Green New Deal: Most Farms are Family Farms

With much anticipation, the Green New Deal has been presented by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to much brouhaha. While the plan has lofty goals with no specifics, an area that needs to be addressed is in regards to agriculture. That portion of the bill reads:

“(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—

  • by supporting family farming;
  • by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and
  • by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;”

Sustainable farming organizations and organic producers are optimistic about the proposed changes in promoting these practices, but there is little mention of supporting family farmers. A common misconception is that the majority of farms are not family owned, when in fact, only 2.2 percent of farms are nonfamily owned. This figure can be found in the report titled “America’s Diverse Family Farms” published by the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) in December 2018. According to the USDA, the figures are derived based on, “annual revenue of the farm, major occupation of the principal operator, and family/nonfamily ownership of the farm.” Some facts of note in the report are:

  • Eighty-nine percent of farms are small (income < $350,000), and these farms accounted for 52 percent of the land operated by farms in 2017.
  • Large-scale family farms (income > $1 million) accounted for the largest share of production, at 39 percent.
  • Family farms of various types together accounted for 98 percent of farms and 87 percent of production in 2017.
  • Nonfamily farms accounted for the remaining farms (2 percent) and production (13 percent). Fifteen percent of nonfamily farms had gross cash farm income (GCFI) of $1,000,000 or more, and they accounted for 89 percent of nonfamily farms’ production. Examples of nonfamily farms include partnerships of unrelated partners, closely held nonfamily corporations, farms with a hired operator unrelated to the owners, and (relatively few) publicly held corporations.


A breakdown of production shows the difference in crops between family farms versus nonfamily farms:


The idea of corporate farming and industrial agriculture producing the majority of food is a misnomer. The concept of these terms can also be explained by the Center for Rural Affairs as, “a system where the farm owner, the farm manager and the farm worker are different people. That’s a dramatic change from the historic structure of agriculture, where the people who labor in farming also make the decisions and reap the profits of their work.” It behooves farms to be placed in a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) or an S Corporation for tax, liability purposes and estate taxes. Putting farms into these kinds of structures ensures that the family farm is passed down to other generations. To put it into perspective Ocean Spray, Blue Diamond and Sunkist are familiar names that are a farmer-owned cooperative of growers and are corporations. They are family farms that have agreed to form this entity for the benefit of marketing, discounts on purchases and other advantages of working together.

As the Green New Deal states it wants to “support family farms,” it needs to take into account that 97.8 percent of farms are family farms regardless if the income is $10,000 or $1 million. Supporting family farms should instead involve reform of existing programs that benefit young farmers, ensures transfer to future generations, free trade, supply chain management, less government overreach and comprises real Farm Bill reform.

Milk vs. Alternative Plant-Based Products How Sustainable are They?

When it comes to the dairy cooler of your market, there is no shortage of options. Not only is there dairy milk, but almond, soy, coconut, and oat “milk.” Unless you are allergic or vegan (see below regarding lactose intolerant), choosing between these products could come to a choice of which product is the most sustainable. According to Nielsen’s Global Health and Wellness survey, 44 percent of Generation Z said ingredients sourced sustainably are very important in their purchase decisions, followed by Millennial (38%) and Generation X (34%) respondents.

When it comes to sustainability, each product affects the environment in different ways with regards to greenhouse gas emissions, but there are other factors to consider such as packaging, energy, transportation and other uses from the byproducts to make your milk. Some of the information below will assist when it comes to making a choice the next time you are at the market.

Cow Milk

There have been stories in the media regarding animal agriculture and its contribution to the greenhouse gas methane. According to the EPA, methane accounts for about 10 percent of the total of greenhouse gases emitted and of that total, methane production from cows accounts for 36 percent when including manure management. While methane is 21 times stronger than Carbon Dioxide (CO2), it stays in the atmosphere about 12 years versus 50 to 200 with CO2. Researchers are working to stem the amount of methane produced from cows by changing their diet and with microbes in wastewater facilities.

Another factor to consider is small dairy farmers. Despite efforts from the Trump administration to assist dairy farmers, the rate of small dairy farms closing is substantial. An online search of “dairy farm crisis” reveals not only the numbers but the effects on farmers’ mental health and their families. The closings also affect rural communities with a loss of dollars spent in those communities.

