Nationwide, farms use the bulk of chemicals. But one expert says homeowners are more likely to overuse pesticides and fertilizers. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
New laws restrict pesticides and fertilizers in some cities. In recent years, farms have cut the use of chemicals. But, Rebecca Williams reports, some environmentalists say there are still far too many chemicals polluting streams and lakes:
Transcript
New laws restrict pesticides and fertilizers in some cities. In recent years, farms have cut the use of chemicals. But, Rebecca Williams reports, some environmentalists say there are still far too many chemicals polluting streams and lakes:
There are 40 million acres of lawns and sports fields in the US. That’s only one-tenth of the amount of cropland.
But some experts say lawn pesticides and fertilizers can be more of a problem.
Charles Benbrook is the Chief Scientist with the Organic Center. It’s a non-profit research group in Oregon.
“While there are many more acres of corn and soybeans and cotton treated with pesticides than there are lawns, the rate of application on lawns in urban areas often is far higher than on the farm.”
And, he says people are more likely to get exposed to chemicals on lawns.
“There’s many more opportunities for significant exposures, particularly for children and pregnant women in urban areas.”
Nationwide, farms do use the bulk of chemicals. But Benbrook says homeowners are more likely to overuse pesticides and fertilizers.
John Vrieze has a machine called a digester on his dairy farm that's used to turn manure into energy (Photo by Todd Melby)
Big dairy farms produce more than just milk. They also generate manure. Lots and lots
of it. That can be a problem for farmers and the environment. Todd Melby reports on a
technology that reduces manure and generates electricity:
Transcript
Big dairy farms produce more than just milk. They also generate manure. Lots and lots
of it. That can be a problem for farmers and the environment. Todd Melby reports on a
technology that reduces manure and generates electricity:
(sound of suckling cows)
I’m on a dairy farm with John Vrieze and his daughter Brittany.
Oh, and some cows too.
Vrieze is a frugal man. A couple of winters ago, he had a contest with his son to see who
could use the least electricity. Vrieze was willing to go to extreme measures.
His daughter Brittany tells the story this way:
Brittany Vrieze: “He’d shut his fridge off in the winter time. Just use the outdoors for his
fridge. He was definitely trying to keep the kilowatts down.”
Todd Melby: “So what did he do? He just kept his milk in the porch?”
Brittany Vrieze: “Yup.”
Todd Melby: “And kept his frozen stuff outside?”
Brittany Vrieze: “Yup. Yup.”
Today, Vrieze isn’t just trying to save energy. He’s trying to create it.
(sound of cow moos)
From cow dung.
He’s got 1,600 head of cattle at his place here in western Wisconsin. Those cows produce
milk that gets made into cheese. But they also produce about 50,000 gallons of manure
— every day.
Farmers are required to store that manure in a big pool-like structure called a lagoon.
John Vrieze covers his up with a giant tarp.
“It would blow up from the biogas. It would look like a great big balloon or like the
Metrodome, for folks in the Cities. It’s from the nature decomposition of the manure. It
creates biogas. We would have to take that gas out from underneath the cover and flare it
off, which got us to thinking that there has to be a better way to use that energy than just
to flare it off.”
So Vrieze bought a $1 million machine called a digester. And he had help from the
federal government. They paid for a quarter of it. The government is interested in these
things because they can turn manure into energy.
And it turns out — the reason it’s called a digester — is a farm thing.
“A cow has four stomachs. We call the digester really the fifth stomach. All the stuff that
comes out of the back of the cow we then put in that digester.”
So this “fifth stomach” produces energy. However, it’s not ready-to-use energy. To sell it
as natural gas, it has to be about 95% methane. The gas from the digester is only about
60% methane.
(sound of pipeline burn off)
Another option is to convert it to electricity. But in the U.S., electricity is cheap.
Todd Melby: “You tried to sell it to the electric company, but they didn’t want it.”
