Navigation
Search

Login
« "For the Sake of the Children" Is a Tough Media Barrier to Overcome | Main | Thinking Differently About Pricing: What Seems Like a Commodity to Farmers Can Be a Premium Product to Consumers; Watch Out, Veggie Growers »
Thursday
29Nov

For Love or Money? Factoring in Personal Goals, Business Goals, and Risk Premiums

bigstockphoto_For_Love_or_Money_773952.jpgThe discussion about farmer profits, or lack thereof, illustrates how amazingly conflicted we are about food, both as growers and consumers.

 

I hear several issues being raised simultaneously, and that has a way of clouding matters:

 

--Personal goals versus business goals. Farming is an unusual profession in that people do it as much, or more, for personal fulfillment. They enjoy being outdoors, gain much satisfaction from growing things, like being with animals, enjoy manual labor, and so on. And today, more than ever, people are being drawn to farming by the appeal of doing something important—improving people’s health with nutrient-rich food. I hear a lot of idealism in the comments, about providing nutritious food to the masses.

 

I’ve always felt that business owners should look hard at their personal goals when starting a business, which leads me into the next issue...

 

--Personal goals as an extension of business goals. Some people seem to be saying that because food is essential for everyday life, prices should be kept affordable to the great mass of people. But there’s also recognition that while some people like paying $40 a gallon for coffee-flavored water, others prefer to pay $10 a gallon for real milk and $5 for a dozen real eggs.

 

I’d like to throw out the proposition that there’s no one right answer. If Dave Milano wants to sell his food at lower-than-market prices because he wants locals to have it to for good health, that’s a reasonable goal…for him. It’s a personal value decision that is also a business decision. A guy down the road may decide that his goal is to do the same thing, but make a reasonable profit as well, and the best way to fulfill both goals is to sell some of his food directly to locals, and haul some to a big-city farmers market, where he can charge two or three times what he charges the locals. Or, more grandiose, he may set up a nutritious-food Internet site where he charges even more than at the farmers market.  Well, that’s another reasonable personal-values decision turned into a business goal.

 

Joel Salatin won’t ship beyond a 100 mile radius of his Virginia farm because he wants each community to develop its own local food sources. Mark McAfee will ship raw milk nearly anywhere, feeling that if people need the healthful benefits of raw milk, they should be able to get it. Each is a reasonable personal approach. But each farmer has also integrated personal goals into business decisions.

 

--Competitive issues. There’s another factor at work here that tends to get overlooked. Direct-to-consumer sales are soaring because demand is ahead of supply. So some farmers are facing the “dilemma” of whether to charge higher prices, in light of their idealistic personal goals. I’d like to throw out a factor that hasn’t received much consideration here: the risk factor. As we’ve seen on this site numerous times, farmers who produce raw milk face serious legal risks, and it almost doesn’t matter what states they are in. The regulatory authorities are making life difficult for meat producers, as well, and that situation isn’t likely to ease as the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) takes hold. Indications are that vegetable growers could face regulatory problems as well.

 

Even the most permissive state situation can turn on a dime. And we’re not even talking about the risks from weather, energy costs, etc. Any business running high risks needs to calculate that risk into its pricing considerations. Investors often talk about “the risk premium” for certain securities. Well, sustainable farmers face a major “risk premium.”

 

We are seeing some big changes in our society as increasing numbers of people come to understand the importance of consuming nutritious food—the growing number of farmers markets and CSAs tell us that. Not everyone recognizes or understands that, and those that don’t are often the ones who think nothing of paying $4 for a box of sugared cereal, and objecting to paying $4 for a dozen eggs. Those people need to be educated, but until they are, should farmers sell their eggs at $2 a dozen because the factory system has taught them to expect that? (And that’s why the factory system can never be expected to produce nutritious and consistently safe foods—the pressure is always on to cut costs and increase profit margins.)

 

This whole situation gets so murky because it really is complicated. But it's important for us as individuals to try not to mix apples and oranges. or should I say, raw milk and pasteurized milk.  



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (16)

One other thing to remember is that sustainable farmers are increasingly going to come under fire, sometimes from seemingly strange corners, as factory farms and middlemen struggle to keep their grip on market share. Witness what's happening in Ca with raw milk - does anyone think that it's a coincidence that raw milk standards are changing at the same time that there's a billboard and web site campaign to push people away from organic milk (check out www.milkismilk.com if you haven't seen it). You think the California dairy lobby is going to roll over and let small farmers take money out of THEIR pocket?

Factory farms are now taking the tack of hiding behind a lot of hooey and acronyms, and publishing all sorts of official-sounding "studies" under the guise of protecting the consumer.

Check out this recent study at the cattle network - http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=178614

-- guess what, according to them, feedlot cattle are much healthier for the environment. Uh huh.

Oh my goodness, guess who authored the "study" - well, I'll be darned, the same people attacking organic milk. Hmm.
November 29, 2007 | Unregistered Commentermbren
I hope the farmers I am dealing with are charging me enough to make a profit and protect themselves against a bad year or other disaster.