Other factors to consider for sustainability, milk is not transported over long distances, their diets are not only forages but byproducts from the processing of other agriculture products. Cow manure is spread onto fields, bone and blood meal is used in some organic production. And as much as you probably don’t like to think about it, dairy cows are sold for beef, and there are several products that come from cows such as medicines, lubricants, leather and many ingredients in household products.

Almond Milk

Sales of almond milk have grown by 250 percent to 894 million dollars in 2015, according to Nielsen. When it comes to purchasing almond milk, the most significant sustainability issue is water. California is the largest producer of almonds and in the throws of a water-rights fight between urban and rural. It is estimated that it takes between 960 to 1,611 gallons of water to grow and process one liter of almond milk (this compares to 77 to 277 gallons for cow milk production).

Regarding greenhouse gases, almonds produce more Carbon Dioxide, but when compared to cows it produces less overall greenhouse gases. Another greenhouse gas, Nitrous Oxide (N2O) which almonds produce due to fertilizer use. While N2O is not a significant greenhouse gas, accounting for 6 percent of total emissions, it is 300 times more potent than CO2. In a UCLA study conducted in 2016 analyzing the life cycle assessment comparing CO2 emissions, for every 1 liter of milk, almond milk was much lower at 0.3637kg versus 1.67kg for dairy cows.

There are two other factors to consider when considering sustainability, transportation and lack of use for byproducts. Almond milk is transported across great distances to reach markets. Thus emissions from this factor could negate the difference in CO2 emissions. The manufacture of almond milk produces over 4.3 billion pounds of almond hulls per year. Some of that is being recycled for animal feed and bedding, which seems like a bit of irony since it is slowly replacing the cows, but there is still a large portion to recycle. While researchers are working on creating biomass for fuel, plants in California are closing. USDA researchers are also developing compostable bioplastics, but there is no timeline when it will come into fruition. While it would only make a small dent, hard cider and IPAs are also being crafted from the hulls.

Soy Milk

As with almond milk, there are the same considerations when considering sustainability including transportation and processing. In regard to water use, it takes approximately 78 gallons of water to produce one liter of soy milk. As there are 3.78 liters to one gallon, it requires about 295 gallons of water as compared to 77 to 277 gallons for the production of soymilk. Stefan Unnasch, a researcher with Life Cycle Associates, was hired by Ripple a maker of pea milk,  Unnasch found that producing one liter of pea milk results in 387 grams of carbon dioxide emissions and one liter of soy milk produces 397 grams of carbon dioxide.

Other sustainability factors to consider are the sourcing of non-GMO soybeans as most soymilk is produced with them. According to Research and Markets, despite double-digit growth in the planting of these beans as compared to last year, the yield was expected to decline seven percent. The study also states, “US organic soybean supplies are projected to be insufficient over the 2017/18 marketing year, as the flow of organic soybean imports has slowed significantly. Over the 2017/18 marketing year, the author expects US organic soybean imports to reach 15.1 million bushels.” This importation would not only add CO2 to the atmosphere, thus negating any savings of required energy growing beans versus raising cows. To meet the demand for soybeans, there are also fears of rainforests being cleared for soy production in Brazil. Also contributing to the CO2 equation are the transportation costs associated bringing finished soymilk to supermarket distribution centers.

Oat Milk

Oat milk is a relative newcomer to the alternative milk game, but its popularity is rising. While not available in most stores, oat milk first gained popularity in coffee shops. The biggest maker of oat milk is a Swedish company called Oatly. Rather than using the same process as other plant-based milk of using water to extract the “milk,” they use an enzymatic method. There are no facts as to the amount of water used in making the product or growing the oats. Currently, Oatly is selling the byproduct from making oat milk to a local pig farm over the objections of vegans. The company states this is the most sustainable option. As with other milk alternative products, there is a large amount of electricity in the production of these products and transportation contributing to CO2 levels of greenhouse gases.

Other Plant-based Milk

In addition to those discussed above, there are several others that have the same considerations when it comes to the sustainability of the product. With cashews, most are produced overseas in Vietnam, India and Nigeria. Are the shells and other byproducts, used for biofuels or other purposes? Coconut milk has the same issues as only a few countries grow coconuts and the destruction of native vegetation needed for demand. While rice milk is good for those with allergies, the paddies produce 20 percent of the total manmade methane into the atmosphere through a process called methanogenesis. Transportation in shipping containers, along with the electricity, water required and the treatment of workers should be considered.

