Farmers Forging Partnerships
One of the subjects I am most passionate about is the notion of creating urban-suburban-rural partnerships to drive economic prosperity. Much of this interest lays in my own experience of traveling frequently between my job in the city, to my home in the exurbs of Louisville and on to the farms in adjacent counties where I hunt and explore. I am living those partnerships at a social level every day. I learn much from the people I meet in those places and hopefully they learn a little from me. There is much more to say about the flow of capital, ideas and social interaction in both directions but these days I am somewhat obsessed with the partnerships being created around food.
While diversity remains an important goal it is only natural that rural exports would be heavily tilted towards food. A popular bumper sticker in Kentucky and elsewhere reads, “No Farms, No Food”. It is an inescapable fact that rural areas will always be linked most closely with food, no matter how many other industries settle there and no matter how many community gardens are started in abandoned city lots. Farmers have always been proud of this and embraced it but I have always had a suspicion that certain urban dwellers wanted to change this dynamic. With missionary zeal it seemed that the primary goal of some was to bring civilization to the farms and to incorporate food production. Local farmers I have talked to say the high-point of their persecution was during the Bush years when their political leanings compounded their sins in the eyes of those same urban missionaries. A less polarized vote in 2008 probably helped ease some of the mistrust between both sides but food has really been the bridge that has healed the urban-rural divide.
Not too long ago chambers of commerce were the primary force in creating economic partnerships. While they still play an important role, today these relationships are also being formed in a much more organic way following a model similar to what we see with social media. Partnerships are being formed in farmer’s markets, at CSA pickups, on u-pick farms and in the kitchens and dining rooms of the nation’s best restaurants. As Americans have become more and more passionate about quality food farmers have listened and adjusted their offerings accordingly. Now a decade into this trend there is a signal that a shift in the roles played by both sides is happening.
A long-recognized strength of Japanese auto manufacturers has been their ability to drive market demand rather than react to it. Likewise the late Steve Jobs was hailed for his ability to make consumers want his products rather than simply respond to their requests a la Microsoft. This business strategy is seen by economists as a positive development that ensures longterm success. Southern farmers now seem to be heading in the same direction. Writing for the NY Times Julia Moskin explores how Southern producers are no longer merely supplying the food demanded by chefs but driving a revival of Southern cuisine, long considered by many to be the most boring of American food traditions.
And he [Emile DeFelice] is part of a thriving movement of idealistic Southern food producers who have a grander plan than just farm-to-table cuisine. They want to reclaim the agrarian roots of Southern cooking, restore its lost traditions and dignity, and if all goes according to plan, completely redefine American cuisine for a global audience.
Their work is being encouraged, and sponsored, by a new generation of chefs who have pushed Southern cooking into the vanguard of world cuisine — and who depend on these small producers to literally flesh out their ambitions. “In the next five years we should be dominating the world in charcuterie, because we have the best pigs and the most skills,” said Craig Diehl, the chef at Cypress, in Charleston, who makes an extraordinary headcheese and about 25 other remarkable cured meats from Mr. DeFelice’s pork.
Pork is still the definitive ingredient of Southern cooking, past and present. But the “lardcore” trend has now become a bigger movement embracing the entire Southern pantry.
“As an obsessive person, you realize that there is a better version of everything out there,” said Sean Brock, the Charleston chef whose restaurant Husk serves only food produced south of the Mason-Dixon line, from Georgia olive oil to Tennessee chocolate to capers made from locally foraged elderberries. Many Southern chefs are working along similar lines — Frank Stitt, Mike Lata, Andrea Reusing and Linton Hopkins are just a few — but Mr. Brock’s rigor has redefined what it means to cook like a Southerner today. Young chefs are joining in, learning butchery and fermentation, putting up chowchow and piccalilli, experimenting with wood ash to make their own hominy.
Today, purists believe, Southern cooking is too often represented by its worst elements: feedlot hams, cheap fried chicken and chains like Cracker Barrel.
The most important part of this trend, especially in my area of the country where small farms rule, is the economic benefit to small operations and ‘hobby farmers’. Success in these new ventures encourages diversification which most experts recognize as the key to survival for small farms.
Perhaps most important, they are paying (and charging) big-city prices for down-home ingredients: money that is keeping food traditions, and small producers, alive.
This is great stuff, Mike. And I actually learned something!
This makes me wonder some things about the role of food as both cultural uniter and symbol of cultural division.Report
Glad you liked it Mark (and I even managed to include a pork reference). Personally I have always seen cuisine a uniting element… while food (basic necessity for life) can be a dividing line between the haves and have nots.Report
Heh.
