|
Naysayers bemoan long distances to markets as the number one
reason ranchers can not develop and sell value-added products,
yet others say that might be exactly the reason rural producers
can compete.
Giant food companies use economies of scale to offset
transportation costs. Theoretically, skyrocketing transportation
costs for those large, efficient companies should offset higher
production costs of locally-grown, smaller-sized food companies,
giving the smaller food producers a competitive edge.
History supports Montana’s self-sufficiency. In a cold-climate
state now famous for wheat, barley and beef, farmers used to
grow and sell everything from apricots to watermelon, cheese and
beer. In 1950, 70% of Montana’s food was produced in Montana;
today that percentage is closer to 7%. In the 1930’s, food
processing was Montana’s top industry; today it is virtually
nonexistent.
When relative energy costs dropped and interstates improved
transportation, Montana cattle producers and farmers switched to
growing commodities for export.
Now Montanans grow a crop for 364 days and on the 365th day,
they spend 35% of the value of the crop on transportation, says
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Cattle walk onto 18-wheelers
for a ride to the Midwest. Small grains travel to the coast
where they are loaded on a ship and sent to the third world. In
return, third world countries send oil back and farmers use that
oil to plant next year’s crop.
“Somewhere out in the ocean, the ships cross paths, the crews
wave to each other and our farmers pay the freight both ways,”
Schweitzer says.
Cooperative Action
At the same time, “Food travels an average of 1700 miles by the
time it leaves Montana to be processed and then comes back to be
sold,” says Bruce Smith, Dawson County Extension Agent and a
driving force to start a marketing cooperative, commercial
kitchen, culinary school and restaurant for locally-grown foods.
“If we produce the best food in the world, why can’t we get
any?”
Smith works in eastern Montana where distances are measured in
travel hours and one new baby can increase a community’s
population by 2%.
The Glendive-area marketing cooperative will form the foundation
for a restaurant and microbrewery that promotes locally-grown
food, a culinary school affiliated with Dawson Community College
and a commercial kitchen where producers can process
locally-grown commodities.
The model cooperative will employ one or more marketing agents
to sell Montana meat, grains and produce. Smith says that is
what retailers want - one person they can deal with instead of
trying to make arrangements with numerous producers.
And a marketing agent will alleviate some of the pressure on
producers.
“Most farmers and ranchers are introverts,” Smith said, “so
marketing really doesn’t do much for them.”
The culinary school will support local marketing efforts, too.
Besides teaching students how to run a business, prepare meals
and design menus around seasonally-available food, the program
would provide practical instruction in establishing
relationships with local food producers.
The commercial kitchen will provide the final part of the
equation, offering people in eastern Montana fresh,
locally-produced foods. Regional producers will provide the
barley and hops for a variety of microbrewed beers, and the
restaurant will have a seasonal menu based on what’s available
locally. People can make fresh bread using local grains and
“artisan cheeses” using milk from goats and cows.
Grow Montana whole-heartedly supports an eastern Montana
marketing initiative. The coalition of sustainable-food and
hunger abatement organizations works to promote community
economic development policies that support sustainable
Montana-owned food production, processing and distribution; and
that improve citizens’ access to Montana foods.
“The view of agriculture in the state by the economic
development community and policy makers is a rearview mirror
mentality. They see ag as a p art of the old economy. We think
agriculture holds great potential for economic development if we
look at the potential for producing food instead of
commodities,” says Nancy Matheson, Grow Montana project
director.
“If each Montana household spent $10 a week on Montana-grown
foods, an additional $186 million would go back to Montana
farmers and ranchers,” Matheson says. “That would be a
significant boost to the economy.”
Smith sees even more than economic benefits.
“People say the trucks go back empty. Well, they don’t. They go
back full of money. And they go back full of our kids,” he says.
Montanans feeding Montanans would create more living-wage jobs
so fewer kids would be exported along with commodities.
Solution-Focused Summit
Grow Montana assisted several sponsors to host the Governor’s
Food and Agriculture Summit recently. More than 200 people from
all facets of the farm-to-fork supply chain met to create a plan
to improve direct marketing opportunities and reduce hunger.
While it was not articulated at the summit, savvy political
strategy demands that the seemingly polar opposite goals of
inexpensive food and profit join forces. After all, 65 percent
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s budget focuses on
feeding Americans, leaving only 35% for farm production
programs.
At the end of the conference, participants presented an action
plan with 10 priorities for Gov. Schweitzer. Those action points
included suggestions to improve marketing, implement education
for both adults and children, build food processing plants,
investigate transportation network opportunities and develop
strategies to reduce hunger in the state.
Participants hope these actions will alleviate perceived
limitations to Montanans feeding Montanans.
As a specific request to Governor Schweitzer, summit
participants asked him to support projects such as the Glendive
food processing package – education, processing and a retail
outlet -- in other areas of Montana, too.
Summit participants hope additional processing plants and
commercial kitchens in the state would provide more jobs and,
hopefully, would reduce transportation costs enough to make food
affordable for low-income families while producers could make a
profit. Currently, about 30% of Montanans go hungry at some
point each month. In 1965, one minimum wage worker could earn
110 percent of average monthly household costs; today that same
worker earns about half. In 1965, a family with one wage earner
could save a little money each month; today, two minimum wage
earners can not.
Besides providing a fundamental human need, turning from
commodity production to value-added food production might be the
saving grace for agricultural producers, too.
“Our food system is a runaway train right now,” says Josh
Slotnik, an instructor at the University of Montana. “It is
produced where it is cheapest and retailed where it is most
lucrative, regardless of borders. Our system is headed toward
irrelevance of family farms.”
If producers plan to avoid such irrelevance, they must act now,
says Molly Anderson, research coordinator for the national
Community Food Security Coalition. Anderson suggests farmers and
ranchers should:
Pay attention to the whole food life cycle, “from seeds to
sewers,” she says. Understand that each aspect of the food
system affects the others.
Develop long-term relation ships among the various sectors of
the food system – producers, processors, wholesalers,
distributors and consumers.
Invest in infrastructure.
Make high quality affordable food available to those who need it
most.
Collaborate with others to develop policy.
Schweitzer phrased it differently, but he made the same point:
Think holistically about long-term consequences.
“Native American elders used to ask themselves how a decision
would affect the seventh generation from now. If we did this, I
think a lot of our decisions would change,” he says. |
