Maine Food System

Comment

Comment by Maine Food System on September 29, 2009 at 4:48pm

Some great posts, everyone! ... John Harker! ...you, too! ...once I got past the "the 70's" & "the 'oh my God we are all gonna suffer!" & the earthquakes and tornadoes and all the things of this nature !!! Phew!

And, oh yeah ... I think we're gonna need to circle back to the discussion on the Official Maine State Food Policy of 80/20 by 20/20 just a bit later ...

HOWEVER, for now though, would you kindly have a look at my earlier response to Lisa's original post? I have reposted it, again, here, for your convenience. I'd like to know your thoughts about the specific numbers & general framework I'm using. It's a only a start & it's only a rough sketch, but, I think this kind of simple arithmetic approach is one way to begin to get at the kind of question you ended your last post with. Thanks!


My earlier response to Lisa's original post:

Lisa, as you know from, "A Farm for the Future", a conventional farm can feed 5 people per acre, while "edible forest gardening" can feed twice as much ( 10 people per acre ) with NO fossil fuel!

Therefore, the answer to your question reduces to elementary arithmetic! ...which is refreshingly simple!

MAINE (our state): has

POPULATION: 1,274,923
FARMS: 7,196
TOTAL ACRES (land): 19,589,136
ACRES CULTIVATED: 1,369,768
ACRES NEEDED (conv): 254,985
ACRES NEEDED (efg): 127,492


SO! Maine has plenty of land available and already produces enough food to feed itself.

Therefore, Maine provides at least one example of a state that can feed itself.

However, this is rare. But, with careful planning & concerted effort, we submit: most states probably could feed themselves.

http://sites.google.com/site/mainefoodsystem/me-food-sys-by-the-num...


http://www.mainefood.us

Comment by John Harker on September 18, 2009 at 10:22am

Good Morning,
I was invited to come into this group and respond and I will. While the Cornell study and many other studies on the energy supply are interesting and very prophetic, just anyones gut, common sense, is that over time human life, population distribution etc will change depending on available jobs, energy, food availability, and MOST importantly, on population growth. This has been known since the 70's when I was a younger college student and this same debate started raising it's ugly head just like now, same concerns, same arguments, same conclusions. The power of today's computers can model anything, but the end result is the same......the "oh my God we are all gonna suffer!" becasue we cannot feed ourselves" statements of defeat again rears its head in yet another generation.

So, that is PRECISELY why I maintain that we need to forgo the discussion of whether Maine can feed itself, forget about the 80% of its calories by 2020....cause it ain't gonna happen and it is a meaningless goal, unless you want to drastically change our food eating habits in 10 years, depopulate the state back into the 1800's, and do severe land redistribution.....However, I suppose if we were a dictatorial and socialist state and country that could be done quite easily...and painfully for many.

Ok, back to reality. What we DO need to focus on is setting goals and priorities to help us live better today (feed as many as are here now and set better role modeling for the future) and plan for tomorrow (to help future generations to meet the challenges of the future as much as we can). I think our parents tried the best they could to help us, etc......Now, where can we make a difference in the current time we are in?.......

In the food production arena, we (the nations with resources) have come a long ways with development of better food production and distribution technologies. But that happened because of setting clear goals to help develop 1) a smart, educated youth, 2) support of research, 3) encouragement of entrepreneurship and 4) support for a free individual in a free society.

So, if you agree with that last statement, then we need to:

1) have a top notch educational system that fosters getting our kids smarter and engaged in research. We need to keep educating the younger generation on what worked well back before oil, preserving that knowledge base so that we can retrieve it when needed, AND getting the younger generation to get smarter at how to use the new tools (genetic engineering, bioengineering, computer applications, nanotechnology) that will help with developing more sustainable solutions for energy conservation and agricultural practices for a different future than our own.

2) support research at all levels and fund HIGH priority stuff such as, continuing research on ways to use energy more efficiently in agricultural production ( not just bigger is better, but small, innovative equipment to improve smaller scale efficiencies), improve biological pest control research and applications, research and understand and develop new technologies to improve soil health, yields and nutritional quality, varieties to withstand the environmental challenges. We have come a long way in this arena, but it takes time, and setting PRIORITIES.

3) Spur entrepreneurship and economic risk-taking. This is woefully lacking in our school systems, and in the imposition of government through regulation and control.

