Report on WSDA Future of Farming Meeting, July 1, 2008: Introduction

ON July 1, 2006 the final forum of the Washington State Department of Agriculture's (WSDA) The Future of Farming (FOF) series, was held at The Shurman Iron Ranch in east Ridgefield, WA. The FOF is a statewide initiative being made by the WDSA at the behest of state legislators to listen to Ag producers and identify where legislation may be made- or undone- in an effort to increase profitability in the Ag sector. This was the last of twenty regional meetings held around the state beginning in January. Agricultural producers from each of the regions attended the forums. As I only attended the meeting in Ridgefield, I cannot speak to specifics of the other meetings. However, the topics brought up in this 2 hour meeting were substantial enough to require a series of articles and inquiries.This series will start with a introduction to the FOF and the environment driving it. A due respect to producer privacy requires that I not divulge farmers names, or specific locations, but I will address topics and key issues they raised. The second installation will provide a meeting overview, and after this will be explorations of specific items discussed; these include water rights, riparian/conservation laws, anti-trust law and "corporate vs. family farms", NAFTA, and how to engage children and communities. During this discourse I will also touch upon a variety of germane topics which provide background and lend to a holistic approach to creating a sustainable, (even permanent, so far as we can reasonably assert the word) farming practice in Washington State, and possibly beyond. An Overview of the WSDA's Future of Farming Initiative, Ridgefield Meeting, July 1, 2008

About 20 SW Washington producers attended the Ridgefield meeting, facilitated by WSDA FOF director Jennifer Harte and assisted by Carrie Coineandubh with support provided by WSU/Clark County Extension Service's Doug Steinbarger. Thank you all! The regions Ag diversity was represented by producers who owned and operate Ag projects ranging from a single acre lavender farm to operators of production and processing facilities with several hundreds acres of products including raspberries, strawberries, carrots, peas, beans, corn and cabbage. Cattle, dairy, vineyards, fruit, nut and secondary forest products producers, as well as “value added” processors were present. Some folks were certified organic, some integrated organic and minimal spray/non organic methods, while others were aggressive tiller sprayers. 'Produce' was not limited to food items, but included timber products, textiles, and even tourism. Some producers sent items across the nation as well as overseas to Italy, Australia, and so on.

Before espousing my personal convictions concerning the wider practices of Agriculture and the relation Ag practices have to both economy and ecology, please allow me to be clear; my primary interest and concern regarding Ag is, "How will we assure economic and ecological sustainability for and from our agricultural producers?" This is not merely a question about or for farms; all Washingtonians eat, and we all live downstream- economy and ecology are intertwined, and the most urban among us relies on both farms and ecosystems for continued existence. This is a conversation that we all have a stake in.

As with any conversation which has a goal, clarifying the topic is essential. The topic provided by the WSDA of "How can state policy makers help Washington's farming families stay profitable over the next 20 years?" as proposed by the WSDA FOF News release is one that I find problematic in both rhetoric and ethic. Whether Washington state family farms remain economically viable in the current downturn, and the very likely savage fluctuations of economics which we can expect over the next twenty years, is a very different question than whether profit can be maintained- and as we shall see, in order to maintain something it must exist in the first place.

On the subject of profit, the term generally suggests a dividend to an investor group, such as we might expect with Monsanto, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and so forth. These companies are not family farmers, and in contrast to family farmers, are doing quite well. Even if we ignore the profit-investor relationship alluded to by the term profit, and consider family farms in terms of profit, we find that family farms have been consistently loosing both income and land in Washington for over 20 years. State legislators would do well tounderstand that if something is to stay profitable, it must first be profitable.

What can our state's policy leaders do to cultivate the long term economic and ecological viability of farmers and agricultural systems? First they must understand the thing which it is they are attempting to legislate; if the WSDA's role is to assure the policy makers are savvy to agriculture as this FOF process moves forward, and thereby give a heritage of vibrant and sustainable farming practices with its due legislative support to future generations, the WSDA must listen deeply to producers, as well as ecologists, and practical visionaries. Even if this question of "profit vs. sustained economic and ecological viability"is a merely rhetorical problem, it leaves room for misunderstandings on behalf of legislators and the WSDA about the issues which farms, farming communities, and the entire population of our state, if not nation and planet- are facing. Clearly, so long as we have misunderstandings about the nature of a problem, we arent very well suited to adress let alone solve it.