Brittany Vrieze: “They’re not offering us enough money. So …”
After all this investment by Vrieze and the federal government, some of the gas he
collects is just being burned off into the air.
But maybe not for long.
Vrieze wants to build a greenhouse right on his Wisconsin farm so he can grow
vegetables and herbs in the winter. He says he’ll power it with energy from the digester.
“So, instead of your produce coming from 2,000 miles away – from the central valley of
California – wouldn’t it be neat if it came from 45 miles away?”
Vrieze is planning to use the water from the cow manure for his vegetables and herbs in
his greenhouse. And he’s got a machine similar to ones used at wastewater treatment
plants to clean the manure water.
But even with the digester, there’s still leftover manure he has to deal with. But Vrieze
says the digester makes it more manageable.
(blowing sound)
Some of the dry manure is blown into a pile where it’s gathered up and used as bedding
for the cows. In the summer, it’s also used for another purpose.
“It’s just a clean version of manure. It stinks a little bit. Most of the stink has been taken
out of it. And we mix this with potting soil and it works great for the plants. So …”
That manure/potting soil mix is sold to gardeners in the city. It’s another way for Vrieze
to be frugal and environmental at the same time.
With Food, Inc., filmmaker Robert Kenner aims to educate Americans about the realities of the food industry (Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures)
A new film documentary that’s hitting theaters now looks at the underbelly of the food industry. We’ve all heard about food recalls because of E.coli bacteria contamination. There was peanut butter, hamburger, spinach – and the list goes on. Lester Graham reports the documentary, Food Inc., looks at why food gets contaminated and reveals a lot more about our industrial approach to producing food:
Transcript
A new film documentary that’s hitting theaters now looks at the underbelly of the food industry. We’ve all heard about food recalls because of E.coli bacteria contamination. There was peanut butter, hamburger, spinach – and the list goes on. Lester Graham reports the documentary, Food Inc., looks at why food gets contaminated and reveals a lot more about our industrial approach to producing food:
This documentary is disturbing. It shows some of the things that happen to our food behind the scenes.
“There is this deliberate veil, this curtain, that’s dropped between us and where are food is coming from. The industry doesn’t want you to know the truth about what you’re eating, because if you knew, you might not want to eat it.”
The film, Food Inc., looks at how raising animals and growing crops have been industrialized from the farm to the grocery store.
Food processors have relied more and more on technological and chemical fixes to food contamination problems and storage issues instead of questioning whether the assembly line factory, mass production approach is the best way of handling food.
It looks at how companies such as Monsanto are treating farmers who want to save their seeds to replant next year – hint — involves lawyers and lawsuits.
It looks at how companies fight against labeling that would give consumers more information on packages. They say more information might unnecessarily scare their customers.
And it uses video from hidden cameras to show how animals are treated at big factory slaughterhouses.
Robert Kenner is the film’s producer/director. He thinks most people won’t like what they see.
But, he also says things can change. If people think about it, they actually vote with their forks three times a day.
“On some level, I think it’s going to be lead by moms who don’t want their children to be eating this food that’s making them sick.”
Kenner says these massive food recalls we’ve seen over the last several years are bad enough, but there’s a greater threat to our health.
“Obviously E.coli and things like that are very frightening, but ultimately it’s the everyday stuff that we don’t see – such as the sugar, salt and fat – that are making us fat. And that’s what I think needs to be changed most. That we get food that’s healthy and that we don’t subsidize food that’s making us sick.”
Food Inc. interviews farmers and food processors and some food industry critics, including author Michael Pollan.
He says those foods subsidized by the government are the kinds of ingredients that are causing some of the leading health problems, such as early onset of diabetes and heart disease.
“All those snackfood calories are the ones that come from the commodity crops – from the wheat, from the corn, and from the soybeans. By making those calories really cheap, that’s one of the reasons the biggest predictor of obesity is income level.”
Pollan says it’s wrong when it’s cheaper to buy a cheeseburger than it is to buy broccoli.