Lastly, the current public does need to change behaviors in order to not squander the resource we have. But THAT is hard. In a free society it does not come by Government edict, but in education, and families having good role models to emulate, and in job creation that helps families move up the economic ladder to be able to meet basic and other human needs as described in Maslow's theory of human motivation. So, who wants to tackle THAT one?!

I think an argument can be made to study integrated systems, permaculture, and more "organic" practices. BUT I contend we need not get caught up in the definitions, or thought that we have to go back to old ways. The old ways, if implemented today, would lead to only one conclusion......many have to die of starvation today so that someone else with the old way lifestyle (read - with the resources to command land, animals and forest) can live. In my opinion, I like to think that we could integrate the newer technologies with the best of the past practices that we found have worked well, and transform agriculture into a new, efficient production system that combines both.

Enough for now.

Comment by Maine Food System on September 13, 2009 at 4:39pm

Here is a great question & article link from Lisa Fernandes (of Portland Permaculture):

This is an interesting piece about some Cornell research regarding the state of New York's ability to feed itself (or not). Does anyone know if this level of research is happening in Maine?
http://tclocal.org/2009/06/can_new_york_state_feed_itself.html

& here's a reply we posted:

Good question!

Lisa, as you know from, "A Farm for the Future", a conventional farm can feed 5 people per acre, while "edible forest gardening" can feed twice as much ( 10 people per acre ) with NO fossil fuel!

Therefore, the answer to your question reduces to elementary arithmetic! ...which is refreshingly simple!

MAINE (our state): has

POPULATION: 1,274,923
FARMS: 7,196
TOTAL ACRES (land): 19,589,136
ACRES CULTIVATED: 1,369,768
ACRES NEEDED (conv): 254,985
ACRES NEEDED (efg): 127,492


SO! Maine has plenty of land available and already produces enough food to feed itself.

Therefore, Maine provides at least one example of a state that can feed itself.

However, this is rare. But, with careful planning & concerted effort, we submit: most states probably could feed themselves.

http://sites.google.com/site/mainefoodsystem/me-food-sys-by-the-num...

http://www.mainefood.us

Comment by Del Ketcham on April 22, 2009 at 7:10am

Hi Ed,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Thanks for the invite. I do want to be active with all that is happening in Maine. However, I will not be able to attend the taping but keep me informed about other events that are going on.

Thanks,

Del K

Comment by Maine Food System on April 14, 2009 at 10:19pm

MAINE FOOD SYSTEM:

past, present, and future



Maine farmers, gardeners & agricultural organizers discuss:

* Maine Food Policy Council … 80/20 by 2020? … 50/50 by 2050?

* farm & farmland protection, food security, community food assessments

* Maine Food Map Project of the Eat Local Foods Coalition (ELFC)

* Bringing Food Home by Merry Hall, forthcoming book about Maine food

* & much more about the rich fertile soil of Maine’s Food System!



Community Television Network

516 Congress Street, Portland

APRIL 23

DOORS OPEN: 5:00pm

AUDIENCE SEATED: 5:30pm (please arrive early)

TAPING STARTS: 6:00pm (‘til 7pm)

* Join us for a live-to-tape in-studio discussion (broadcast throughout MAY)

* Bring your questions & share your views (CH 4: TUE @ 2pm & SUN @ 12noon)



Invited GUESTS include:

* Karen Baldacci, Maine’s First Lady

* Russell Libby, Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Assn & ELFC

* Lisa Fernandes, Portland Permaculture Group

* Roger Doiron, Kitchen Gardeners International

* Merry Hall, author of Bringing Food Home

* John Harker, Maine Department of Agriculture

* Richard Rudolph, Rippling Waters Organic Farm & Saco River/Lakes Region Food Policy Council

* Bob St. Peter, Food for Maine’s Future

* Emily Graham, Portland Food Co-op

* Alix Hopkins, author of Groundswell: Stories of Saving Places, Finding Community

* Del Ketcham, author of a book on Food Security




FMI:

Ed Democracy

CELL: 899-9674

info@portlandcommons.com


Produced by:

PORTLAND COMMONS:

common issues for the common good

www.portlandcommons.com

Comment by Ed Democracy on March 23, 2009 at 4:38pm

Right on, John! Thanks!