About pork in particular as a uniting element: it has long been my position that the reason the Middle East’s problems are so intractable is that neither side eats pork. Call it my pork theory of Middle East peace.Report
You may be right. I have an in-law that doesn’t eat pork and I have never trusted him completely.Report
It suggests a novel solution to the Israeli-Palistinian conflict – if we just drop hot bacon on them, maybe they’ll make up? No-one can resist freshly cooked bacon.Report
Or maybe they’ll go to war over bacon access. In Israel they fight over water so imagine what they’d do to each other over bacon.Report
Trying to sell Orthodox Jews imitation bacon is a good way to get death threats…Report
If you didn’t care
what happened to me
And I didn’t care
For you.
We would zig-zag our way
Through the boredom and pain.
Occasionally glancing
up through the rain
Wondering
which of the buggers to blame
And watching
for pigs on the wing.Report
Am jealous. Round here you can’t even talk the CSA into growing collard greens — plenty of kale, but never a drop of collards!
(we get retired professors farming around here. makes for a fun, and efficient, CSA)Report
Obviously Ky makes the world’s best ham as evidenced by this price.Report
“long considered by many to be the most boring of American food traditions.”
Huh? even seperating out Cajun, which is a phenotypically and genotypically distinct thing from the larger “Southern” tradition, huh? If you want the stereotypically most boring cuisine in the Continental US, you really can’t beat the upper midwestern Lutheran church supper, Southern cuisine has always been one of the most *innovative* of the North American cullinary traditions.
Which brings me to the other odd part of the piece (though it’s in the excerpt). Stuff like headcheese represents (both in pre-20th century USA and in pre-century Europe) what you need to create when the rich folks have taken all the good stuff for themselves and you’re forced to make do with whatever scraps are left for your (slave or peasant) self and family. Lost traditions? Yes, for sure. (and again definitely innovative for their time) Dignity? Just the opposite frankly.Report
My single problem with “Southern” cuisine doesn’t involve home cooking at all, but restaurants “down south” who seem to think that “southern” requires virtually every item on the menu to be deep fried in batter. Of course Louisiana is in a class by itself. 🙂Report
I’ve read your comment six times and still don’t see what the problem is.
🙂Report
Roll it in a tortilla first, then deep fry it, then serve it with sausage gravy.Report
I believe you’re committing a category error here.
Report
Likely just one among others (including being a bit unnecessarily rude, by not leading off by complimenting Mr. Dwyer on a good post).
But how is it a category error?Report
You’re comparing a very specific phenomenon to a very large and broad category. ‘Southern’ compromises an area and population larger than any given European nation, comparing the sum of their culinary history to a single bland tradition of a specific subset of other people doesn’t really illuminate much.
The cuisine of the South and Midwest both have fallen victim to blandness during the 20th Century, just eat at any number of meat-and-threes down here in Georgia and you’ll find exactly the same utter blandness as the potlucks you mention.Report
Kolohe,
I certainly don’t agree with the assesment of Southern food being boring – I’m only parroting some of the criticisms made by the larger food scene in the U.S. There IS however a problem with blandness in many of the restaurants claiming to offer Southern cuisine.
Plinko mentions the blandness of ‘meat and three’ restaurants and he’s absolutely right. Much of the problem is that the vegetables are predictable and only seasoned with ham. Potatoes and corn play too prominent a role. As my grandmother used to say, there’s not enough color on the plates.Report
A wonderful and thoughtful post, Mike; I wish I’d been thinking about some of these questions and possibilities when I took my students out on our most recent local food tour! I’ll have to keep them in mind for next time.Report
“…the notion of creating urban-suburban-rural partnerships to drive economic prosperity.”
I’m sorry to disturb a light-hearted discussion of the culinary arts — yay, pork! — but I have a general mad on towards the rural areas of my state these days.
First, it’s redistricting time, and despite the rural areas on one side of the state losing population in absolute terms, and the rural areas on the other side losing population relative to the urban/suburban areas, they’re complaining bitterly about the unfairness of “losing” representation in Congress and the state legislature.
Second, the judge hearing a school-funding lawsuit initiated by several rural school districts has issued a ruling that, if upheld by the state supreme court, would require on the order of an additional billion dollars per year subsidy from urban/suburban districts to rural districts. It’s not the money per se that bothers me — it’s the rural districts’ unyielding position that even though they can’t fund their own schools, and that a majority of the students who graduate from those schools will wind up working in the urban/suburban areas, the mere mention of anything except total local control of the spending is unthinkable.
