Last updated on 2015.02.23
If you've already read Wendell Berry's The Unsettling of America, you already know everything I'm about to say... and much more.
Fellow small-towner Michael Woodring shares Dr. Brown's pessimism about Governor Daugaard's small-town economic development plans:
The railroads (the reason for many a small town on the prairie) have pulled thousands of miles of track, starting back in the late 70s or early 80s. Many of the grain elevators disappeared, or simply shut down, when the rails left. Small towns used to be the go-to place for the farmers in the surrounding area for supplies. Now, a farmer or rancher doesn't think much of driving an hour or two to pick up needed materials or equipment.
...Businesses wish to do business where people are—because that is where the money is [Michael Woodring, "Nostalgia vs. Reality in Small Towns," Constant Conservative, 2011.04.30].
Woodring omits one important factor in the disappearance of all that rail and all those elevators and nearby places to buy supplies. When a family could make a living farming less than 160 acres, a rural township supported a lot more people. Back in 1911, the trip to Sioux Falls or Mitchell was less convenient, but it was also less necessary, as small-town businesses had a much larger base of local customers to support and be supported by. I suspect many farmers and ranchers are thinking twice about driving to Aberdeen or Pierre for parts or groceries on four-dollar-a-gallon gas, but the hollowing-out of the rural market by industrial-scale monoculture means they have no choice.
Monoculture: that means growing just one thing. In 1900, each farm produced an average of 5.1 commodities. Corn, wheat, milk, beef, eggs... not bad eating, right in your rural neighborhood. In 1945, that number had declined just a touch, to 4.6. By 2000, the average commodities per farm had dropped to 1.3. That decline in variety of local production, along most much of the current commodity production going to feed cattle, cars, and corporations, could have opened the door for more grocery store... but that would have required all those grocery eaters to remain on the land. Farms get big, people move away, and Madison has just one grocery store.
Note also the compounding effects of industrial-scale mechanized farming. Bigger machines increase the cost of doing business. Farms had to get bigger to pay for the machines farming them. Machines thus crowded more families off the land, thus reducing the market for farm implements. Dealers had to have much more capital to support acquiring, selling, and servicing those bigger machines, thus crowding smaller dealers out of the market as well. The prairie thus becomes a giant factory floor for corn and beans and milk, with only a handful of workers needed to tend the machines.
Therein lies a contradiction in Governor Daugaard's economic development policies. He wants to boost small towns, but he embraces the industrial agriculture that hollowed small towns out. The frugal, self-reliant governor holds immune from cuts the big-dairy incentives that reduce the number of self-reliant dairy operators without growing production or local economies.
Our land is our greatest resource. Our forebears came to South Dakota and peopled all our Holabirds and Howards and Junii because they could make a living either producing things on the surrounding land or serving the people who did. Economics and politics favored bigger operations, which need fewer people and thus provide fewer opportunities in rural small towns. As Mr. Woodring would agree, fighting those forces will be hard. To revitalize South Dakota's small towns, either we need to put the land around those towns back in the hands of more people producing more things (can you say agrarian reform?), or we need to find some other resource (fresh air? cheap broadband for telecommuting?) to draw new homesteaders from Sioux Falls and Minneapolis.
Update 13:50 CDT: Not wholly unrelated: Feds sting Amish farmer for selling unpasteurized milk. Don't cross state lines, boys!
"You reap what you sow" A good example is RR technology. We have replaced weed suppressing practices by hard working farmers with seed traits that only requires call to the local ag and chemical dealer. We have taken the farmer out of farming and farming savvy out of the hands of growers who displayed good soil, animal, and plant husbrandry. I have made this statement several times in my talks-"You can have high school kids in your small rural towns or you can have RR(aka Monsanto)technology but you can't have both". Economics is not so much a science of facts and charts, it is study of values, morals, and decisions. We can choose what type of farm economics we want in this state. It will depend on the decisions we make and the values that we put forth.
This a hard nut to crack. I do think if the state promoted small dairy farmers by having SDSU and the Extension Service sponsor cheese making classes and then marketing all the artisan cheeses online and with agri-tourism farm tours it would revive the small dairy industry.
Charlie: RR vs HS—fascinating way to put it!
Nick: does Prairieland Dairy in Firth, Nebraska count as small? They milk 1500 cows, produce 12,500 gallons of milk a day... but they also use no growth hormones and market their milk locally. Certainly seems a step up from Veblen. Should we take Dennis and the team on a field trip to Firth?