Comment by John Harker on March 23, 2009 at 4:15pm

Hi Ed,

Except for the two quips about government in P 4 and 5, the rest is exactly how I feel. It interests me that the old verbage, the larger they get, the harder they fall, still holds true......I am very concerned about concentration at any level, including government. The next two big crashes, the food system, and the internet, may come, and for which we may not be able to do anything about. John Rockerfeller expounded on this quite well in his latest article when discussion the potential for a food bust.

HOWEVER, I also find it interesting that small, local banks weathered this latest storm quite well, so far......mmmmm nice example to follow.

So, all things considered, I like the type of local, private enterprise which has honesty, integrity, and efficiency in mind. I like local, minimalist government control, and I firmly believe that the 80/20 goal is not realistic nor even worth discussing. I want to get to the real brass tacks.....changing consumer behavior through education and economic motivation. That does not need a real huge change in the food system or a lofty food policy, just a real huge change in our educational system, and a slow viral change by groups of local trendsetters, early adopters, etc. Then , slowly, over time, the next generation will help to get us back on track.

So, I am in the game to discuss seriously, and will minimize my sarcastic quips, although I may interject some when called for just for the fun of it.

Comment by Ed Democracy on March 23, 2009 at 9:46am

John,

Thanks for the post! But, please! If we are going to start a vigorous & vibrant & open & honest conversation about our Maine food system, then we are going to have to all let fly & let people know what they really think! So I encourage you to come on out of your shell & tell us! Tell us what you really think, John!!!

Get Real, Get Maine! ;)

Thanks, John!

Ed

Comment by John Harker on March 22, 2009 at 4:58pm

Ed,

Unfortunately, I do not believe in the 80/20 appproach or the top down approach.

How about this........we need to somehow encourage consumers to put 20% of their leisure caloric generation into 80% of their own food production through gardening and farming activity......That is, in my mind, the true behavioral change that must occur. The focus, in a true free enterprise system, is on changing consumer values and resultant behavior. Sell them that it is in their economic benefit.......I am a Roger Dorion fan in that regard.

As you and I know, it is not until the masses rise up that major change will occur on a societal level....and we and our society are so hedonistic at this point. Getting us all to rise up out of our couches to establish a food policy for all will take one heck of a jolt and I do not see that happening on a mass scale.

And increased governmental control is not the answer. Perhaps, if you want government to move them, and use government to change behavior, tax the living daylights out of all leisure activities other than food production (I believe that the recent proposed tax on kayakes is the beginning of that effort :) Lets tax TV viewing and Facebooking while we are at it.....:). Too socialistic for me. ...

well....there are so many laws and regulations that cause harm to local family farms.....How about a tax revolt to bring government to it's knees...... No, I guess that is too libertarian of me...However, it seems there may be a major revolt against federal government....stay tuned to take advantage of that for our benefit.......:)


OR we could go the other way and slowly, ever so slowly, we could start by changing the law that allows people to use food stamps for junk food, and bring that back to fresh and nutritious foods only. End the school lunch program and encourage local folks who have extra to help others to provide local foods in lunchboxes to those in need. Slowly get rid of other government regulations which takes away personal responsibility and local control. The 20/80 effort I suggest would mean that we spend considerable effort in education. Use government dollars for education.

Encourage people to understand the value of producing their own food. Encourage them to put assets in land they can garden, or rent garden space, create garden space, encourage them to work on farms that have land, or to educate and encourage them to turn all their lawns and rooftops into gardens, voluntarily, through education and leading by example. Make food fun.

I am sure that locally lead efforts are the best ones. It is starting by necessity right now, anyway....


BUT, and this is a big BUT.....keep the current food system and distribution system in place. Keep supporting current private enterprise and purveyors of food (Walmart, Shaws,Hannaford, Food Coops).... I still believe that the current distribution system is one heck of a great system for moving many food products around, and is the basis of why we have a great society. BUT get them to support more local production and sales and consumer education on nutrition and how to prepare food. Slowly, over time, they will change their business model to adapt to the new consumer food attitude if that develops from the 20/80 rule.....

After all is said and done, agriculture by the few, throughout history, provided the ability of the many to pursue other endeavors to improve the well being of the masses. Perhaps we have taken that a bit too far. But more importantly, in our society I think the real culprit is taking living skills and values out of our schools, out of our family life, and out of our collective societal values. We need to get those back in there, somehow, one person at a time, one family at a time, one community at a time, one generation at a time......WHEW!

