Would local farmers be stronger without profits?

[Pat Coyle]

Demand for healthy foods grown locally is on the rise, yet most local farmers struggle to earn profits. The situation is especially tough for small farmers growing organic produce, and raising drug free, free-range, grass-fed livestock. This is a bad situation. Our people are getting fat eating processed foods. Pollution keeps getting worse as we ship food around the world. Meanwhile, our energy supply - the gas that drives the tractors and the trucks - is in jeopardy. , and our best source of healthy food - grown near where we live - is hanging by a thread. Is there any way to save the local farmer?

Here's s thought: What if local farmers became not-for-profit organizations? Or what if farmers partnered with existing 501C3s? The non-profits could become fiscal agents, and the farms could provide educational services and programs for the 501c3s/.

Would this strategy save the local farm? Could farmers use their new not-for-profit status to raise money from donations, in order to provide food and educational or ministry services to the public? Would this strategy help farmers feed people and strengthen their financial position at the same time?

Before you throw this idea out as hogwash, recognize that it has been suggested lately that the NY Times might become a not-for-profit institution...this idea follows the same logic described above...take an institution that is indispensable to society, yet losing money, and save it by changing its tax status and business orientation. If this can happen with media companies, then why not local farms like this one?

Do you think loyal customers combined with charitable subsidies could help our local farmers grow? Share your thoughts here

[Steve Stuck]

Non for profit farms were tried in the Soviet Union with disasterous results. Yes, newpapers can fail too. Just they don't want to face the truth that their reporting content is terrible and they usually are bent to one side.

We don't have an energy supply problem and the world isn't ending because of the "made up" climate change theory.

[Pat Coyle]

Steve, I love you, man. I wasn't suggesting government run farms. I'm suggesting the opposite. Privately funded farms that get some tax relief...which is a form of subsidy not unlike big corn and soybean producers get today, but on a much smaller scale.

I'm just wondering - and I'm no expert on energy, tax code or farming - what can we do to help local farmers survive so they can produce more, high quality, healthy food closer to where it is ultimately consumed?

Such an accomplishment could have the added benefit of reducing the miles a head of cabbage or a boneless chicken breast would travel from farm to store to plate, which would consume less energy (maintain our limitless sources of fossil fuels :-)) and cause less pollution.

I'm not going to argue about climate change (you'll notice it wasn't mentioned in my original post). But I don't think you or anyone can argue that we are polluting our environment - and it would be a good thing if we could find ways to pollute less, even as we grow our economy....before this thread gets de-railed as so many threads do, I hope someone smarter than I am will consider the question without dragging it down a political rabbit hole.

Anyone?

[Steve Stuck]

Thanks Pat. Much love back to ya.

But my statement still stands in the aspect of what we do now. Farm subsidies are part of the Soviet Union type farming, so non for profits wouldn't be any different. Profit is an incentive to be creative and reach for better solutions. Today, we don't let the market even come close to running farming. For example, the government pays farmers not too farm which articially raises prices on consumer goods. Yes, I have family that takes this money on potentially farmable land. Get this program out of the way and let the market work.

Another solution would be to drop the Corporate tax rate in this country to 15% so prices would drop. The supplies farmers now buy to run their farms would be at a lower rate thus driving down supply costs and giving more money to the consumer to afford organic type farm products. Even do something crazy like strengthen the dollar.

People need to understand, some farms just don't work and the consumer makes their choice.

[Julia Muney Moore]

Personally I would like to see the CSA movement get stronger in Indiana. I think that would help both consumers and farmers, and still enable farmers to make profits. Farmers have enough to get on with, and do not need the extra hassle of providing charitable or educational services.

[Pat Coyle]

Please explain CSA and how you think it would help

[Anne Johnson]

Consumer Supported Agriculture - this is where a farmer contracts with a bunch of people (there is a consumer/organizer who pulls it all together) to buy the farmer's produce for the year. A full share is supposed to roughly feed four people (at least in the one I was in last year) and I think it cost about $500 for a six month season. There is one being set up in conjunction with Circle UU Fellowship on the near north to northwest side right now that is looking for people to join right now. Go to the Fellowship Website (www.cuuf.org) and send an email to the church if you are interested, and I will get you hooked up with the organizer.

Of course what you get is what is in season, lots of greens in the spring, for instance. This is the problem with being a locovore (consuming only local produce) hard to get local vegetables in Indiana in January.

[Pat Coyle]

I understand the tax accounting could be burdensome for the farmer...that's why it might work better for the farmer to partner with an existing 501c3...all I'm suggesting is that the farmer could host a program for the not-for-profit...and be paid a fee by the not-for-profit...and that this money could be the difference between a farm surviving or folding.

[Sean Feeney]

The answer to not-for-profits is no. Taxes aren't the farmers problem and the idea of people donating to farms isn't going to happen.

To your question "what can we do to help local farmers survive so they can produce more, high quality, healthy food closer to where it is ultimately consumed?"

The solution is the restaurants near the farm. Prepared food sales surpassed grocery food sales in 2004 and the trend continues to grow - we, as Americans, are simply too busy to cook for ourselves most of the time. What you need is restaurants willing to step up and purchase directly from local farmers. See this NY Times article for ideas: http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/travel/01heads.html

[Pat Coyle]

People might not donate to a farm, but they might donate to send inner city kids (or suburban families for that matter) to learn about farm life, or state history...or even to get their hands dirty. Kinda like a modern day conner prairie. There area also several religious connections...including one I heard of recently where religious refugees from non-developed nation are living in US...they've got farming skills and nowhere to apply them...our farms need labor...and BTW - this is my personal bias - part of the problem is that we are buying too many prepared foods...when we could be visiting farmers markets and cooking food with and for our families and neighbors...building community...valuing that aspect of our lives rather than the rat race that has us too busy to cook. Like I said, that's my personal bias.

[Neal Brown]

Sean, this is happening all around you. In central Indiana however we have a problem. The demand for local,sustainable, organic far outweighs the supply. Most of the farmers I know, and that is to say "many", don't even bother selling to restaurants anymore, because we as chefs have to meet a certain price or jeopardize our livelihoods. They simply take everything that they grow to the farmers markets and command their own price. AND consistently sell out of goods. Call it growing pains, but it is a problem nonetheless, at least for now.

[Teri Capron]

Would that mean that any business that loses money or can't make a profit (i.e. banks, auto industries) could then be considered for this same status? It seams like a slipperly slope for businesses in general. Also if it is not-for-profit or non-profit (which means you can't show a profit), how will that help the small farmers make a living? I'm all for becoming more efficient energy-wise and buying local or growing local. I just need to hear more about how exactly this would work before making up my mind.

[Pat Coyle]

I hear what you're saying about the slippery slope. I guess it comes down to priorities. The government has decided to subsidize some industries and not others...the BIG FOOD biz is heavily subsidized from what I understand...We buy all our milk and eggs and much of our produce and cheese directly from local farms...and we pay a lot more for the privilege of eating healthy, non-processed foods. There are many who believe that our food is too cheap because - much like our gas - it is subsidized by the Gov...which keeps us heading in an unhealthy direction.

From what I understand, the Gov has long ago established the rules by which an organization can establish itself as a not-for-profit...it has to do with education or religious or charitable goals of the organization...this is not the same as bailout money

Again, I'm not an expert, but it's my understanding that not for profits organizations can make money and pay their staffs. Right now many farmers are losing money and heading for the wall...my question comes from a simple, perhaps naive place...not trying to make the farmers rich...just trying to help them survive so we can benefit from what they raise and grow.