And finally, the state is about to enter the fourth legislative session of struggling to balance the budget. Last session, the legislature proposed closing the state prison which had both the smallest number of prisoners and the highest cost per prisoner for operation. It was in a rural county, whose elected officials howled that it was a plot by the urban/suburban interests to crush that poor county’s economy by shutting down the largest single remaining employer. A plot? Really?
Hey, I grew up in a rural area, but folks, the whining is getting really annoying.Report
There was a long article about Sean Brock in the New Yorker earlier this year that was absolutely fascinating and went into great detail about the history of Southern farming. I had no idea how diversified crops were in the mid 1800s in the Southern states or how much work goes into bringing back nearly extinct crops. It made me very much want to eat at the guy’s restaurants.Report
Rufus – the NYT piece I cited explains some of the reasons why diversity was lost in the 19th century.
One of the saddest stories around here as of late is the setback that diversification programs have faced due to corn and soybean subsidies. Our ag dept was doing a great job of moving farmers off of tobacco and onto new and exciting crops…and then ethanol became a big deal. Now it’s nothing but those two crops on many of the small farms.Report
Great article, Mike. Also – I love the photo. Nothing else to say, really.Report
Interesting article. What’s happening in your neck of the woods seems part and parcel of the growing local food movement, which I think benefits us all in terms of availability of fresh regional produce and meat and the backlash against a lot of the evils of industrial farming. I do believe there are plenty of possibilities for economic development inherent in the movement, not the least of which is making us aware of where our food comes from and how it’s grown. Recently finished reading Barbara Kingsolver’s Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, a book that addresses a number of these issues.
I hope you’ll be writing more about this kind of stuff. I think that reclaiming our food production from agribusiness is one of those issues that can unite liberals and conservatives.Report
Thanks Michelle. And yes, i think you can count on more posts along these lines.
The move away from corporate farming towards local production has its limits and I’m actually a big believer in the need for corporate farms. With that said, you’re absolutely right that small food production is an idea that should easily cross partisan divides.Report
I’d say there’s probably a need for both corporate farms and high end niche local farms. It needn’t be an either/or proposition (especially in the US with its crazy oodles of arable land).Report
Mike and Michelle,
I am still confused. Why should I be rooting for small or local farms?Report
Small farms typically do a much better job of creating diversity of products being offered. If you’re a foodie or you like heritage foods, we need that. Also, if you take away small farms you are limiting food production to only certain regions of the country which, IMO, is bad for food security.
I think ‘local’ farms are more about just supporting your neighbors, reducing carbon footprint and getting fresher foods with less preservatives.Report
There really are a lot of reasons. Diversified smaller farms are good for rural economies and communities and increase the vibrancy of city peripheries. They can draw tourism via u-pick and bed’n breakfast setups. As Mike noted they promote crop diversity and broad scale farming which is less vulnerable to weather phenomena, biological black swans and also reduces transportation costs. Also while small farmers in general are a favorite stump icon for politicians they don’t generally lobby very effectively unlike major agribusinesses so they’d improve the odds of us getting US agriculture in general off of the abomination of public subsidy. This in turn suggests hopes of toppling king corn off his perch in the American diet with all the fallout of improved health outcomes that promises.Report
Mike and North,
Small farms do a better job of diversity of products compared to what? Against a given, large specialized farm, yes, but not against the combined world market. You seem to be arguing for small scale generalists rather than large scale integrated specialists. This seems very counterintuitive to my economic Spidey senses.
Why would I care if only certain regions grow a given food? Shouldn’t the areas that can grow it most efficiently concentrate in the comparative advantage? I would expect a world market to be adequately diversified against weather and pests, and if it made economic sense to diversify more (as insurance against calamity), it is in farmer’s interest to do so.
And what the heck is “food security?” My trake on history is that generalized farming was the era of widespread famines, and that global markets have pretty much made this a thing of the past. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but I believe small generalist farms are the path to “food insecurity.” If taken too far at least.
I’ve never gotten the support your neighbors thing. Seems kind of xenophobic to me. I feel it is more fair to support whomever can get me the best, freshest, healthiest food for the lowest costs. If that is my neighbor, then so be it. Maybe your future posts will address this issue. Food for thought…
I think focus on carbon footprint is a pretty inefficient way to grow food. The same would be true if I focused on minimizing water use, or minimizing transportation cost or minimizing labor costs. The point of economics is to balance all the costs and benefits.