The farmer who has my herdshare tells me she has a waiting list but doesn't want to buy more cows because each additional cow means more work and she's trying to pull back on the work as she's already at retirement age.

My advice was to raise prices -- that's what for-profit businesses do when faced with demand that outstrips supply. She's reluctant to do so because she wants the milk to be affordable for people. I respect her point of view, but from my own selfish standpoint what I really want is for her to stay in business. Working yourself to death for not enough money is not a good way to stay in business!

Val
November 29, 2007 | Unregistered Commentervalereee
Thought this group might appreciate this article
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07332/837268-85.stm
Pa. dairy label rule shelved
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
By Daniel Malloy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A controversial decision by the state Department of Agriculture concerning dairy labeling is under review after facing strong public backlash.

Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff announced last month that the department would crack down on what it viewed as misleading labels on dairy products, including claims that milk was made from cows not treated with artificial growth hormones.

But early last week Gov. Ed Rendell's office initiated a review of the decision. Originally scheduled for Jan. 1, enforcement of the new rules has been delayed at least a month.

The controversy has focused on recombinant bovine growth hormone, also called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), which is injected into cows to increase milk production by about 15 percent.

Under Mr. Wolff's directive, dairies selling milk in the state cannot declare on their labels that the milk is hormone-free or "rBST-free."

So far, 19 companies have been informed that their labels must change. Pennsylvania, home to 9,000 dairy farms, is the fourth-largest dairy-producing state in the country.

Chuck Ardo, press secretary for Mr. Rendell, said the governor's office heard complaints from elected representatives of rural districts and agriculture lobbyists, prompting the review.

Mr. Ardo said the review likely would take at least two or three months, further delaying the implementation of the labeling restrictions. The governor's office, which was not involved in the initial decision, will participate in reviewing the new rules "both in the way they were promulgated and their effect," Mr. Ardo said.

Consumer and public health groups also have been critical of the labeling restrictions.

"This violates the fundamental rights of consumers to know what's in their milk," said Kevin Golden, staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit organization that advocates sustainable agriculture and food safety.

"We wouldn't be surprised if Pennsylvania turns around and takes away this action. ... If [Mr. Rendell] doesn't, they are going to see lawsuits."

The Department of Agriculture acted after Mr. Wolff, who owns a dairy farm in Columbia County, formed the Food Labeling Advisory Committee, which had its only meeting Oct. 5. The 22-member committee, composed of consumer advocates, dairy producers, academics and others, examined dairy labels and recommended that certain types be banned.

Criticism of the decision was swift and harsh, and targeted primarily at rBST, the hormone produced by St. Louis-based Monsanto Co.

Though there is no reliable test to show the hormone is present in milk -- and "rBST-free" labels are required by the FDA to acknowledge that there is no quantifiable difference in the quality or safety of the product -- many consumers choose to eschew rBST.

It was approved by the FDA in 1994, but many countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia and the European Union, have not approved the use of rBST because of cattle health concerns. Also, some studies have shown a correlation between certain types of cancer in humans and elevated levels of insulin growth factor, which is present in rBST-fueled milk.

Pennsylvania is the first state to restrict labeling in this way, and the decision came just months after the Federal Trade Commission refused a request by Monsanto to ban such labels.

The Department of Agriculture insists that rBST-free claims are misleading because they are not verifiable, unlike "organic," a designation subject to third-party review. Under the current system, milk distributors get farmers to sign a pledge not to use rBST.

Critics argue that the Department of Agriculture is coercing consumers into purchasing something they want to avoid.

"There was some level of surprise," Chris Ryder, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, said of the opposition to the state's new labeling restrictions. "We weren't anticipating quite this response."
November 29, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterHenwhisperer
The Pennsylvania turnaround (or slow-down, to be a bit more cautious), following the similar experience in Georgia after the proposal to dye milk, speak volumes about the extreme importance of the consumers' political voice in these matters. We are seeing the evolution of an extremely complex change in society concerning food and health (about time!). On the one hand, the demand is great and we need more farmers willing to take the risk, and do things right (so that no-one gets sick), and part of that is the requirement that they charge enough, within their own frame of reference, to remain sustainable. On the other hand, consumers need to hold their farmers accountable for quality at the same time as they support their farmers economically. And support them against the risk from regulators, by backing legal defense and speaking out politically. Regulators, for their part, have to come to the party. The world is not all big ag, and there is plenty of room for freedom of choice.
November 29, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Bemis
Valereee,

Your post touched me. If all of our customers were like you, and all of us producers were like your milk lady------what a wonderful world.
November 29, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Atkinson
Hehe,
Thought some of you might like this http://www.orangediaries.com/
:-)
maria.
November 29, 2007 | Unregistered Commentermaria
http://www.milkismilk.com/

“In the case of milk, labels that claim to be "pesticide-free," "antibiotic-free" or "hormone-free" are misleading and in most cases simply false. All milk, for example, has hormones (over 25 different hormones are naturally found in milk), whether a cow received supplements to increase milk production or not.”