Finding figures for specific factors such as electricity required and other production requirements is difficult for each of the plant-based alternatives. Transportation accounts for about 11 percent of 8.1t CO2 e/y footprint for food production with an additional four percent from producer to retail. “Buying local” could lower this carbon footprint and a factor when buying any of these products. Having this information in one article will hopefully help with this decision as I have several links to give you further information.






*(The reason I don’t specify lactose intolerant is there are some dairy products that are tolerable including Lactose-free milk or Fairlife milk. Therefore, you can choose between all those mentioned).


Changes in Latitude, Changes in Attitude: How the Social Judgement Theory will help with communicating about agriculture

No, this isn’t a column about the Jimmy Buffett song. I usually write about Informing urbanites about agriculture, but in my last post I asked the question, “What can agriculture communicators learn from this, and how can they craft a persuasive message that conveys what the industry is doing today?” “This” in the question is people will stay within their echo chamber because they do not want to create any dissonance.

Part of the problem of creating dissonance can be attributed to people’s attitudes and beliefs and their anchor point, or original position, on an issue. How we can change or move a person’s anchor position was first studied in 1961 by Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland, and developed the Social Judgement Theory (I know what a terrible name).

You may be thinking, “great, some hotshot guy who is in college is going to preach to us about things they learned in class. Why doesn’t he blog about informing urbanites?” I will not preach, but I will suggest this theory will assist when it comes to talking about agriculture and the issues you hear every day.

The Social Judgement Theory states that people hold an anchor point or their preferred position on an issue. When the public is presented with a message, they have different latitudes by which they judge the message depending on how important the topic is to them or ego-involvement. They can be three different categories of latitude: acceptance, rejection, and non-commitment. The higher the level of ego-involvement, the importance an issue is to our self-identity, the smaller the latitude of acceptance. Social Judgment theory also discusses two different perceptual processes, called assimilation and contrast. These two effects occur when a message is very close to the listener’s own attitude (assimilation) or disagrees (is highly discrepant) with the audience (contrast). The most effective alignment occurs when a message falls within a healthy range of our latitudes, i.e., not too close and not too far from our anchor position.

Let me use an example to explain how this theory works. Six months ago, Bill Nye participated in a video produced by Now This about GMOs. His original, or anchor, position was that GMOs were wrong because he “believed that you couldn’t predict the effect of a novel species, a new type of corn for example, on the ecosystem.” His position was changed after talking with Robb Fraley, a ninth-generation farmer from Iowa, and someone from the Department of Agriculture who showed him the benefits of GMO crops. While some will dispute the credibility of Bill Nye, having him present the message lowers the level of ego-involvement and people are apt to move along the lines of latitude. The problem with the video is he mentions that Fraley is working for “the great evil” (which is in bold and bigger font) Monsanto. While people know that GMOs were initially marketed by them, Nye mentioning the name and the phrasing makes the message discrepant and heightens their ego-involvement. To couple with this, Nye also discusses that GMOs “don’t necessarily save money on pesticides.” While this is untrue, the mention of pesticides and this statement reaffirms any preconceived notion the public may have about GMOs. This was demonstrated by the comments on the video about Monsanto and the perceived evils of the corporation and the use of pesticides. Comments such as, “GMOs are raised for the purpose of chemical companies making money on poisons such as glyphosphates [sic].” These statements raised reactants as the mention of Monsanto and pesticides are issues that people have strong beliefs and attitudes about.

A better message would not only omit to mention Monsanto but would expand on the concept of hybridization and the correlation between GMOs and plant breeding. It would talk about all the products that people use every day that come from these crops and how it is possible with GMOs. In other words, it takes moving the bubble a little to get to the position you are trying to convey and to repeat the message. I foresee the same situation is going to happen with CRISPR technology. Despite the call for consumer education, there is already the correlation between it and GMOs. Yes, this has been tried before, but it requires reinforcing a unified message from those in the industry, trade groups and bloggers related to agriculture. The theory also states that if the message is beyond the latitude of acceptance, it requires repeated exposure. An example is the latest campaign from PETA calling for a change in expressions using animal words. It was talked about on talk shows and on social media both good and bad, but the message received exposure and may move some people’s latitude to what they were trying to accomplish. How many times have we seen or heard that one annoying commercial for a business and yet can sing the jingle or recite their tagline? With the Social Judgement theory, some of the messages that fall in other parts of the latitude of rejection might be persuasive if the messages are strong. We just need to craft information within these guidelines to change the attitudes and beliefs of how consumers feel about issues in agriculture.