Under the USDA’s Definition, 90% of Iowa’s Farms Are 'Family Farms'
By Dan Nosowitz
When you think of "family farms," a nice bucolic image probably comes to mind: something small, maybe lower-budget or lower-tech, run by a family.
According to the USDA's definition, those farms definitely are "family farms." But so, under this definition, are multi-thousand-acre corporate entities using automated machinery to grow genetically engineered corn. The Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism looked more deeply into the definition and why it matters.
The USDA's definition of family farms includes "any farm organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or family corporation." Size of the farm is not a factor; neither is the style of agriculture. A family farm may not even have a family that owns or works the land. In fact, according to the USDA, almost 96 percent of American farms are technically "family farms," which begs the question: why even bother with this designation if so few fall outside it?
The Iowa Center's article focuses on the state of Iowa, where about 90 percent of the state's farms are "family farms," yet less than seven percent are small or medium-sized farms that are owned by one family.
The issue with such a broad definition of family farming is primarily in the discourse. Aid is divvied up by revenue among family farmers, with additional programs going to some specialized farmers, like young or beginning farmers, organic farmers, and sustainable farmers. But the Iowa Center also argues that the lack of definition of small family farmers beyond merely "a farm with a smaller level of revenue" hurts alternative farmers, those who avoid conventional products and can, in many cases, be very valuable to local economies.
"The USDA does not have data on the number of these non-conventional family farms," writes Molly Hunter in the article. And without terminology and data to make sure these farms are properly served, how can we encourage them?
Reposted with permission from our media associate Modern Farmer.
2018 saw a number of studies pointing to the outsized climate impact of meat consumption. Beef has long been singled out as particularly unsustainable: Cows both release the greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere because of their digestive processes and require a lot of land area to raise. But for those unwilling to give up the taste and texture of a steak or burger, could lab-grown meat be a climate-friendly alternative? In a first-of-its-kind study, researchers from the Oxford Martin School set out to answer that question.
By Gary Paul Nabhan
President Trump has declared a national emergency to fund a wall along our nation's southern border. The border wall issue has bitterly divided people across the U.S., becoming a vivid symbol of political deadlock.
By Daniel Ross
Hurricane Florence, which battered the U.S. East Coast last September, left a trail of ruin and destruction estimated to cost between $17 billion and $22 billion. Some of the damage was all too visible—smashed homes and livelihoods. But other damage was less so, like the long-term environmental impacts in North Carolina from hog waste that spilled out over large open-air lagoons saturated in the rains.
Hog waste can contain potentially dangerous pathogens, pharmaceuticals and chemicals. According to the state's Department of Environmental Quality, as of early October nearly 100 such lagoons were damaged, breached or were very close to being so, the effluent from which can seep into waterways and drinking water supplies.
China has closed its Everest base camp to tourists because of a buildup of trash on the world's tallest mountain.