The director and producer of Food Inc., Robert Kenner says he knows the film spends a lot of time looking at the dark side.
But he also gives some of the progressive food processors and even Wal Mart credit. He says they’re doing something about meeting the consumer demand for better, safer and more healthy foods.
“There are lots of great options out there and they are growing options.”
Such as farmers markets, grocery stores letting you know if food is grown locally, and a growing selection of organic foods.
Kenner says he hopes his film, Food Inc., not only outlines the problems with how our food is handled, but gets people to start asking questions about the choices they make when it’s time to eat.
A creek runs through Melvin Hershberger's farm in Holmes County, Ohio.
He was able to clean up the water with money from the Alpine Cheese Company.
The company needed to offset phosphorous pollution from its factory, so it pays farmers to
reduce their manure runoff. (Photo by Julie Grant)
Hershberger has 54 milking cows. Their manure used to run into the waterways.
Now the cows are fenced away from the creek. (Photo by Julie Grant)
When you hear about dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes, they’re largely caused by pollution draining from the farm belt. It can take a long time and a lot of money to reduce pollution at factories. So they’re starting to pay farmers to cut pollution instead. Julie Grant explains:
Transcript
When you hear about dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes, they’re largely caused by pollution draining from the farm belt. It can take a long time and a lot of money to reduce pollution at factories. So they’re starting to pay farmers to cut pollution instead. Julie Grant explains:
When you eat cheese, you might not realize that something so delicious creates a lot of waste. And that waste – that pollution – ends up going into the drain. It eventually ends up in rivers and lakes.
(sound of a factory)
We’re at a cheese factory in Holmes County, Ohio where they make nearly 60,000 pounds of cheese a day.
The big stainless steel vats look immaculate. But our shoes are wet.
Bob Ramseyer is CEO of the Alpine Cheese Company.
He says the floors are covered with water because the equipment is constantly being washed.
“We have a pre-rinse – that goes to drain. We have a final rinse, and that goes to drain. And we have all the floors that are flushed down and so forth, so that all ends up as part of the wastewater.”
The cheese factory’s wastewater includes not only those caustic chemical cleaners, but wasted milk by-products. One milk nutrient is the chemical, phosphorous.
About a decade ago, the Environmental Protection Agency told Ramseyer that the cheese company had to reduce the phosphorous it was releasing into the nearby river. Ramseyer was concerned.
“The equipment alone was going to cost a half million dollars. We projected it was going to cost between a half million dollars and a million dollars a year in operating costs. So we were looking for any way we could to reduce that cost. That’s where we got into the nutrient trading program.”
Alpine Cheese was among the first to negotiate what’s called a nutrient – or water quality – trading program. Instead of reducing the phosphorous coming from his factory, he pays farmers to reduce manure – another source of phosphorous – from washing from feedlots into the river.
(sound of cows)
Mervin Hershberger is an Amish dairy farmer with 125 acres and 54 milking cows.
(sound of a stream)
His farm looks like a postcard – beautiful hilly green pasture.
But a lot of the manure was washing off his farm into the streams. Herberberger says the cows were grazing right around the water.
“With the cows being in the creek we could see dirty water. The rocks were covered with dirt from cow’s waste. You walk through the stream, you’d kick up dirt and waste from the cows.”
Hershberger didn’t like it, but he didn’t have money to change it.
So when the County Soil and Water Conservation District held a neighborhood meeting to explain that Alpine Cheese was going to pay to reduce pollution from nearby farms, Hershberger saw a way to afford to clean up his farm.
He did about a dozen projects to reduce manure run-off into the water, like building a fence to keep the cows out of the stream.
And the little creek is bouncing back:
“As of now, it’s just totally clean, what you see. For the minnows and all the critters that are in the creek.”
Hershberger gets paid for the amount of phosphorous he keeps out of the water.
About 25 other farms in Holmes County are doing similar projects to reduce water pollution. And Alpine Cheese foots the bill. In exchange, the company doesn’t have to clean up wastewater coming from the cheese factory.