The WSDA and the State Legislators must understand that Washington state family farms have been in steady decline for more than two decades. Census data beginning in 1987 indicates that full time farmers in Washington state have reduced from more than 17.5 thousand to under 14 thousand; of those remaining a third are over 55 and approaching retirement age. National Agricultural Statistic Service figures are slightly different, but still show consistent declines in number of full time farmers. The rate of decline appears to have been about 25% since 1987, and if age data is correct, this rapid decline will continue for the next ten years. who will farm in the future is a very real concern which will be addressed in a later installment in this series; for now it is enough to expose this as a long term and very serious issue.

At the same time as the number of family farms has suffered this decrease, population has shot up in Washington state; between 1990 and 2000 the population increased from 4.8 million to 5.8 million- an increase of almost 20% in ten years. Partially as a result of housing a million more people, the amount of land farmed is declining, from 16.1 million acres in 1987 to 15.3 million acres in 2002. Following these two trends in a worst case scenario, there is potential for the majority of Washington farmland to be usurped by development before the 20 years which the FOF vision seeks to outline has passed. While it may seem rediculous to say the Palouse will be populated with houses rather than wheat fields, we must remember that the Loggers of the 1920's thought the old growth forests would last forever as well, and as a resident of western Washington, I have trouble seeing forests for the lack of trees. Suddenly, having a twenty year vision of farming is not merely an issue for Washington's family farmers, it is an issue all of us in the state must seriously involve ourselves in. If we loose our farmland we loose its ecology, produce and a $5 billion+ annual industry, an ammount which places Washington Ag not so farm behind Boeing and Microsoft's entire global protfolios. Debt taken on by consumers who buy during housing booms will not replace this industry income, nor will tax revenues to counties who choose to rezone Ag land as r-2 or whatever a commisioner's latest whimsy is. Continued development of Ag land and outsourcing of Ag products will cause us to pay more for food which is lower in quality, and we will loose important buffers between urban and rural forest and wilderness. The future of farming isn't merely about profitability, it is about our state's continuing vitality and viability. If our Policy, planning and practice aren't sorted out in a timely and determinedly sustainable way, everyones mealtime will rapidly become disturbed.

At the same time that the number of family farms has declined, farm size has increased. Farm sales forced by increasing assessed values and decreasing produce income, as well as foreclosures, ultimately lead to buyouts by either developers who subdivide for residences or industrial projects. This is a result of land tax base has increases due to urban growth and subsequent zoning shifts. While we rightfully spend millions to protect wetlands and other habitats, we assume farming is merely another kind of business, and we allow the dog eat dog ethic of develoment to bite off the hand that feeds us. Even When a family farm sales to without a change in zoning, it is most often industrial Ag producers rather than family or independent buyers who make the purchase. In this way we have steadily eroded farm land and the number of family farmers in our state. The bottom line, which is a place I prefer not to dwell, unfortunately suggests that this shift is not because farming is simply outdated in todays economy, but because financial institutions place more emphasis on speculation real estate and construction booms than steady standards like people's eating. A farmers income cannot sustain a family in the face of the Consumer Price Index: in 1987 the average farm income beyond expenses was $33,563; in 2002 the figure was $33,982, which is, according the Consumer Price Index and other modifiers detailed by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, a reduction in pay of over 50%. This is, simply stated, an economic assault. Throwing the curves somewhat is the quickly rising cost of food and the profits being made by industrial Ag producers- though the number of those making the profits is not increasing- the number of Ag producers making over 100k annually after operations expense has remained relatively constant, and two new categories have been added to the income list in WA state- 250 K+ and 500 k+. Meanwhile all other producers have declined and the family farmer see less than 5 cents on each retail dollar of food sold. Many, if not most, of the farms in the 100K+ category are not family farms, but corporate farms owned or sponsored by industrial farming companies like Monsanto and ADM.