At one time economists paid serious attention to the natural economy, the science of ecology and how it balanced and stabilized the natural economy. A basic tenet of ecology is that a functioning natural economy is built upon a foundation of a huge and diverse population of primary producers. When the derivative, specialized economic segments begin to equal or exceed the primary producers, the ecology, the economy in human terms, is unstable and prone to failure. At a time when agri-business firms were making choices about whether to develop their businesses to serve the needs of a multitude of primary producers or to service their corporations, they chose the latter. Agriculture is the science of sustained and stable production. Agri-business is the exploitation of the agriculture market through gaining power over it and reshaping it as part of the corporate process. That reshaping is called integration, vertical and horizontal, and consolidation.
One of the biggest blows to agriculture came when cooperatives were run by MBAs who were schooled in corporate business models, but were ignorant of what sustains an agriculture economy, rather than an agri-business economy.
It may be that the monster weeds that Monsanto is producing--those weeds which have evolved an immunity to Round-up--may save agriculture by forcing a return to agriculture from industrial farming.
At any rate, small towns will continue to wither and blow away as long as there are few primary producers to support them.
But if you read Wendell Berry, you already know that.
Hrm, I think your logical causation is incorrect. The mechanization of farming didn't force the small farmer to become a large farmer. Mechanized farming increased his productivity to the point where he had more free time and could farm more land. The farmer then chose to buy more land and use that new free time to produce more crops.
You see this trend in every industry. Technology increases productivity so fewer people are necessary. Incidentally, this is where our employment problems come from, not out sourcing.
And, most importantly, this trend is good. This allows us to shift more resources into the arts/sciences/leisure activities. Food is largely a commodity. The only option is to try some type of boutique farming, which will not support many.
I don't consider 1500 cows small potatoes but all change is incremental.
Tony, the trend of freeing up resources may be good (I certainly prefer spending my time blogging than milking a cow before breakfast). But the problem for small-town economic development comes when those resources to do arts, sciences, leisure, etc., all leave for bigger cities. The global GDP picture is great; the micro/rural picture turns grim... if we rely solely on the Butz model of agriculture the state promotes.
...and David, I think we need to get Wendell Berry on the One Book South Dakota agenda. Which book should we pick?
If you were to look back at what life was like in 1960 it might help to understand small town South Dakota a little better. First the state was nearing but not quite at the end of the great exodus from agriculture land to the towns and cities of the state. This started in the 30s and continued through the sixties.
Is it any wonder that people had closer ties to the land back then? After all they probably still had relatives that lived and worked a farm somewhere in the state, and they also still had some feelings for the land they had recently either sold or vacated do to the effects of the great depression and the great dust bowl.
There were a lot of people that left the state to find work in larger cities never to return. In fact with the exception of the census of 1950 the population of SD declined every census from 1930 until 1970 when it began to grow to its present number.
It was during this same time that farmers started to depend on tractors and trucks to do their work. What had taken three or four people only needed one. With mechanization came a natural increase in farm sizes. From 1935 to 1982 the average size of a farm in SD grew by 267%. I find it interesting that even though SD is a rural state, 50% of our population lives in towns that have 2500 people or more. Another interesting stat is that 50% of our population lives in what is called the Eastern Corridor that runs north to south within fifty miles of I29.
Lets dig a little deeper into why this is going on. It is first and foremost the economy. It doesn’t take to much research to learn that from the time of the great depression until now we have had numerous recessions in this country. At first glance it looks like the country is moving at the same pace and when things get bad it happens all over at the same time. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We in South Dakota are what I am going to call geographically insulated. Every time a recession hits the nation we are one of the last places to feel the pain that the rest of the country feels. But when the economy starts to get better we never quite catch up to the rest of the country again.
There are many reasons for this. One is that we have a very rural state with a small population and therefore little representation in DC. Two is that we have almost no manufacturing. Sure there is more then there used to be but still not much. Three we don’t have the fossil fuels that the other rural states like us have. Wyoming, and Montana do have these fossil fuels and are better able to withstand small recessions and can recover faster and more completely then we do. Because of the rest of these things South Dakota has some of the lowest wages in the country. Low wages equal less or no disposable income as compared to the rest of the country and people unable to take advantage of the things that out of state tourist are willing to pay for.
Now when these people from other states come here it is because they do have disposable income because they have higher wages because unlike South Dakota their economy did fully recover from any recession that they might have gone through. Their states not only recovered but moved ahead at a time when we just kind of stayed the same and let agriculture and tourism drive our financial outlook. And being a nanny state we are content to let the federal government throw in a couple of bucks to make us feel good about ourselves.
Remember in 1960 there weren’t any interstate highways and there was very little air travel to bring people to our state. That in itself meant fewer out of state, but more instate people doing business in small towns. With the advent of both of these things came the great migration of out of state tourist that we see today.