It’s a lot like a cap and trade program on water pollution.
There are a growing number of small programs like this around the country. But some people are trying to create water trading projects on a much larger scale.
That would mean a factory in one state might be able to pay farmer in another state. Eventually, all of the thousands of factories in just one river basin could pay farmers enough to reduce dead zones like the one in the Gulf of Mexico and in some of the Great Lakes.
Stonyfield says their new diet has cut cow burps by 12%.
(Photo by Peggy Greb, courtesy of the USDA)
Cows burp methane gas. It’s a potent greenhouse gas. The Environmental Protection Agency says cow burps alone make up 20% of the methane emissions in the US. Rebecca Williams reports some people worry the government might step in:
Transcript
Cows burp methane gas. It’s a potent greenhouse gas. The Environmental Protection Agency says cow burps alone make up 20% of the methane emissions in the US. Rebecca Williams reports some people worry the government might step in:
The farm lobby’s worried Congress will try to regulate gassy cows.
But if you thumb through the giant climate change bill before Congress, you’ll find Section 811. That section says the government can’t regulate cow burps.
In the meantime, some farmers are trying to make their cows less gassy.
The company Stonyfield Farm is getting its dairy farmers to change their cows’ diets.
Nancy Hirschberg is with the company. She says the new diet has cut cow burps by 12%.
“It’s very much like people. When you are feeling good, you’re not having a lot of gas – you’re more efficient, more of your energy is available for living life. The same with the cows, you want as much energy as possible to go into producing milk, not into burps which are in fact, waste.”
One crop that Carbofuran was used on is potatoes (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)
The Environmental Protection Agency says no amount of the pesticide carbofuran is safe on food. Mark Brush has more on the new EPA rule:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency says no amount of the pesticide carbofuran is safe on food. Mark Brush has more on the new EPA rule:
The EPA has been phasing out this insecticide, but it’s still used on some crops like rice, corn, and potatoes.
When people are exposed to carbofuran, it can cause damage to the nervous system. And the EPA is particularly worried about kids exposure when eating food or when drinking water near treated farm fields.
Potato farmers say they use carbofuran to kill bugs that resist other pesticides.
John Keeling is the CEO of the National Potato Council. He says they were hoping the EPA would let them keep using it.
“We had tried to work with the agency to modify use patterns, or limit the use to particular areas, so that we could continue to use the product – but they obviously didn’t continue in that direction.”
FMC Corporation makes the chemical. Officials there issued a statement saying they’ll fight the EPA’s new rule.
One lawyer wants a class action suit against the manufacturer of Atrazine, an herbicide used on crops (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Atrazine is a weed killer. It’s
used by farmers in several crops,
basically because the herbicide is
relatively cheap and effective.
When Atrazine is used in the spring,
it sometimes ends up getting in
water – and in some cases at levels
above the government’s drinking water
standard – the maximum contaminant
level of three parts-per-billion.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in a
lawsuit against the manufacturer of
Atrazine – Syngenta – and Synenta’s
partner, Growmark. Tillery represents
water suppliers and he’s seeking class-
action status to represent all water
suppliers who’ve had to deal with Atrazine
contamination. Lester Graham talked to
him about the lawsuit:
Transcript
Atrazine is a weed killer. It’s
used by farmers in several crops,
basically because the herbicide is
relatively cheap and effective.
When Atrazine is used in the spring,
it sometimes ends up getting in
water – and in some cases at levels
above the government’s drinking water
standard – the maximum contaminant
level of three parts-per-billion.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in a
lawsuit against the manufacturer of
Atrazine – Syngenta – and Synenta’s
partner, Growmark. Tillery represents
water suppliers and he’s seeking class-
action status to represent all water
suppliers who’ve had to deal with Atrazine
contamination. Lester Graham talked to
him about the lawsuit:
Lester Graham: Mr. Tillery, what’s this lawsuit about, if the level is less than the 3-parts-per-billion the government says is safe?