I am not understanding why stating milk is "pesticide-free," "antibiotic-free" is misleading or false, unless the pastures are contaminated and the beeves are given antibiotics. As for the "hormone-free" perhaps if the marketers stipulated that there was NO ADDED hormones that would not be misleading.


“Concerned consumers like you can help by boycotting products from companies engaging in false or misleading marketing and by asking your local supermarket or grocer to enact policies preventing the sales or promotion of such products in the stores where you buy your family's food.”

Yes indeed, I do boycott products from companies engaging in false marketing, etc…


“The activists claim “raw” milk kills bacteria, but that’s just plain false. Why do they think so many consumers, especially children, get sick after drinking raw milk? (Actually, they always come up with another scape-goat in those cases: “it was beef or lettuce, not raw milk” they say) There is a reason that the FDA has not allowed the mainstream sale of raw milk: It has repeatedly been proven to sicken consumers and there is zero evidence it is healthier or more nutritious.”

And this guy says the marketing is misleading LOLLOL uh yeah right Aug 07 seems to be the last time this site was updated. Yes, they sure are worried about the growing number of people who do want healthy uncontaminated foods and are willing to pay for it. This whole web site appears to be nothing more than propaganda by those against real organics and natural foods. http://www.cgfi.org/ <~~ this site is from the site map of the milkismilk site…. Just skimming it made me shudder. I wonder if people were made aware of the true factory farm conditions, if that would affect thier decisions on what foods they purchase? Knowledge of what all is really in those grains/feeds....

November 29, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
www.milkismilk.com and the Center for Global Food Issues are front groups of the Hudson Institute and their henchman, Dennis Avery. The sponsors of the Hudson Institute read like a who's who of Big Ag/Big Pharma - Monsanto, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Syngenta, American Farm Bureau, Dow, Dupont, Merck, and Pioneer. Go to www.hudson.org and check out the 'Publications & Op-Eds' section on the left, then 'Annual Report'.
November 30, 2007 | Unregistered Commentercheryl
Yes, obviously these are just sham propaganda organizations, but the scary thing is that they can put their "news" and information and "study" results out on a number of newswires and the "stories" can and do get picked up by wire editors and published. As if they were actually credible. Something to think about the next time you pick up the newspaper and see the lead-in "A recent study by the cgfi shows bla bla bla." And once any mainstream newspaper picks it up and publishes it - and it does happen all the time with very dubious studies - the headline changes to "According to a report in the Boston Globe or Washington post or your credible news organization here," giving these bogus reports and studies credibility.
November 30, 2007 | Unregistered Commentermbren
It wouldn't hurt for an occasional letter to the editor to expose the shoddy job that your local "news" paper is doing by picking up and credulously publishing propaganda. A blog like this, with info such as Cheryl provides, could provide effective ammunition for a "Dear Editor, did you know what you're really publishing?" kind of a letter.
November 30, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Bemis
CGFI just put out an article about the dangers of free ranging chickens because they (as CGFI thinks) will be the vector for avian influenza.

Here's the link
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/avian-flu-is-coming-hide-the-chickens

The title is Avian Flu is coming: Hide the chickens.

It starts this way:
"It’s time to quit playing the “organic and free-range” poultry game. Organic and free range birds carry higher bacterial risks—and now we know they could spread a deadly human flu pandemic."

Of course, they also believe that the human population on the earth should be reduced to give more room for the animals.
November 30, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterHenwhisperer
Joel Salatin pointed out in this month's Acres USA that a truly potent vector for spreading disease are the thousands of barn swallows and other small birds that swoop over CAFO's, eating whatever grain they can find leftover in the cesspool conditions, defecating on the already-beleaguered animals in the CAFO's, and then spreading the filth, and potentially the disease they pick up from the CAFO's, far and wide.
November 30, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Bemis
I totally agree with you, Steve, and that is basically what I wrote to CGFI. My twenty chickens have the company of maybe 50 wild birds who take advantage of the shelter of the coop and the food by living in the coop. Everyone is healthy and likely to stay that way because they have good immune systems.

In the summer of 2006 Vermont's then secretary of agriculture, Steve Kerr, testified in a hearing about avian flu as the reason to implement NAIS that by fall of that year, mere months from when he said this, a high percentage, over 50%, of Vermont's population would be dead from AI. Of course he was the only fatality. He got fired in January.

Side note and off this topic but I want to toot my own horn, gosh I deserve it. I completed NaNoWriMo, National Novel Writing Month, a challenge to write a 50,000 word first draft novel in 30 days. I finished last night. Quite an undertaking, I can tell you. It is about the activists fight against NAIS, fiction based on fact. The end totally wrote itself, interesting that, and is total fiction. As if...
November 30, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterHenwhisperer
Congratulations, Hen Whisperer........ that is QUITE the accomplishment.
November 30, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterjean
Congrats Henwhisperer!
November 30, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
Henwisperer,
Oh my gosh, 50,000 words. I can't even imagine writing that much. Congrats! I hope we see the final novel some day. Sounds very timely!
December 2, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterElizabeth McInerney

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.