The vibrant rural communities argument seems to suffer from a version of the broken window fallacy. Any artificial benefit to this economy is likely occurring at the expense of vibrancy somewhere else. That said, I am fine with people paying for local bed and breakfast tours.
I am all for less lobbying (rent seeking) of agribusiness, but the way to do so is not to reduce the scale of farming.
But then again, I may be wrong…Report
Roger, I don’t think “community” can be undersold. It’s the local hardware store that donates to community activities, not the Home Depot with the signs in the window for the Little League bake sale.
It’s just physically impossible to have a true community of 300 million or 7 billion people. [Prob why the classical idea of the polis saw 15,000 as the upward limit for a workable one.]
I think we’re all to blame for this absolute emphasis on price, down to the last nickel. We can laugh at “loyalty,” but there’s something to the riff that Big Boxing America is a net loss, for the price of a few nickels.
I see your specific point about “food insecurity” and also about the division of labor-as-crop geography, that it’s better to grow grain in Kansas and wine grapes in California. But price and efficiency isn’t all there is to commerce, all there is to its benefit.
Report
Hi Tom,
I think you make a good point on the size of communities, but I am not sure why this necessarily leads away from global free enterprise. I know the sentence I just wrote looks odd, but I am serious.
Most things are produced more effectively via integrated specialization, and the bigger the network the more specialization, expertise, efficiency and scale we can achieve. But the gains of productivity don’t just end there. Increased productivity and efficiency frees up our time to do other things. Included in this list are the ability to spend more time with the kids, to volunteer as a soccer coach, to go to the local bed and breakfast, etc.
I believe we will naturally be drawn to communities. But this does not require us to buy local… does it? Why? (Best Buy probably just gives to different causes)
As to emphasis on price, I think that mischaracterizes the situation. Our emphasis is on net value. Yes, we like to buy from the neighbor, but we also like to save money or get more quality from our money. The point isn’t that buying local doesn’t matter at all, it seems to be people are voting with their dollars and others of us are questioning their values. I frequently disagree with other people on their choices, but as a rule I believe they are more qualified to make the choices they make for themselves than I am for them.
Maybe I just haven’t thought about it enough though….Report
Roger, I’m questioning our values, that the only value in commerce is price. Of course you’re right about Ricardo’s economics [trading bread for wine], but the people in communities are economically interdependent, that is, if they’re truly a community and not just a collection of houses served by big box stores.
Why buy local? Because he’s your neighbor. But hey, mebbe it’s already too late. We’ll all just commute an hour to work, and wave at each other from our driveways at 8 and 6.
If we have a job, that is.
Hey, it’s a complex subject. I haven’t bought an American car in decades because they make crap. And I love my Mexican produce from the Mexican market that costs next to nothing versus the supermarket. And I shop airfares down to the bone and complain just like everybody else when they want 5 bucks for a box of crackers.
And I don’t think government has a role in any of this [except perhaps lowering taxes on our local businesses]. But when some on the left [in particular] complain we’ve lost something in this globalization and consumerism, where price is all there is to commerce, well, yeah, who can deny that something has been lost? An empty storefront is a sad sight, no?Report
Not just price. One of the primary big-box advantages is convenience.Report
TVD,
Yes to everything you write. I think we are hitting the two sides of prosperity. We can’t make “progress” without change, and change creates winners and losers. We gain economic efficiency, and we lose the local hardware store. We gain global interdependence and lose the old sense of community.
And whether it is progress at all depends upon our values and contextual situation.
Report
Roger – when I am talking about diversity of products I’m talking about artisan and heritage foods that have smaller demand but a demand that isn’t met by mass producers. A good analogy is microbrewed beers. In the 90s people began to demand something other than mass-produced pilsners and we got a boom in small batch production that hasn’t really slowed down. We’re seeing the same thing with food.
I think you’re assuming I am talking about food to simply fill our stomachs. I am talking about food that makes us happy.
When I say food security what I mean is that we need our food production spread out across the country. Disease and weather can ruin crops in a geographic locale. The problem though is that much of the eastern U.S. is not topographically able to support large-scale farming.
And I am a fiercely opposed to outsourcing our critical food crops to other countries wo a ‘world market’ is not something I would ever take comfort in.Report
Thanks Mike!
These are good examples. I see microbreweries as a great idea. I like supporting them with my entertainment budget.