Steve Tillery: Well, actually, at different times of the year, Atrazine does in fact exceed the federal standard. The federal government refers to MCL – maximum contaminant level – and that’s the maximum, they say, a chemical should exist in the water supply to be consumed by people in the community. The maximum contaminant level for Atrazine is 3-parts-per-billion. Many times, throughout the Spring, throughout Illinois and other Mid-Western cities, the levels grossly exceed 3-parts-per-billion. So what happens is that the cities, the water districts, are required to pay large amounts of money to filter the water so it is below that level. In addition, some have gone to the expense of completely cleaning it out of their water supplies. So that it doesn’t exist at all. And they should, in our view, be entitled to reimbursement for the expenses that they have incurred for completely cleaning it out of their water supplies.
Graham: Scientists that worked, then, for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association told me that during the application season, during the Spring, that they measured levels of Atrazine exceeding the safe drinking water levels in the rain on the East Coast from all of the application in the Midwest. Rather than just cleaning it up, is this not a problem of too much Atrazine – maybe we limit the amount?
Tillery: Well, the issue is whether or not it should be banned completely. The European Union has done exactly that. For all of the reasons that people look at – scientists look at – this chemical and point to the adverse health affects, changes to the environment, all of those reasons, the Europeans banned it some years ago.
Graham: The defense in most cases like this is: this is a regulated product, the label is the law, if it isn’t applied correctly, it’s the applicator – the farmer’s – fault; and if it is applied according to the label, the government says it’s safe.
Tillery: Yeah, we’re not safe. For two reasons. First of all, it’s not a problem with farmers. Farmers are doing exactly what is on the label. They are applying it precisely the way the manufacturer says it should be applied. So they’re not the issue. The problem is the manufacturer. To the extent that we rely on federal regulators to do the right thing, we are misdirected in this instance. For many years, the relationship between Syngenta – the principle manufacturer of this chemical – and the EPA has been under close scrutiny. And I’m hopeful that it’s reevaluated and examined under this new administration. Big corporations, in this case from Switzerland, who come here and sell this and make enormous profits in this country selling this chemical – 77 million pounds a year, average. When they make that money, and they cause taxpayers to incur $400 million a year in expense throughout the US to clean up their mess, they should be the ones that come back and reimburse them. We aren’t asking for anything else besides that. We are asking for compensation to these cities who’ve incurred this expense. The people who create the mess should pay for its cleanup. People should not be drinking water with Atrazine in it, at any level.
Graham: Steve Tillery is an attorney seeking class-action status trying to make the manufacturers of Atrazine pay to clean up the water their product contaminates. Thanks for your time.
Tillery: Thank you for allowing me to come here and speak.
It’s not uncommon for influenza viruses to be exchanged between pigs and humans
(Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)
The current swine flu outbreak was first detected in a region of Mexico with large confined animal feeding operations – factory farms. Many environmentalists wonder if there’s a connection. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The current swine flu outbreak was first detected in a region of Mexico with large confined animal feeding operations – factory farms. Many environmentalists wonder if there’s a connection. Lester Graham reports:
A US government brochure indicates it’s not uncommon for influenza viruses to be exchanged between pigs and humans.
Mark Wilson is a professor of epidemeology at the University of Michigan. He says factory farms can make that exchange easier.
“The combination of animals being confined in close quarters as well as the large number of animals is likely to lead to more transmission of infectious agents among them. And as people – workers – are in contact with these animals, the possibility of transmission from those animals to those workers is increased. Absolutely.”
But, Wilson says it’s anyone’s guess whether this strain of swine flu began at a factory farm.
“Completely unknown at this point.”
Health officials from Mexico and the US Centers for Disease Control are investigating the source of the virus.