Comment by Ed Democracy on March 22, 2009 at 12:02pm

Sustainable Change for Our Maine Food System


80/20 by 2020
Since 2006, Maine food policy has set an ambitious goal of getting Maine to produce 80% of its calories within Maine - leaving 20% needing to be imported from outside of Maine.

Currently, Maine only produces 20% of its calories within Maine - leaving 80% needing to be imported.

Some scoff at this goal calling it impossible. However, whether we achieve 80/20 by 2020 or 50/50 by 2050, this is the direction we need to take for our environment, our economy, and for our health.

This policy recognizes that it is aiming very high and that new infrastructure, new farmland, new processing facilities, new distribution systems, and new labor systems will be needed.

( www.maine.gov/agriculture/mpd/information/foodpolicydraft.pdf )


NEW SYSTEMS & OLD SYSTEMS


This is not a situation where we have a sound basic old system which just needs a little expansion with a tweak here and a new part there.

This is a situation where we have to create a whole new system ready to grow quickly and sustainably.

Normally, with a basically sound system, occasional innovations happen which can just be incorporated little by little.

However, sometimes systems cannot evolve beyond a certain point because of their basic design limitations.

Take computers, for instance. They were first engineered during the mass global centralized industrial era. They were room-sized slow behemoths which quickly became extinct. Along came the internet, microchips, and desktop computers and, finally, the technology is starting to catch up with society in the local decentralized human era. As the mass of humanity begins to take command of its own systems - systems of the people, by the people, and for the people, our systems are beginning to reflect natural systems.


Nature is a self-organizing, stable, dynamic chaos. - GARRISON (Intro to Oceanography)

A self-organizing, stable, dynamic chaos is different from pure chaos. Pure chaos - paradoxically - would become static, stagnant, and dead. However, a dynamic living chaos that is stable enough to organize itself and impose just enough order of just the right kind at just the right time and just the right place to maintain harmony - that is nature ... healthy, organic nature.



THE BABBAGE DIFFERENCE ENGINE - A CAUTIONARY TALE

The computers of today trace their origins to the Babbage Difference Engine - a steam-powered system of metal gears - in 1822 . However, the Babbage machine was never built - UNTIL 1991! When it was built, it was determined that it would have worked better than average pocket calculators of today! Clearly, Babbage was far ahead of his time. It was an amazing accomplishment, especially, given the limitations of the science & engineering systems of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM Wikipedia.org ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage ) :

Difference engine

In Babbage’s time, numerical tables were calculated by humans who were called ‘computers’, meaning "one who computes", much as a conductor is "one who conducts". At Cambridge, he saw the high error-rate of this human-driven process and started his life’s work of trying to calculate the tables mechanically. He began in 1822 with what he called the difference engine, made to compute values of polynomial functions. Unlike similar efforts of the time, Babbage's difference engine was created to calculate a series of values automatically. By using the method of finite differences, it was possible to avoid the need for multiplication and division.


The London Science Museum's Difference Engine #2, built from Babbage's design.The first difference engine was composed of around 25,000 parts, weighed fifteen tons (13,600 kg), and stood 8 ft (2.4 m) high. Although he received ample funding for the project, it was never completed. He later designed an improved version, "Difference Engine No. 2", which was not constructed until 1989-1991, using Babbage's plans and 19th century manufacturing tolerances. It performed its first calculation at the London Science Museum returning results to 31 digits, far more than the average modern pocket calculator



One caution we can gather from this tale is about systems: systems of systems and evolution of systems. Motivated by a desire to remove human error from computing, Babbage envisioned a computer system. Then, due to his pursuit of a better machine and due to the limitations of his time, his invention was never built & used, in his time - although it did give birth to a whole new science system: computer science. In turn, this new science has resulted in the advancement of other sciences and the very science of engineering which was so limiting for Babbage in his time. Yet, Babbage was also limited by the mindset which framed his time period. By the end of the 19th century, came the rise of massively centralized industrial production and massively centralized society - schools, business, finance, farms, etc..

Many frames have been placed on the 20th century. One might say that the overall frame of the 20th century might be: the grave dangers of globalized hypercentralization.

Today, we have very advanced capacity in systems modeling & engineering although it has not quite, yet, made its way into common usage.


