional and alternative ag.

-I just frankly ENJOY growing food, shopping at a farmers market, and picking at a u-pick. The main preservation push in Aug-Oct is a bit exhausting but I enjoy it as well, partly because I know just how delicious the products will be.

The manipulation of statistics is such it's hard to ever be confident local is the best choice, but for me the reasons above are pretty damn compelling.

[matchewed]

I think that for a general broad population, say the US for instance (or globally), the economies of scale will win out here.

Is it "better"? I don't even know what that means.

Can you feed more people using technology? I think so. I think conventional farming methods have proven to be able to make a great deal of food. Does it come with a whole host of problems? Yes, but that's also more to do with our food choice (beef, corn corn corn corn) than with the methodology.

Anecdotally I have some friends who insist that small scale farming can feed everyone. I've yet to see evidence that it is possible.

[Thegoblinchief]

Matchewed - small farms are typically MUCH more productive on a per-acre basis. The trouble becomes the way America is laid out, with so much farmland very distant from a market. The greater the distance from market, the more you're reliant on the commodity/wholesale system which is rather capricious and risky for small farms to stake harvests on.

[rtrnow]

This is not directly on topic, but it seems the best way to reduce emissions etc related to food production would be for the USA to not throw 40% of our food in the trash.

[matchewed]

Matchewed - small farms are typically MUCH more productive on a per-acre basis. The trouble becomes the way America is laid out, with so much farmland very distant from a market. The greater the distance from market, the more you're reliant on the commodity/wholesale system which is rather capricious and risky for small farms to stake harvests on.

I'm not convinced that's true. Here's one example of an analysis which shows that more often than not organic yields are lower. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html

[Thegoblinchief]

I didn't say organic. I said small.

Several well known market gardeners clear 100K gross and nearly 40K net per acre but there's no way to scale that within a single operation.

Intensively cultivating small averages - but a LOT of small spaces -- is more efficient than a highly mechanized thousand acre monoculture.

[matchewed]

Sorry I misread. But I'm still not seeing evidence, just claims.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1156726/err152.pdf

Tables 6 and 7 show hours/equipment and structural assets per acre and large scale farming wins out versus smaller farms. So unless their markup is much much higher they can't be more efficient and therefore can't keep feeding everyone. Their profits aren't a measure of their productivity if they can just increase their margins.

[Jack]

The way I see it, sooner or later land and petrochemical fertilizers are going to become scarce enough, and population high enough, that what will really matter is sustainable yield per acre (in pounds or calories, not dollars). What's the "best" method for achieving that? I'm not sure, but I don't think the current method of industrial farming is it.

[FI40]

Sorry I misread. But I'm still not seeing evidence, just claims.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1156726/err152.pdf

Tables 6 and 7 show hours/equipment and structural assets per acre and large scale farming wins out versus smaller farms. So unless their markup is much much higher they can't be more efficient and therefore can't keep feeding everyone. Their profits aren't a measure of their productivity if they can just increase their margins.

I would add that although a small farm may be more productive in terms of output per acre, it's nowhere near as productive in terms of human hours worked per acre. Of course there are other inputs to conventional ag, like machines and gas and fertilizer, but per acre, those are low too.

I am of course speculating based on almost zero knowledge of farming in general. I believe that gives me internet points.

[Thegoblinchief]

Sorry I misread. But I'm still not seeing evidence, just claims.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1156726/err152.pdf

Tables 6 and 7 show hours/equipment and structural assets per acre and large scale farming wins out versus smaller farms. So unless their markup is much much higher they can't be more efficient and therefore can't keep feeding everyone. Their profits aren't a measure of their productivity if they can just increase their margins.

Isn't it? Wouldn't you pay more for a superior product? How is producing a more nutritious, delicious, prime product - which commands a higher price, thus higher margins - a more productive use of land?

The study was interesting, what I skimmed of it, but USDA policy has had a vested interest in "get big or get out" since the 1970s. It's telling in the text when they refer to the "smallest" vegetable farms anything below 50 acres. A sub 5-acre operation is more different than a 20+ acre than a 50 is from a 1,000 acre farm. I would have liked to see analysis break that down further.

Still, even if I'm wrong, the future - even if it's not "economically efficient" - is in micro-farms and gardens. We need to increase crop genetic diversity - both species and variety - not increase specialization/commoditization. You can do environmentally friendly farming at all scales, but it takes considerably less skill to do it at small scales. In general, polycultures and diversified farms, even if less efficient, are far healthier for the land they're on. The degradation of cropland is saddening. I see countless fields out and about that have lost nearly all of their topsoil and the crops are basically supported with the IV drip of soluble fertilizers, which misses all of the intricacy we're just now understanding about trace minerals, micronutrients, and the soil-food web.

