[Note: I will eventually get to part two of my local farming and food infrastructure post. I keep getting side tracked, in this case by something relevant.]
In fact, local food currently uses much more fossil fuel, especially in distribution, on a per pound basis. This is so painfully the case that one example will suffice, my own.
I drive seventy miles round trip to the farmers market on Saturdays. Some people drive more, some people drive less. I think that on average, my mileage is not untypical, but the average might be closer to fifty miles. This market season, on a bad day, I would sell ten pounds of meat (an amount that does not cover the cost of gas to get there). On a good day, I would sell forty to fifty. One of the biggest farmers market meat sellers in our area that I am aware of probably sells about 200 pounds a week.
Lets take a good day for me:
Miles per pound — 70 (miles driven) divided by 50 (pounds of meat) = 1.4 miles per pound
Gallons of fuel per pound — 70 (miles driven) divided by 12 (miles per gallon) = 5.8 (gallons of fuel) divided by 50 (pounds of meat) = 0.116 gallons per pound
Industrial:
Miles per pound — 1500 (avg. miles driven) divided by 40,000 (pounds of chicken on a tractor trailer) = 0.0375 miles per pound
Gallons of fuel per pound — 1500 (avg. miles driven) divided by 5 (miles per gallon) = 300 (gallons of fuel) divided by 40,000 (pounds of chicken) = 0.0075 gallons per pound
I would have to sell 750 pounds of meat every week to match the gallons per pound efficiency of industrial distribution. That is fifteen times more than I currently sell, and 3.75 times more than the biggest seller in our area that I am aware of.
Stop perpetuating this myth! If we believe the myth and think that in its current state local food already uses less fossil fuel, then we will not put the necessary effort into building distribution efficiencies into our infrastructures.
Local food could use less fossil fuel in distribution than industrial food. However, doing so depends on the construction of local-regional farming and food systems infrastructures that support such a thing. We need trucks with better fuel mileage. We need distribution hubs. We need investment in regional rail with terminals at those hubs. We need to de-emphasize small de-centralized retail markets and emphasize large centralized retail markets (farmers can share trucks and/or use rail). We need many more farms closer to large population centers. We need community farms integrated into suburbs. We need a whole bunch of things I can’t think of.
October 31, 2008 at 8:40 am
This is a misleading post. “Local food DOES NOT use less fossil fuel” implies a view of the the whole local food system compared to the whole industrial system. But what you are comparing is just distribution. What about the transportation of young pigs, chicks, etc. from the farm where they are born to the farms where they are raised? What about transportation from there to the slaughterhouse/packing plant? What about transportation costs for buying in industrial feed rather than producing it yourself or buying it locally? And then there is the fossil fuels used making the fertilizer for the industrially grown feed . . . I’m sure I’m forgetting many other ‘hidden’ fossil fuel guzzlers embedded in the conventional production system. Perhaps, you could claim that local food distribution *might* use more fuel than industrial, but clearly, as a whole system, it uses less. I am 100% sure that my vegetable CSA uses less fossil fuel than buying the same produce at the local supermarket. It’s not a myth, it’s reality.
However, I think your calls for locating farms near cities/towns (or other markets like processign centers) and developing local/regional distribution systems to streamline marketing of local food is right on the money.
October 31, 2008 at 10:47 am
The same issues apply to vegiies as meat, the original post is correct, it is much more efficient in a large scale system, your ‘sure’ *feelings* notwithstanding. Example: a TT truckload of tomatoes shipped to distribution centers is still more effective than a bunch of farmers driving 1/2 ton pickups FULL of tomatoes- if they had that much produce ON A REGULAR BASIS.
Food requires a distribution system.
BTW, transport from born to raised? That is always local, short haul, and usually from the same place that raises, unless they just want to focus on growing.
Slaughterhouses- both the small guy and big need to go there- a drive. I don’t want to buy meet that hasn’t gone through inspected facilities, definitely NOT the local grower, unless I have driven to see their facilities!
Feed is expensive to truck, so it too comes from local producers, when used in feedlots (I know, we supply hay for cattle).
Il like the idea of small scale farming, I tried it when younger, but it is wasteful of resources (like oil). That’s why the system we have has brought us such wealth- its effective, and (mostly) very efficient.
October 31, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I agree with Aaron, your analysis is very specific to your situation. “Local” is obviously relative… where I live, I have access to probably 10 – 15 different farm markets within a 40 mile radius, some being just a few miles away – so to me 70 miles is NOT local. Additionally as Aaron points out, there are many fossil fuel costs in the value chain that you are not considering.
October 31, 2008 at 6:55 pm
The above comments require more attention than I can give them at the moment, but I do want to clarify that the seventy miles that I drive is round trip, not one way. My farm is thirty-five miles from the farmers market.