COMMON PEOPLE, COMMON SENSE, & COMMON CAUSE

However, fortunately, we do not need either steam-powered systems of metal gears or massively parallel supercomputing power to use our natural common sense to see that everything is going local. Our environmental systems, our energy systems, our economic systems, and our food systems all are going local. Why? Because common people using common sense have engaged in the common cause of asserting our humanity in the systems in which we live. Common sense would also tell us that if we quickly reverse all the global system dynamics and divert them directly back into local systems which do not exist, yet, then there would be system overload, instability, and malfunction.

From the time before massive global centralization, over 100 years ago, Maine was mainly self-sufficient agriculturally. So, the situation that has taken us over 100 years to get into, we had better hope, will not take us over 100 years to reverse. How long is anybody's guess. However, common people using common sense together in common cause will get it done as fast as is humanly possible.


WHOLES & PARTS

There are many, many exciting parts springing to life throughout the Maine food system.

For sustainability, there must be coherence and cooperation among these parts within an integral whole process to facilitate communication and coordination over time.

All of these parts should come together to have a thorough look at this. The absolute last thing we want is for any one part to really take off having great success only to leave other parts feeling slighted or left out somehow. We all need to be in this together. That is going to take some good sustainable leadership to help cultivate a transparent and inclusive whole from the many parts of the local Maine foods movement.

One piece of this puzzle is creating a joint model of the Maine food system as it is today:

+ supply - mostly global & national
+ distribution - big ships, big trucks, big distributors
+ markets - few centralized mostly- big-box stores

... then, start creating a joint vision of a new model of the Maine food system as we think it should be:

+ supply - mostly local
+ distribution - small trucks, ? rail ?, small distributors
+ markets - many decentralized mostly-small stores, farmers markets, etc.

... then, as we all see where we fit into big picture, this should facilitate communication & coordination as we all move together into our common future.

Just for example, if there was a Maine Foods Cooperative - like a utility owned by the ratepayers - which tied everything together then we could have one whole integrated Maine food system:

+ Producers could belong to facilitate easier supply
+ Distributors could belong which would facilitate easier distribution
+ Markets could join to facilitate easier marketing

As we see with Whole Foods, they have moved toward a false whole systems approach that is one-way and parasitic taking from local economies to benefit global investors. Their moves toward the efficiencies of whole integrated systems alienated & cut out local producers who did not have the financial and logistical capacity to adapt to the Whole Foods system.

Maine Foods Cooperative could have the advantage of benefiting from the efficiencies of a true whole systems approach that is symbiotic by creating synergies with the local economies to benefit local producers and consumers. We would cut out the middle man - the global investors & their big-box category killers - by creating a Maine food system of Mainers, by Mainers, and for Mainers!


BY THE NUMBERS


We need econometric models which show supply/demand and projected-supply/projected-demand - so that we can keep demand from getting too far ahead of supply. If demand outstrips supply then prices will skyrocket and depress future demand and add general drag and instability.

We need a by-the-numbers model of the Maine Food System:


A - existing population

B - caloric intake (per person)

C - caloric output (per acre)

D - existing farmland (acres)

E - existing productive capacity (calories)

F - population projection

G - farmland projection (acres)

H - productive capacity projection (calories)

I - total calories of demand (A x B)

J - calories imported (total)

K - calories imported (percentage of total)

L - calories exported (total)

M - calories exported (percentage of total)



GOOD PROCESS LEADERSHIP


We need a good process that is wholly transparent and wholly inclusive to create a whole Maine Food System. This will require more than one or two people; more than one or two organizations; and more than one or two meetings. It will require connecting everyone from the grassroots to the top-level policymakers in the state. It should involve lots of small face-to-face meetings as well as conference calls, tele-meeting sites, web meetings and and a state-of-the-art website to truly and fully engage Maine. This is a project which goes beyond ideology and cuts across all lines of division. This project offers us the opportunity to draw upon the best of the old and the best of the new. Many Mainers are still with us who remember when we were a primarily agriculturally-based state. We have a system of Grange Halls across the state which have been struggling to survive. What a perfect symbol and what a perfect setting for many of the meetings and events which will be required for this project!

We need everyone talking with everyone - producers & consumers, farmers & non-farmers, retailers & non-retailers, wholesalers & non-wholesalers, distributors & non-distributors ...

We need to gather our best experts for advice on economics, environment, land use, real estate, finance, transporation, labor, business, technology, and agriculture.

The process needs to be driven by the grassroots with these fine experts, which Maine is blessed to have, serving the process with information and perspective.