In Agriculture, Small Isn’t Always Best

In “Growing Right,” Carleton University professor Peter Andrée writes, “…it doesn’t make sense to replace Southern Ontario orchards with Durum wheat, just so that Toronto has access to local grain as some advocates of localism might suggest.” Although Andrée is generally supportive of small-scale agriculture and local supply, small is not always the answer.
Do you agree with Andrée? Are there times when proponents of local agricultural supply go too far? Is small always the answer when it comes to farming? Are there other examples where small and local were not the way to go?
The local agricultural movement is one of the most pervasive trends to hit Canada in some time. Please join our discussion forum on local, small-scale agriculture by addressing the questions above or telling us your thoughts and ideas on the topic.

No easy answers in a world with 7 billion people

Small-scale and local production systems would work if we weren't trying to feed 7 billion people. If our goal is to feed everyone on this planet, then small-scale/local often makes little sense from an energy and material efficiency perspective. It also makes a lot of sense to consider the life cycle of a food product when deciding if small-scale and local is the better option. The environmental benefits of small-scale local food production may be lost if the product is overly packaged or is driven to market in pickup trucks by individual farmers. Alternately, a large-scale overseas food production system may use very energy efficient modes of production (i.e. human labour) and use very energy efficient containerized shipping to get their product to the North American market. Of course, you then get into issues of different environmental standards, potentially weak labour laws, lack of fair trade options, etc... There is no easy answer to the debate of small-scale/local vs large-scale/global in the context of 7 billion people. There is no way of escaping the fact food production systems, whichever form they take, will result in some level of environmental impact. There ARE easy answers when it comes to choosing whether or not to eat meat, however. Study after study shows that even a small-scale, local diet consisting of meat will be more energy and resource intensive than a vegetarian diet from near and far. Emma in Sointula, BC

When small and local aren't best

I doubt many advocate small local coffee growing in Ontario or the Canadian and most of the US portion of North America. Local green tea's another matter, and small would probably be better if it discourages monocropping tea bushes, which will grow where camellias grow. I'd also like to see experiments with local goji berries, at present stupidly expensive imports from Godknowswheria, but known to grow in arid Arizona. Would it favor Ontario? And would it be as revered? Find out. As for grains, the macrobiotic rule of thumb seems to apply: eat locally, but don't hassle grasses. (Of course the doctrine's from Japan, which may need imports.) Why not set up a ranking for food types? Say, first leafy veg, then most veg, then fruit, then nuts-seeds-grains-... Grow locally as far down the ranking as you can. PE
Designed by Frank Leng     Social networking icons designed by Rogie King of Komodo Media
This website is best viewed in the latest version of Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Internet Explorer.