The quest to get the lowest-historical percentage of spending on food has led to food that's increasingly tasteless, leached of nutrients, and we're losing valuable genetic diversity. I'm less concerned about "economic efficiency" because I think it is valuable for people to spend MORE on food (the horror! someone on MMM believe in spending more on something!) but it's also important for more people to get involved in food production. People should have a relationship with their food and where it comes from beyond opening the fridge, using their pots/pans, etc.

[Thegoblinchief]

The way I see it, sooner or later land and petrochemical fertilizers are going to become scarce enough, and population high enough, that what will really matter is sustainable yield per acre (in pounds or calories, not dollars). What's the "best" method for achieving that? I'm not sure, but I don't think the current method of industrial farming is it.

The most-convincing arguments on this tend to come from the permaculture community, with perhaps the best single book I've read being Restoration Agriculture, which is a really well thought-out modified version of the Spanish dehesa system that's been sustainable since (at least) the 1300s.

More or less it calls for a shift from annuals to perennials as our staple crops (replacing annual wheat flour with chestnut flour, changing our overall eating habits, etc), combined with meat/animal products raised on those pastures. Annuals can still be grown in such a system, especially veggies, but rotation and siting is important.

There's also some very long-term research into breeding perennial grain crops to use for flour. It's been going on for decades already and nothing's yet ready for viable economic production, but progress is being made.

[JZinCO]

The way I see it, sooner or later land and petrochemical fertilizers are going to become scarce enough, and population high enough, that what will really matter is sustainable yield per acre (in pounds or calories, not dollars). What's the "best" method for achieving that? I'm not sure, but I don't think the current method of industrial farming is it.

Yes. This is exactly it. This means, in at least row cropping systems, moving away from organic as the standard bearer of "progressive ag" to sustainable intensification and climart-smart ag. It means a combination of conservation practices such as reducing tillage, crop rotations, cover cropping, precision irrigation, manure applications, saturated riparian buffers, use of municipal and forest residue, taking out non-productive land, intercropping, and agroforestry. These are practices which are compatible with large and small farms, and our current production infrastructure. Essentially these are all ways to increase crop available resources and decrease emissions of the undesirable kind as I mentioned before (e.g. GHGs, nitrates). The payment-based incentives are already there (e.g. CRP, CSP, EQIP). What I think many here do not realize is that, on the majority of ag land in the US, ag producers lease the land they work, and therefore would not benefit from said programs.

That isn't to discount increasing efficiency in the supply chain as mentioned by rtrnow.

[matchewed]

Sorry I misread. But I'm still not seeing evidence, just claims.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1156726/err152.pdf

Tables 6 and 7 show hours/equipment and structural assets per acre and large scale farming wins out versus smaller farms. So unless their markup is much much higher they can't be more efficient and therefore can't keep feeding everyone. Their profits aren't a measure of their productivity if they can just increase their margins.

Isn't it? Wouldn't you pay more for a superior product? How is producing a more nutritious, delicious, prime product - which commands a higher price, thus higher margins - a more productive use of land?

I just want to focus on this for a moment. The answer is no. You are not considered more productive just because you have a superior product (again questionable). You said they were more productive on a per acre basis. I think what you meant is that they are more profitable for the farmer on a per acre basis given what you are saying. Profitability =! productivity. You have to consider the margins for profitability. Productivity doesn't give a crap about the margins, especially when you're talking an apples to apples (heh) scenario such as growing apples.

All the other things you've mentioned I partially agree with and acknowledged that in my initial post talking about the "what we grow" being as important if not more so than the "how we grow". Part of that partial agreement is that there are many claims over the nutritional content of "conventional farming" vs. other and I've yet to see that conventional farming methods produce less nutritional food. I do agree that having biodiversity is a good thing and shores the foundation against things like blight, parasites, and insects which may become resistant to our current methods of control.

And finally I'm sorry but discounting the data because you mistrust the source is pretty crappy. Do you not trust the BLS because they have an incentive in people working? NHTSA because they have an incentive to keep people on the roads...etc. I'll acknowledge that small scale farming is different, but those numbers show that it cannot produce the quantity of food that large scale farming can. Find numbers that show otherwise and I'll accept your assertion that small farming is more productive, until then the only data shown in this thread specifically on the productivity of different farm sizes is that pdf.

[Thegoblinchief]

And finally I'm sorry but discounting the data because you mistrust the source is pretty crappy.

Not discounting the data's accuracy. Just that I wish it offered more granularity for the reason I noted in my comment. Most of the claims - admittedly, yes, they are claims- I've seen about the benefit of small farms are in very small acreages (<5 acres) because you hit a sweet spot where you can use mainly hand tools and small mechanization without huge labor costs, whereas you get much bigger than that and you do need conventional mechanization, which is of course driven by economy of scale and the contract/wholesale market.

Combining <5 acres with 5-50 acres all in the "smallest" category is providing data that's not terribly helpful in the local food argument since so many market gardeners do fall in that <5 acre category.