The very notion that state legislators want "to help Washington's farming families stay profitable" shows how out of touch the legislators and agency are: Washington state's average farm income has declined by 50% since 1987 according to the Bureau of Labor and statistics modifiers such as the Consumer Price index and other equivocation measurements. The legislation which has created an environment where economic disasters occur must be scrutinized and written out, and it is either arrogance or ignorance on behalf of agencies and legislators to assert that they will 'help' where they have so consistently failed, all the while asserting that family farms are profitable at all.

Before any legislation is made to 'help' farmers, the WSDA must first examine its own data from the state and farm census, as well as NRCSS And NASS data, identify incongruities, reconcile disputes and then summarize it for the legislators. Unfortunately intra and inter State, as well as Federal agencies, are known to use different methods of data collection, compilation, and presentation, so this process itself could take longer than we have to save the farms.

Despite quibbling over percentage points (which can vary by 25% or more from one agency's report to the next), a general and despairing picture is framed: About 83% of the acreage farmed in Clark County during the heyday of its farming period in 1920-1940 is now under urban sprawl. The Palouse region has lost up to 4 feet of topsoil in some areas due to tillage practice which encourages erosion, and the cost to farm the now bereft soils is putting 5th and 6th generation farmers out of business. Fertilizers, pesticides and other fossil fuel derived Ag supplies which enter the ecology damage and destroy thousands of acres and cost millions of dollars annually in clean up and mitigations. The average meal in Washington has well over 1000 miles of transport under it. An average US family farm makes about 5 cents on every dollar that produce costs at a retail grocer. Type II diabetes has increased by 13% in the last decade, and over 225,000 Washingtonians have type II Diabetes, a disease associated directly to consumption of processed sugars like high fructose corn syrup. In general, the more processing and refining foods undergo the lower their nutritional quality. Diseases entail not only lost quality of life, but lost income hours and the amassing of medical expenses. A healthy diet can control and even reverse many illnesses and the benefits of eating local, fresh foods, especially organics, is well documented. However, data and statistics alone are not enough. It is possible that even with the best numbers one may fail to observe them in a useful way. So beyond all the information, we must acquire knowledge, exercise prudence and act in ways that are potentially radical- all at once.

Farmers are educated and knowledgeable, though this is a well kept secret; the stereotype of hayseed hicks is one that pervades our culture. Even many farmers will admit to laughing at the cartoon antics of Snuffy Smith, and later the Hee-Haw gang. Despite this stereotype, of the 20 producers present well over half had bachelors degree or higher, which is double the national workforce average of about 22%. Families that own and gain their income from small or mid sized farms need more than an education- they also need guts, perserverance and unswerving dedication to a daily, nearly rest free work ethic with no real vacations or paid sick days. At a deep level we all understand farming requires prudence and patience, a keen sense of timing and a healthy respect for nature. And that may be one reason there are so few people in the business- because that kind of constitution is rare in our modern, clean, fast and fun first world.

Balancing the conservative nature of the US farmer is a unique pragmatic: many are aware of a need to change production methods. With farmland decline, catastrophic income loss, the increasing understanding that our food systems are producing food with lower nutrition and which, using high fructose corn syrup as a leading example, are literally making many of us sick, and finally considering the environmental impacts of our methods of farming, many know it is time for radical change even if what that looks like isn't clear. Many have taken to organic production, a market where prices for producers is rising despite agricultures general decline. Others are experimenting with polycroping systems, integrated pest management, Biodynamics and the practice of Permaculture. From the Olympia farmers market to the WSU Palouse experimental wheat fields, from Skagit Valley potato hills to Walla-Walla onions rows, from Clark Counties berry fields to the Winthrop apple orchards, we must re-examine policy, planning, and practices, and we must remember that we wont overcome the challenges we face with the same kind of thinking that got us into this situtation.

