On Saturday evening we visited a farm. Robert knew of it many years back when it was owned by two extremely ancient old boys. For numerous decades the farm sat in glorious isolation and neglect, the land and buildings softened and crumbled; definition of field and hedge, lane and track, farmhouse and barn sagged into tangled green obscurity. The old boys continued to live in their decaying farmhouse looking out over a farmyard of bent disintegrating barns and humped undulating roofs; astonishingly they were still using the original cloam oven and still gathering and burning bundles of faggots.
It was sold a few years ago and by chance we met the new owners in the pub. They are a delightful couple. Not in their first flush of youth Jim is instantly noticeable by a shock of wild bright white hair; he’s buzzing with energy, passionate and eager, a zinging wire – his edges rounded and softened by a warm brown voice and a distinct west country burr. Mary has her feet firmly on the ground and a gentle yet tough stoicism. She has an open sincere face and large, expressive eyes in which you glimpse hidden depth. Both of them shine with the ruddy glow of outdoor living and smell of fresh air and wood, plaster and earth. Working ceaselessly on the farmhouse and buildings they have made a temporary home in one of the open crumbling barns and a caravan. To Robert’s delight they didn’t hesitate in inviting him over do some mothing.
Robert returned home his eyes bright with passion for the untamed and unspoiled beauty of the place. Brimming with excitement he said ‘It’s quite extraordinary. You stand in the farm and look out over the surrounding countryside with all those neatly clipped hedges and bright green fields and just know…’
‘Hang on, hang on’ I said ‘Maybe you shouldn’t class it as a farm, should you? I mean it hasn’t actually produced food in an age, has it? Isn’t it an area, a wildlife haven. Extraordinary, yes, but a farm?’
As often happens in our own feisty, ardent relationship a discussion was soon raging about, as Robert will have it, the semantics of the definition of farm…
A farm is the basic unit in agriculture. It is a section of land devoted to the production and management of food, either produce or livestock.
So says Wikipeidia and the Oxford dictionary.
‘Uh!’ poofs Robert ‘That is such outdated thinking’ and dismisses it out of hand.
With us this is an old, well worn and often revisited spat. Robert believes, fervently, that not all farms – land - have to be managed mainly for food. Some of it, just a small proportion should be managed for nature – marginal farms like ours and Jim and Mary’s. We are pretty refined and adept at this dialogue now, but still it manages to get our blood boiling, turns us red in the face, gasping and choking at the heinous atrocities the other is mouthing. Yet we are basically of the same mind and thought about most things. We cycle tandem ninety percent of the time.
Why am I at odds with this? Why do I feel it’s slightly immoral? Why do I feel it’s a luxury to be the custodian of a farm (as that’s what we are) and manage it primarily for wildlife? Running through me is a twist of tough chewed fibre – possibly a remnant of my bog Irish ancestry or strands of my Scottish heritage. Whatever, this part of me feels vaguely uncomfortable - almost guilty. To me, as guardian of a farm, I have a sense of duty, an obligation, to try to grow the best quality produce I can without compromise to my stock, the wildlife or the landscape. Can I achieve the balance I strive for? Robert thinks not. He believes I do compromise nature…and due to the demands of my livestock I’m unable to allow wildlife the unfettered freedom it requires; nor am I able to produce enough food on these marginal soils to render the farm economically viable. I’m falling between two stools. He has a point.
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 30, 2008 at 8:59 pm
elizabethm
I recognise so strongly the idea of the recurring passionate disagreement, although ours are about different things nto yours. I think I am with you both, you in your definition of farm and how I would myself feel about the obligation to use the land productively, and Robert in his love of the wilder places, but to me those wild places are not farms although they should co-exist with farms, respecting wildness and not seeking to make every acre of the land a business. Mmm, tricky one. Glorious description of the decrepit farm too!
May 1, 2008 at 9:35 am
Mopsa
Brilliant, brilliant! So much to chew on. Will go and do some mental gymnastics and turnovers.
May 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Jane
As already said above, lots to think about. What does Robert do for a living…. he sounds like he could work in conservation? I don’t know the answer. Both of you are right in my eyes… farms and wildlife need to co-exist but how? Farms need to make a profit, wildlife needs to prosper too. I guess the compromise is bits here and there… but then it is a compromise. Oh, I don’t know… brain is overheating now! Jane
May 2, 2008 at 6:08 am
paula
It’s weird this sense of obligation, elizabethm - one could think it’s a woman thing, to provide food for the family, but I know it’s just as strong in men too.
A conundrum - one that I can’t quite unravel
May 2, 2008 at 6:15 am
paula
How are those mental callisthenics coming along mopsa? Could do with your take on this!
May 2, 2008 at 6:19 am
paula
It’s a problem we haven’t sorted out in 16 odd years Jane! Somewhere I feel I’m missing a link, maybe I’ll stumble across it when least expected.