I still don’t get the geographic diversification thing. I of course realize that pests and weather can add an element of concentration risk, but I believe the economics of the situation would self correct for this. There is usually more than one place on earth good for just about any crop, and if this isn’t the case, there is would be an incentive to grow it outside this area just in the expectation of windfall profits if a black swan event occurred.
And since you are talking about enjoyment foods, what exactly is the risk? I can always switch enjoyment foods. If this threat applies to food staples, then I can always switch from corn to rice, to potatoes, to…. This whole food security thing seems suspect to me.
And i cannot for the life of me figure out why you would want to grow happiness foods — or food staples — within national borders. Why? This sounds like pre-economic thinking.
Report
Roger – I think we’ve split into two separate conversations:
A) Artisan / heritage / luxury foods – We probably agree on this. Small farms are better situated to provide these.
B) Food security – There are other small farms that simply grow staple crops. We need these because of potential failures on large farms in other parts of the country.
Additionally, creating foreign depedency for food staples leaves a country vulnerable to trade pressure, crop failures abroad, imported diseases, biological terrorism, etc. When we have this much usable land within our borders why would you ever advocate outsourcing?Report
Mike,
I advocate outsourcing because of two core themes of economics that were central to the rise of prosperity of the last few centuries:
1) The division of labor and exchange, and
2) Comparative advantage
The path to prosperity was to reject the fallacies of self sufficiency, mercantilism and protectionism. If another country can gain comparative advantage in growing beef or bananas and we can gain it in microchips or microbreweries, then we should do so. We can trade our chips for their bananas. (I would certainly make an exception to this rule in the case of imminent threat of importing diseases/pests though.)
Global diversification is better than national, especially for smaller countries (including Japan and Great Britain).
The other advantage of trade is that it makes us interdependent. self sufficient countries tend to view their neighbors as opponents or competitors rather than as important cooperators. Strong trade ties encourage peace as well as prosperity.
Of course in the case of the US, we are a huge net calorie exporter. We can easily produce many multiples of what we actually need to consume. Food is one of our comparative advantages.
Food independence makes even less sense than energy independence, or steel independence, or solar powered technology independence.
Report
Roger,
You write,
“The path to prosperity was to reject the fallacies of self sufficiency, mercantilism and protectionism.”
What I would say is that with regards to basic foods, prosperity should be a secondary consideration. The goal should be to have a safe and secured food source within our shores.Report
But what about Hawaii and Puerto Rico? Which is to say, for one ‘our shores’ is a somewhat arbitrary construction (which doesn’t mean it’s not real). More importantly, being ‘dependent’ on Canada, Western Europe, Australia and the like, is not so much a risk, and at a certain level, NYC being ‘dependent’ on Iowa, Nebraska, and Florida (or even upstate and NJ) for food security.
A proper calculation would be to see if it’s better to mini-Juchify one’s food production from the ‘natural’ economic balance, or merely just invest in a kick-ass Navy. (my sympathies, naturally, lie with the latter option)Report
Food security–I see the promotion of diversity as part of the food security issue as well. Over the last century, as large corporations have taken over the production of food and seed, diversity has been lost. According to Kingsolver (Animal, Vegetable, Miracle) American consumers now have access to less than one percent of the vegetable varieties available 100 years ago. Six companies now control 98 percent of the seed market and they fight to prevent farmers from producing their own seeds. This monoculture leaves crops vulnerable to disease and puts them at risk for a systemic crop failure if science fails to keep up with rapidly developing pathogens. A diverse agricultural base, with a wide variety of seeds and crops, is at far less risk of massive failure. Not to mention do we really want six giant corporations to have so much control over the nature and character of our food supply?
Eating locally and supporting heritage crops and diversity is more than simply a matter of catering to elite, foodie tastes. Modern crops are bred not for flavor or nutrients but for their ability to submit to mechanized harvest and extensive travel. By encouraging and supporting more small, organic farms, we encourage healthier eating, greater decentralization, and more personal control over the stuff that goes into our stomachs.
Um yeah, this is a soapbox issue of mine, one I’ve being doing a fair amount of reading about over the years and trying to adjust our lifestyle and diet accordingly.Report
Michelle,
Your concern for seed diversity as a security issue seems plausible. I can see the benefit of local or decentralized efforts to strive for diversity. Of course, it seems like the multinational agricultural corporations would be even more concerned. I would assume they are more aware of this risk than you and I and preparing for it. But I am just assuming. What does the literature say?
I have no way to answer how many giant agri-corporations is optimal. As long as there is open competition and entrance, I would trust the market to discover this answer over rhetoric. I certainly have no reason to prefer 4 or 20 or 100 though.
