Small farms: the new math
My former student, Michael Bulger sends interesting tidbits. This one is an article on 538 by Maggie Koerth-Baker how the USDA’s ways of measuring farm size and number obscure the (a) the increasingly rapid consolidation of large farms and (b) the fact that many small farms aren’t farms at all.
From 2001 to 2011, the number of very large farms — 2,000 acres or more — grew from 1.7 percent of all farms to 2.2 percent. In other words, a relative handful of big farms are getting even bigger, even though the amount of land being farmed stayed about the same.
From 1982 to 2012, the number of very small farms grew from about 637,000 farms of 49 acres or less to more than 800,000.
Big farms and tiny farms are increasing; the ones in the middle are declining.
A lot of this has to do with the definition of a farm as “any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the reference year.”
$1,000 isn’t much, and this makes it difficult to tell real farms from big backyards.
But changing the definition to up the cut point has consequences.
- Votes for the Farm Bill: Large farms don’t need government aid; if there are fewer small farms it might be harder to pass the bill.
- States might lose federal revenues.
- Land-grant colleges might lose research revenues.
As I keep saying, agricultural policy is hard for mere mortals to understand (but I keep trying).