Economics have changed a lot sense 1960. I couldn’t find many stats for SD for that year but nationally here are some of the averages that were found. A gallon of gas $.25. Just imagine ten gallons of gas for $2.50. The average new car sold for about $2600 and a really good pickup for a lot less. A loaf of bread $.20. I can remember eating at Jeffs Truck stop in Kadoka, a burger and fries with pop for $1.00. Somewhere around here I have a box that has a Hogens Hardware sticker on it that held a brick of 22 shells, it says $5.00. There is also an empty box of shotgun shells from the same time that says $2.75. In the rest of the country an average house sold for $12,700 here in SD I would bet a little less. A new tractor cost about $10,000, and a new combine about the same. At that time SD didn’t have a minimum wage but we did have what was called average weekly wages. For 1960 it was between $17 and $20. In doing this research it was interesting, to me at least, that the minimum wage we had here for the next thirty years was exactly the same as it was in Texas.
It was during this time period that land prices started to climb and at the same time the money spent to purchase manufactured products bought less and less. That same equivalent tractor bought in 60 now cost $100,000 and a combine nearly twice that price. Years ago there were many people that didn’t even have insurance on their farm but you wont find any that will take that chance today. In the early years you could pretty much do whatever you wanted to with the property you owned. Not any more. Now you have to deal with a whole bunch of government agencies. EPA, Army Corp of Engineers, USDA, FDA,GF&P and that is just the short list.
At the same time the people that lived in town were taking on more job responsibility’s to make more money to make ends meet. And in turn it was taking up time that they used to spend with friends and family that lived on the farms. It became so much easier to go play a round of golf or a game of tennis or some other outdoor sport then to drive twenty or thirty miles just to visit. Those people were slowly but surly loosing their ties to the land and the people that they had known that lived there.
Now add to this the generations of kids that grew up in towns and cities that didn’t know in the first place what they were missing and didn’t really want to find out. Now lets put a little more wood on the fire. During these years we had a couple of organizations that started to cause trouble for everyone that had an interest in animals or the outdoors. PETA and the US Humane Society. They had a captive audience in the schools in this country and they knew how to use it. Can you say train wreck?
Small town South Dakota is dieing a long slow death and the governors plans wont change much.
Thank you, Bill, you're not as blind as you think you are. Seems like the perfect place to be wild, right?
RR technolgy(Monsanto) depopulates the rural countryside. Lack of people, money, state funding and farmers causes SDSU to implement dramatic cutbacks in the ag college and extension service. SDSU president sits on Monsanto's board of directors. Either a little bit of humor or irony here.
In a nutshell modern agriculture has the wrong business model. It's a corporate business model that drives folks off the farm; splits rural families; depopulates schools which depopulates rural towns; etc. But with a different business model Hutterites, Amish, and others are thriving on the same prairie.
It ain't rocket science . . .
Not really fully on point, but Charlie, i remember when RR came out... what a thrill it was to walk beans with a spray bottle instead of a hoe or corn knife... then being able to ride a bar..... and better yet when Dad went to narrow rows and used a pipewick... no more walking!
That said, I understand your point completely. but had to smile at how excited we were that walking beans got easier.
I've heard others say there should never have been a tractor over 100 horsepower.
Up here in NESD there is a perfect example of what I consider the ideal model for farming. One Dad had four boys. In the modern, industrial model, the boys would have joined forces and be running a large factory dairy with itinerant employees. Instead, each of the boys started with a small farmstead and cows from herds of farmers that were retiring. They married and had families of their own, they continued to milk their own small, closed herds and developed good genetics, raise chickens to sell for meat and eggs, at least one raises pigs and beef cattle too. They grow most of their feed. Under pressure to get big from their milk purchaser, they refused to do so and began the transition to organic. They do very well, not great wealth but the family in each case all work together and manage to have nice homes, decent vehicles and well cared for children who work very hard but enjoy things like art and piano lessons and drama camp. Some of the kids are homeschooled and some are not. But they can all look you in the face and have an intelligent conversation with you about many subjects. Farming of course, but also religion, politics and what they have been reading lately. There is no doubt that the parents are the boss but as they get older they have more autonomy and no matter what age they are appreciated for the help they are to the family. Because of this they have a sense of self worth that gives them the confidence to tackle many difficult things. They live well with no off farm income, which we are told is 'impossible' unless you become a huge corporate entity. It is interesting that there is a huge demand for their beef, milk, pork, chicken an eggs. This is the kind of practice that the governor should encourage. Unfortunately most dairy people faced with the get big or get out demand, choose to get out. I have been reading about using raw milk as a pasture fertilizer, using about a gallon per acre, even at the going rate of 4 dollars a gallon for raw organic milk it is very economical and could be a boon to dairy farmers who are hurt by the spring flush every year.
Julie,
Get's it --right on on the button. What she has described is a possibility for all of SD. Yet, we continue to go corporate hunting, all in the vain attempt to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. When if we look under our nose, the right path lays at our feet. Thanks for sharing this story, Julie.