In response to the complicated and devastating drop in prices paid to farmers for dairy, a new initiative has been formed that looks to build off the fair trade model, putting more of the consumer’s dollar into farmers’ hands called Keep Local Farms. Last week, New Hampshire’s Commissioner of Agriculture Lorraine Merrill dedicated her column in the Weekly Market Bulletin to describing this initiative:
From Your Commissioner…
New Effort to Keep New England Dairy Farms
On Monday New England’s state commissioners and secretary of agriculture joined forces for an event at Conant Farm in Richmond, Vermont to launch a new initiative called ‘Keep Local Farms.’ The program aims to help stabilize income for dairy farms, and create new connections between New England farms and their customers and neighbors.
One of the most frequent questions we get is, “What can we do to help dairy farmers?” Many people volunteer that they would gladly pay more for milk and dairy products if they knew the money went to the farmers. Folks in the dairy industry have been scrambling to create a way for milk-drinkers and lovers of our agrarian landscape and heritage to increase the returns dairy farmers get for their milk and all the other uncompensated benefits and services farms provide to New England states and communities.
This ambitious new effort has been developed by farmers and their organizations, with help from state departments of agriculture and the Cooperative Development Institute. Inspired by the ‘fair trade’ concept, Keep Local Farms aims to return more money to the region’s strapped dairy farmers, while educating the public and strengthening ties between farms and communities.
The current cost of producing milk far outweighs the prices farmers are getting. Farm families are running out of savings and credit to cover this gap. Many New England dairy farms have been going out of business, and more will follow soon if farm incomes do not increase significantly. The federal programs to assist dairy farmers when prices are low have not been adequate in this severe downturn. The Keep Local Farms program is designed to help reduce price instability for farm businesses.
The New England dairy industry has a hugely positive economic impact on the region. The milk produced on these farms is valued at $12.2 billion, and creates over $5 billion in economic activity. There are approximately 1,880 dairy farms in New England, most of them small, with fewer than 100 cows per farm. Nonetheless, the dairy industry provides upwards of 22,000 jobs–including farming, farm supply businesses, milk haulers, processors, marketers, farm service firms and agencies.
New Englanders appreciate and rely on their stable supply of fresh dairy products. These quality foods are fresh, healthy, local, and provide a real source of food security. I remember the eloquent testimony of outdoor recreation groups and environmental advocates like the Conservation Law Foundation in support of the Northeast Dairy Compact a decade ago. Keep Local Farms provides a way for the many people who benefit from local dairy farms to ensure they remain economically sustainable.
People can learn more, and make contributions through the web site www.keeplocalfarms.org. Information is also available by calling toll-free 877-388-7381.
Funds are collected, pooled, and tabulated monthly. The New England Dairy Farms Cooperative (NEFDFC), of which all New England dairy farms will be members, will handle accounting and payments to farmers. Information on total distributions and the average amount per dairy farm will be posted on the web and through media outlets. Annual audits will also be posted on the web site.
Payments to dairy farmer members of NEFDFC will be made initially at least every six months, to coincide with high-expense periods of spring planting in April/May, and fall harvest in September/October.
The Keep Local Farms program will grow through partnerships with retailers, organizations, colleges/universities and businesses that share the core values of support for local farms, community, economy and you the consumer. These are partners who value farms, local foods and sustainable business practices.
At the launch event Deb Erb, Landaff dairy farmer and member of the New England Family Dairy Farms Cooperative board, said that as the program grows, it may be possible to make quarterly or even monthly payments to dairy farmers.
Keep Local Farms is the promotional effort to link consumers with farmers, Erb explained, and NEFDFC is the umbrella co-op representing New England farmers to distribute the funds. “This concept is several years in the making, and a lot of people have contributed to the effort,” she said. This launch comes at a critical time.
I’ll be watching to see what transpires as this initiative develops. In the meantime, I like that in addition to the regional milk processors like Oakhurst and Cabot, we have several options of buying milk from farms that bottle it themselves, enabling those farms to garner semi-direct sales.
A workable Plan?
a draft of a letter I would like to send to my state senator. Naive? Illogical? Any input is welcome.