November 1, 2008 at 9:44 am
What you are really talking about is scale, not local vs. far away. Per your example, at 750 lbs/wk. you will be as efficient as a large scale producer from 1500 miles away. 750 lbs/week really isn’t that much, it’s less than 100 steers/year, less than 300 pigs/year, less than 7,000 chickens/year. All of these numbers are definitely within the realm of small scale local producers and at least in the Finger Lakes area, the region I am most familiar with, are regularly exceeded by the more successful small scale organic/natural/sustainable/alternative marketing farmers.
When we look at energy utilization we should also be looking at the overall picture, not just the last mile for distribution, for it is in the overall picture, with the reduced energy consumption inherent in a system which raises animals primarily on pasture as opposed to a systems which are either totally confinement based or are a mix of grazing and feedlot confinement with the feed being produced, processed and transported to the animals and the waste transported from the animals where the reduced fossil fuel calories per food calorie really become apparent.
November 1, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Ok–you got me that I don’t know a WHOLE lot about raising animals. I’d hardly call my six chickens much experience in that realm. But I will say that me, my hoe and my rototiller that are the primary inputs to my vegetable CSA produce ~$8000 of vegetables on about 20 gallons of gas. I don’t use any off-farm inputs of fertility–the main thing I buy in is seeds. I don’t do any driving to market my produce, pick-up is at the farm and one volunteer drives shares 7 miles to Ithaca for others to pick up. I don’t do any cold storage–everything is picked and delivered within 24 hrs. I don’t think you’ll convince me that that doesn’t beat the pants off energy inputs on larger scale operations in terms of fossil fuel inputs. But in terms of man-hours–I’m horribly inefficient. But I guess that’s the trade-off. Sure, I know I’m not even small scale–I’m ridiculously small scale. But that scale certainly has its own efficiencies–which is why it persisted pretty much forever before the industrial and fossil fuel revolution. And it’ll work for me as long as my back holds out
November 1, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I really am trying to get around to a proper post addressing a bunch of the criticisms of my first post, that have appeared both here in the comments and via private e-mail. However, we have a horse with a lymph infection in his leg that has been requiring care every two to three hours, so I am a bit tired and short on time.
Quickly, I would like to say to Aaron that I very much appreciate the efficiencies found on small, especially micro, farms compared to those found on large farms on a per acre basis.
But, what I would like to point out is that even at the level of “buying local,” your farm is not the norm. The vast majority of farms producing for local markets are “conventional” and primarily fossil fuel powered. Organic (certified or not) and mostly hand or small engine powered farms are definitely a higher percentage within the subset of the local market than they are within the overall market, but they are still a minority even within the local market. In other words, most small farms producing for local markets use dramatically more fossil fuel than you do.
November 4, 2008 at 9:40 am
I’m just glad you’re providing another perspective – always valuable, especially coming from someone in the industry.
November 4, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Unfortunately your analysis is very incomplete. It is not merely the last miles, the final distribution of product that matters. The entire production cycle needs to be looked at. Big Ag uses a lot of fuel to produce a pound of pork. Our farm where we raise pastured pigs uses almost no fuel. When you balance the whole equation, taking in the full range of inputs and transport done by Big Ag you’ll find that the local food can be produced with far less fossil fuel.
As to the 750 lbs/wk of meat, that really isn’t that high a number. We’ve done that many weeks and our average is close to that. Our goal is about three times that and we are on track for meeting that goal. I know of several other small farmers who sell only locally and also are around or exceeding that volume per week.
Of course, if it isn’t working for you to do all that driving and sell at farmers markets then it is time to reevaluate your marketing model. We don’t do farmers markets, we sell through local restaurants and stores as well as whole pigs direct to individuals. All three of these groups buy volume with each purchase.
By the way, my bought-used 1996 Econoline-250 extended body van gets about 16 mpg fully loaded. That includes a full sized chest freezer inside. That’s a bit better than what you cite for fuel consumption so if you’re doing a lot of driving you may want to look into getting a different vehicle. The cost difference in the gas may pay for the vehicle. I was able to buy our used van for about $1,000 because it is a cargo van – it lacks windows and is so large. These get retired by businesses on a regular basis – never pay new! With good care it will last another 10 to 15 years like my last van.
Cheers,
-Walter
Sugar Mountain Farm
in Vermont
November 11, 2008 at 10:16 am
[...] view previous comments on this post [...]
December 9, 2009 at 11:43 am
Thanks for sharing your perspective on this.
In my experience, your example also applies to many CSAs and farmers markets in Eastern Canada. As the comments indicate, there are many different situations and many factors to consider; however, a lot of people seem to think that “local = lower food miles” is axiomatic. I think you have explained why this is not always true, and won’t be, unless we collectively develop systems to support local food.