Brook Wilke and his son, Charlie, visit a test
farm at The Kellogg Biological Research Station. Wilke
and other researchers are testing how well perennial
versions of popular grain crops, such as wheat, will
grow in Michigan. The test farm isn't too far from Battle
Creek, the home of the commercial breakfast cereal industry. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
John Edgerton is a part-time farmer who's growing
test plots of perennial wheat on his Michigan farm. He's
interested in whether the plants might allow sheep to graze
a field after harvest, but still produce for years afterward. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
If you had a bowl of cereal or maybe a muffin this morning, you ate flour from an annual crop. They grow one season, they die, then get re-planted again the next year. Sounds as natural as could be, but repetitive planting can wear out farmland. It can cause soil erosion and cause more water pollution. Now, some scientists are trying to coax grain crops into growing for years at a time. Shawn Allee visited researchers who are testing perennial wheat in the heart of cereal country:
Transcript
If you had a bowl of cereal or maybe a muffin this morning, you ate flour from an annual crop. They grow one season, they die, then get re-planted again the next year. Sounds as natural as could be, but repetitive planting can wear out farmland. It can cause soil erosion and cause more water pollution. Now, some scientists are trying to coax grain crops into growing for years at a time. Shawn Allee visited researchers who are testing perennial wheat in the heart of cereal country:
I’ve headed to a test farm run by Michigan State University. It’s not that
far from Battle Creek,
Michigan where cereal companies like Kelloggs got started.
Dr. Sieg Snapp shows me grain that might make into our cereal bowls
someday.
Allee: “What are we looking at on this side?”
Snapp: “We have 6 varieties of perennial wheat.”
Right now, they kinda look like spindly blades of grass. But in some ways,
this is miraculous; regular
wheat dies after harvest. These have been harvested, and now they’re
popping back up.
“We’ll harvest these this summer, and then in the fall, they’ll re-grow.
They build a deep root
system, and they’re able to come back. So, at first, they start off very
similar, but they keep
growing longer, and they re-grow after harvest. That’s the real
difference.”
Actually, that’s just the start of the difference between annual grains
like wheat and perennial
varieties.
Dr. Snapp says when farmers plant most annual grain crops, soil gets torn
up again and again from
planting and replanting. Rain can wash away exposed top-soil.
Perennial crops get planted once every few years, so they might hold soil
and they might need less
fertilizer that runs off into streams and rivers.
Snapp: “So, the roots of traditional crops including annual wheat are
usually 1-2 feet. These
root systems might be down 6 feet. They can use fertilizers more
efficiently, so they can pick
it up from deep and then move it up where we want it, into the grain.”
Allee: “And if the roots are deep enough, you might need less herbicide
to kill weeds, right?
If that perennial wheat comes up strong enough, it’s already out-competing
the weeds that
are next to it?”
Snapp: “Right, and each year it should do it better for a couple years at
least, we don’t know
how long.”
Dr. Snapp and her colleagues use the word “maybe” a lot when they talk
about perennial grains. It’s
mostly because testing these crops is slow work. That’s one reason they’re
letting some farmers run
their own small tests.
She introduces me to one farmer.
“Hi John! Come on over!”
Part-time farmer and teacher John Edgerton says he checked his test batches
recently.
“I didn’t know what to expect and I went out there and low and behold,
it’s greening up
beautifully. In fact, now, it may be a little too thick. We’ll see.”
Edgerton wants to know whether sheep can get cheap feed from leftover wheat
grass, or whether
farmers could save on tractor fuel.
“One farmer said to me, you know, if I could get three or four years of a
decent crop of
perennial wheat without having to plow, there’d be enormous savings.”
Pretty soon, another perennial wheat researcher joins us in the test field.
He’s Brook Wilke.
He tells me, all this work on perennial wheat and other grains will work
best if the final product, the
grain, tastes like what we’re used to.
Allee: “I hear you baked some chocolate chip cookies with perennial
wheat.”
Wilke: “Yeah. A big component of this work is, “’will people eat the
perennial wheat?’”
Dr. Snapp tasted Wilke’s cookies. She says the wheat tasted kinda nutty,
but good.
Dr. Snapp says maybe one day, she and other researchers will prove
perennial grain plants can thrive.