I empathize with the desire for taste and nutrition, though not at any cost. For many (most) purchases I will go with inexpensive. I like having the option for both. My guess is that as soon as enough of us push for fresher and more nutritious, the giant corporations will be best at satisfying it.Report
Roger if you gleaned from anything I wrote that I’m in favor of some non-economic force compelling the devolution of our argricultual sector into small farms then I apologize but you’ve misread me.
As Mike has pointed out with the example of microbreweries there are a great number of niche markets that large farms and agricultural conglomerates simply don’t notice and tend to pave over. Those are valuable niches for heritage, biodiversity, cultural and economic reasons. I’d submit that if we remove agricultural the odds seem good that more of these niches would be discovered to the general benefit of everyone involved.Report
North,
Yes, this makes sense to me. Sorry for any confusion.Report
Good question. Small isn’t always better. Economies of scale take over in agriculture: small operations require higher markups and they don’t always scale well.
And we have to avoid the Missionary Syndrome. Just because you’re a foodie and really appreciate the quality of what you’re growing doesn’t mean you can hire in someone who will feel the same way about the operation. Farming is labor-intensive: though we’ve invented all sorts of labor-saving devices, those mechanical advantages won’t thin a row of lettuce or shovel out a stall or sanitize a milk tank and they’re expensive and difficult to maintain even if you can get them. It’s hard work requiring huge upfront capital costs and there are no Solo Farmers. You will need cheap labor to compete with the big operations.
Report
Blaise – that’s actually why I favor hobby farms for small-scale production. People that pursue artisan foods as a second job / hobby / passion are often the most well-positioned financially to pursue these types of operations. If they have enough success to make it a full-time gig then great for them.
Report
Down in Baton Rouge the friends I made at the Red Stick market call those hobby farmers The Douglases, from the old 60s TV show Green Acres. I did my homework down there, crunching the numbers for a grass-fed beef operation and concluded I’d never break even. It would be three years before I’d see a dime of revenue. I’d be out about 1.4 mil for land and upfront costs and still be competing with established operations, most of which were in the same market space, gentlemen farmers, Douglases all.
There are other ways to make a living farming down there. I’m looking at turning organic waste into black soldier fly larvae as a crawfish food supplement. There’s always the Rumplestiltskin principle at work, turning one man’s trash into another man’s treasure, but I’d have to create a market, usually about six years of hard work in any market space.
Report
I’ve had this idea for some time of converting unused mall and large office spaces into farming operations. As the cost of transportation rises and the mall paradigm lapses into irrelevance, I have considered what might be done to capitalize on these trends.
The business model seems obvious enough: identify what would sell, approach those potential buyers and arrange to deliver produce on an as-needed basis. Even a little taco stand will go through a dozen heads of lettuce a day. A loose leaf lettuce can be grown in about 24 days under proper conditions: the grower can time his plantings to ensure he can put those dozen lettuces on the delivery truck every day.
Malls and dead office spaces have several advantages: the HVAC and plumbing is already installed. It’s labor-intensive work, farming, and most such spaces have cheap housing within a mile where the workers can live. Most of our Undocumented Brethren have extensive experience in stoop labor farming and they could teach our own Doughty Unemployed Citizens how it can be done. The main advantage is the proximity of restaurants, where the highest markup can be achieved: restaurants will pay a premium for freshness and they know exactly what they want. Belay all this chi-chi “locavore” nonsense, high quality and low delivery costs make these Urban Farms cost-effective.
Report
friend of mine had a thought about turning all those Cali Exurbs into Pineapple farms…Report
I have no confidence in the Crop Clowns in this business. No one crop is gonna be the miracle money maker, not even weed, which requires a Whole Lotta Love to do well.
Urban farming is strictly market driven: if you can’t convince the restaurants to take delivery of produce on a regular day, your biz model is screwed. They know what they want. You learn to grow it.Report
Blaise, you might be interested in this article from the Atlantic. Podponics; a company in GA is actually making money and operating as a going concern by using old shipping containers to grow lettuce much like you mused. Personally I’m all for it, hydroponic and high density farming has enormous economic and ecological promise.Report
Oh.. yeah the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/is-this-the-future-of-farming/247391/Report
I am aware of Podponics: they’re on the right track.
The chief obstacle to progress on this front is the cost of lighting. Certain LED firms are working backward from much of what they were doing a few years back: where they once sought to create an LED which could emit broad-spectrum light, now they go in search of tuneable LEDs which will stimulate photosynthesis.Report