Small Farms are in serious trouble. Literally hundreds are going out of production every year in the Northeast. In the year 2000, there were a total of 2,167,000 small farms in the U.S. However, that number had decreased to 2,076,000 by the year 2007. That means there was a decrease of 100,000 farms in just 7 years! The decline in the number of Massachusetts dairy farms is even more shocking; there were 829 dairy farms in Massachusetts in 1980, compared to only 189 dairy farms in Massachusetts in 2007. This drop in number is a result of many factors, especially the increase in prices of resources such as fuel, heat, and electricity as well as the increase in property taxes which often accompanies this sell off of this precious land use. Dairy farmers in Massachusetts actually make much less profit today than they did 25 years ago. As the number of small farms in this country dwindles, we have to rely increasingly on huge agribusiness farms for food supply. Notice how far some of our produce is shipped even when it is in season locally.
Additionally, many farms are in disarray. The farmer is not to blame; there are just not enough hours in the day. He cannot begin do it all himself, nor can he afford to hire labor. His kids unlike years ago, cannot help for long because they are going on to jobs that actually pay a livable wage by the end of the year. Who can blame them? There are, of course, some beautiful and well-kept farms. Mostly these are in places like the Amish Country where there is still labor available because the family generally stays with the farm. Seventy-five years ago hired hands were common; a farmer could hire them and still make a profit. Today that is no longer possible. The farmer is just barely making it on his own so he must turn to more chemical farming to control pests and to enable more yield. Another result of this is that he has to use more fuel. Farms in the United States consume about 19% of the total fuel consumed in the entire country every year. It is a vicious cycle. In order to maintain enough yield to make his farm profitable he must spend tremendous sums on chemical fertilizers and farming methods that require high-tech machinery and all the money that it incurs.
So what can be done? In my business I run into many people who sincerely want to work. I know because I have hired a few of them. They really do not want to stay on welfare programs, but they have either no work or no transportation. Our country currently has a near record high of unemployment. My suggestion is that our government offer to underwrite labor for farms, making laborers available to the farmer at a very low rate and perhaps even taking some aid away from the people who do not want to work. For example, the government could pay them their current amount of welfare plus a bit more. The farmer additionally would have to have some type of stake in it. There would have to be some incentive for meek or too kind–hearted employers to require individuals to apply themselves. He [the farmer] would have to pay a little bit towards the hourly wage of the laborer to make it a more livable healthy wage but still very cheap labor for the farm. In this way there would be some benefit to the people of the state for helping keep farms in production. They would benefit by having local and healthier food available on a consistent basis.
Under this program the farmer may well have to learn management of employees again, or maybe for the first time. However, this in itself could provide a good opportunity for training through cooperative extension programs. Training would also have to be done as to more healthy and organic methods of farming. This would require labor as opposed to more machinery and chemicals. In Massachusetts, with mandatory healthcare possibly insurance will eventually be covered . However, until this happens, this system could function similarly to an insurance company run by the state. I understand that there are already similar programs for occasional workers underway. Of course, they would have to cover veracities of any disability injury claims, but the net benefit to the people of the state and the farmers should be enormous.
Problems that might occur include people who want the benefits of the program but do not really want to be there/work. To remedy this, the farmer might ask for three men one week from the program. No one likes to fire somebody, but if “Bill” is not working out, the next week he can ask for “Jim” and “Bob” back and ask for another available worker. It could be that “Bill” is not lazy but just conflicts somehow with the farmer. But if “Bill” is let go or not asked back from farm after farm after farm perhaps he should not be in the program. The issue of transportation could present another problem. Perhaps in some cases, in some communities that have mini-school buses that are used to transport children, they could use same to transport workers before the school day starts. The same could be used after the usual school day is over with minimal state funding back to the school districts.
The farmers I have talked to have mostly said that they would jump at the chance of having extra help if it did not tax them financially very much, but a few did say that they would also have to rethink how they would utilize all the labor since their methods are so different than they were years ago. There are certainly bugs to be worked out, but I believe that the benefits of a program such as this would greatly outweigh any negatives and, furthermore, that it has the potential to stimulate both economy and morale in an innovative and cost-effective manner. The farmer would be getting more work done and, consequently, be able to keep the family farm going. The state would get more and better produce for little more than they are paying now for people that are not working. The people would have their tax dollar being better utilized and receive access to healthier and cheaper produce. The environment might have fewer chemicals and produce less greenhouse gases. The worker would have higher self-esteem because they would be accomplishing something and receiving more usable livable wages due to the extra they would get from the farmer and from the state. The economy would have less of the current record unemployed people, and many of the troubled farms in the Northeast could turn into highly productive and smoothly functioning businesses. Every single day that goes by is too late for some farmers. They are forced to shut down and probably cannot restart, as they usually hang on so late in desperation that the chasm is too deep to climb out of by the time any help could arrive.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Kowalski