After that, maybe bread or cereal companies, like Kellogs, will run
taste-tests of their own.
Wilson City Farm is part of Chicago's Resource Center, and Tim Wilson is the garden manager. The 1.25 acre plot produces eighty varieties of eleven crops. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
City Farm occupies a vacant lot owned by the City of Chicago. It lies at the heart of a fast-changing neighborhood. There are new condo buildings and non-profit housing centers cropping up alongside the Cabrini Green Housing Project. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
City Farm's greenhouse uses light-weight replaceable materials because the managers plan on moving every few years. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
Urban farming is supposed to be a solution to getting fresh, locally-produced food to city folk.
The movement’s taking off because a lot of cities have empty, vacant lots to plant on, but there’s a problem: city governments or developers won’t let growers stay on those lots forever.
Shawn Allee met one urban farmer who’s not worried about losing the farm:
Transcript
Urban farming is supposed to be a solution to getting fresh, locally-produced food to city folk.
The movement’s taking off because a lot of cities have empty, vacant lots to plant on, but there’s a problem: city governments or developers won’t let growers stay on those lots forever.
Shawn Allee met one urban farmer who’s not worried about losing the farm:
Ken Dunn’s City Farm looks less like a traditional farm than a construction site.
There’s fence around an acre or so of soil. There are two small sheds.
And there’s a greenhouse – but it’s not glass or anything – its plastic strung over a bunch of metal tubes.
These are available commercially for about 1,500 dollars and will last for many years. This is the third year this one’s been up.
Dunn makes no apology for the make-shift feel.
“This is a mobile farmstead. Our fence that surrounds this property has been in three locations in the past twenty years as have the tool shed, and office trailer. So, everything here can be picked up and moved within a week or, if necessary, within a couple days.”
In fact, Dunn’s planning on it. He’s on land owned by the City of Chicago, and he has to move next year.
“Our deal with them is that we are occupying it until they sell the property. I think it will be having luxury condominiums. I think they have a price tag of 6 million dollars on this acre. As tax payers we have to take the six million.”
But Dunn’s not worried – he’s lined up another lot to plant on.
Dunn thinks more urban farmers should be just as mobile as he is by keeping their equipment light and scouting for the next available growing space.
Here’s his argument: City governments or developers might let you squat on vacant land for a while, but you can’t count on them selling it to you at an affordable price – or just giving it you.
Seems reasonable enough, but I thought I’d ask urban farming groups how they take this mobile farm idea.
“In my opinion, it should be permanent.”
This is Erika Allen.
She heads the Chicago branch of a group called Growing Power.
“It shouldn’t be something that you have access to some land for a few years and then have to move. In my mind, that’s not agriculture.”
Allen says across the country, urban farms have provided fresh food and even jobs.
She says mobile farming kind of let’s city governments off easy; if urban farms are so useful, cities should help them own farmland.
“I think once we were able to prove you can grow food in the city and it can be productive and beautiful, then it’s an issue of policy. What’s the priority? Why aren’t we relegating some of this space just for urban agriculture?”
Ken Dunn says he’s heard this criticism before. He calls his mobile farming approach a little more realistic.
Dunn says rural farmers can’t grow everything they want, however they want; they have to adjust to the landscape, soil conditions, and weather.
He says he’s just adjusting to an urban reality: real-estate markets value commercial and residential property more than farmland.
“We have to operate this sustainably. That is, working within the forces that are operating instead of hoping to always get 15 years in some hidden corner or somewhere and it might turn into less because someone comes in overnight and bulldozes your project. So, sustainability means keeping operative from year to year with no setbacks. A planned move is no set-back at all.”
With that, Dunn has to leave.
It’s planting season and he and his staff have a lot of work. They want this crop to be special, since it could be their last growing season on this vacant lot.
Nationwide, farms use the bulk of chemicals. But one expert says homeowners are more likely to overuse pesticides and fertilizers. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