We know family farm profitability in Washington state is in cataclysmic decline, and many of us understand that the environment which NAFTA, the FDA, and other agencies collectively create is doing our family farms more damage than good. The state of our environmental health and the health of our bodies is in decline, and the potential for Ag system collapse in the face of peak oil and global climate change is looming. All the while, legislators call to help family farms 'stay profitable', offering a coupon for a life jacket to a population facing a Tsunami. A 99% peer review majority of scientists have reached consensus on peak oil and global climate change being in progress and coming faster than previously expected. Washington farms have, in real terms, seen a 50% reduction in wage since 1987, when farm income was already below state average income. Land is being lost to sprawl development and family business is being lost to production farms at an alarming rate. It is therefore reasonable to define and enact policy which radically re-envisions farming in our state from economic, ecological and educational perspectives.

Unless one is only interested in profit for that increasingly smaller group of corporate capitalists who have amassed the wealth of our planet like a dragon accumulates gold, it should prove hard to argue that now is the time for changes- indeed if we wait 20 years there likely wont be an Ag system to improve. Perhaps the first words of the press release was about profits because we, as the citizens and voters of the state, have forgotten that there is so much more to life, and waving the dollar about is the only way to get us to the table. If thats the case, we, as well as the legislators, need to re-think what it is we are doing here.

Life is far more than profits, and we must ask for something more specific and far reaching than family farm profitability. We must demand the support necessary to create sustained economic, ecological and nutritional viability for and from agricultural producers in our region and across Washington State. This must come through concerted efforts which include the WSDA and other State Agencies, Community Economic Development organizations, conservation districts, farm bureaus, granges, and our State Universities. Whether these agencies are up to the task of cooperating at such a large scale is questionable; however, history shows us that our best performance often comes in the darkest moments. Land Grant Universities, known in modern times for competing for grants from major corporations to develop the next breakthrough drug or technology, have a history that demonstrates this.

The incorporation of our University system as envisioned by Senator Morrill in 1862, ratified by Congress and signed by President Lincoln specifically states that the Land Grant Universities, including Washington State University, were to be created for the benefit of the industrial (working) classes. This was a direct answer to the masses of indigent farmers and unemployed city dwellers during the years of the Civil War. For sixty years the family farm progressed, even flourished. All produce was organic, and most everything was local save for a few specialty items. Nobody suffered as a result of a locally grown and minimally processed diet of fresh produce.

However, since the end of WWI, and more markedly at the end of WWII, it has been industrialists and not working classes who have benefited from university research and efforts- the move from farm to service sector labor has been a largely lateral shift, with no increase in real income and marked declines in environmental and some health arenas. Countless baristas and bartenders have bachelors degrees. Despite the efforts of the FDA, food bourne illnesses, largely connected to industrial producers, have been more and more frequent. Meanwhile corporate interests are showing record profit and our landscape is being overrun with impervious sprawl, pollution and ecological dysfunction, on the verge of, if not already in, a state of collapse. Small producers are encumbered with the same process requirements - and, in relative terms, larger implementation costs, as industrial producers despite having a statistically insignificant chance of producing the kinds of disease and pollution of the industrial producers. I doubt it was the intent of Senator Morrill or President Lincoln to simply move workers off farms and dairies to work as barristas or retail clerks while keeping the same narrow margin of upper class industrialist and corporate profiteers in their castles, all the while the now educated blue collar employee has less access to the natural world and healthy food.

This following series of reports on Washington States Future of Farming will look into specifics of policy, planning and practice as it is, and how it could be. I will focus largely on the points of deliberation brought to bear in the July 1 meeting of the FOF, such as water rights, riparian/conservation laws, how to engage children and communities, anti-trust law and "corporate vs. family farms" issues. I hope to see a farming practice in place that is richly imbued with a deep knowledge of ecology, supported by a willing non-farming community to put forth its best practice and honored by environmental stewards as a model for reintegration of human habitat with a habitat we often call wild, but which is, in fact, our ignored ally in the work of feed ourselves. I want future generations to look at the work we do in the 20 years to come and realize that we do care - for one another, the planet that we call home, and the marvelous creation we share this home with- and I want them to take spirit and enthusiasm from the way we face this challenge. I want farming to feel good. Thank you for reading and please see my contact page if you would like to make comments about this article.