May 2, 2008 at 11:44 am
Felix
Dear Paula,
An interesting blog which raises interesting points. On your recent posting, Robert has a point on the usage of “farms”. Something that needs to be appreciated (some of your regular readers might note) is that rural living is invariably an environmental catastrophe. The relative carbon footprint of the rural dweller is significantly more damaging than that of his urban cousin. Think of the car miles between shops. The relative size of accommodation per capita. The list goes on. Some of the worst contributions to this footprint comes from the small commercial food producer. To visit a Farmers Market, and realize the environmental impact her sausage sold is truly shocking. One needs to bear in mind the simple equation of “energy used : calories produced”.
With reference to your recent posting, low impact areas, the like of which you describe, are essential to the environments well-being. There is a good argument to suggest that food production ought to be considered on a global commercial scale, which can have a smaller individual (per calorie produced) impact.
You mention “morals” and “guilt”. Low impact “farms” or areas of “land” should be bio-diverse and support indigenous animals, but it is difficult to defend the moral high ground when killing animals for whatever their purpose. Of course, organically grown, free range creatures enjoy better lives. Ultimately, however, you are going to cut an otherwise happy life very short.
These are simplistic thoughts, I know.
Felix. (A meat eater).
May 2, 2008 at 5:13 pm
LittleFfarm Dairy
Paula -
reference ‘between two stools’ - ditto! I feel just the same here.
Meanwhile I think Felix makes some interesting points although I feel he has missed a pretty vital one - bottom line is that farms produce the food he - & we - eat; so I suppose we must brand them a ‘necessary evil’ - after all, if we didn’t exist, he’d starve!
He also condems our damaging rural carbon footprints. Well, as I generally only leave the farm once per week to go to my Welsh lesson, do the shopping, visit the recycling centre (being rural we don’t have any collections despite doubtless having a rise in council tax when the UK fails to meet its’ targets - even though we take responsibility here for the waste we produce as we recycle, re-use or compost almost everything), go to the local Post Office etc etc - combining what would otherwise be several journeys into one - I’d disagree. I’ve even managed to co-ordinate my feed delivery to the garage adjacent to the village hall where I have my Welsh lesson, to cut down on more lengthly journeys. As I now fill up the truck (which as a farmer I do need - it’s not a ‘Chelsea Tractor’
with fuel less than once a month, I’d say my overall carbon footprint is a now darn sight less than the majority of average urban households - especially as like you, we manage the farm organically.
Interesting comment about the “relative size of accommodation per capita” - when we lived in a town, we had a large, detached three-bed house of around twice the size of our current two-bed cottage; it seems these days that the ‘must-have’ house is four bedrooms, two bathrooms to cope with the growing number of ’step’ families. If he’s on about the land being a carbon-wasting luxury - we have eleven acres of wodland here, which I’m sure is a lot more environmentally friendly than the majority of suburban gardens! And what about all the energy it takes to build those houses, streets, tower blocks, cinemas, shopping centres etc, & the energy consumed by street lighting…?
As for small commercial food producers being the “worst contributors” to this “environmental catastrophe”, I feel Felix is gravely mistaken. An increasing number of people are becoming ‘locavores’ - purchasing food produced within a 100-mile radius of them - to help prevent the grave damage from importing foods from halfway across the world (which are themselves often intensively & insensitively produced) & which we ourselves could be providing better, fresher & more healthily (less additives, pesticides too), on peoples’ doorsteps. And by patronising the local shops, local economies will gradually begin to revive their flagging spirits & provide much-neeed jobs & improvements to the local community which supports them: hence everyone benefits.
Interesting that for a meat-eater he appears to condemn raising animals for food. I’d suggest he puts his money where his mouth is: if he would not be prepared to take direct responsibility for his food (i.e. for the animals’ lives, welfare & death) then he really shouldn’t hypocritically eat meat.
Ironically I noted an article in a popular womens’ magazine this week whilst doing some market research - it says that in order to ensure the survival of traditional/rare breeds, people should buy rare-breed meat - otherwise these animals will disappear altogether!
And again, what a lot of people do not realise, is that without farm animals to graze the UK’s pastures, this ‘green & pleasant’ land of ours would disappear under weeds, gorse & scrub - as I have seen happen to several farms in our local area after the inhabitants have died or retired but no-one can afford to take the places over. These are now wonderful wildlife havens - but a balance needs to be struck to ensure that both food can be produced & wildlfe given the freedom to flourish.
So whether a farm ‘produces’ livestock or crops for consumers, or a respite for nature in this tired old world of ours, both are doing a vital job - it’s just a case of knowing how to not tip the scales…..& your method of farming is the best & most responsible way forward; so hold your head up & be proud - regardless of the economics!
Sorry, rant concluded - must go & get the milking done! Apologies no time to Blog lately but felt the issues Felix had raised, needed to be addressed. It’s great to debate!
May 2, 2008 at 9:01 pm
LittleFfarm Dairy
P.S. Sorry, I meant ‘condemns’ & ‘woodland’ BTW - not a spolling irror, just typing too fast!!
May 2, 2008 at 9:49 pm
colouritgreen
I think, by definition.. a farm makes food… if it doesn’t do that.. then it is not a farm.
May 3, 2008 at 11:39 am
Felix
Notes to Little Farm Diary.
“Bottom line is that farms produce the food he - & we - eat”. Wrong to be presumptuous about me. I produce everything I eat.
I am afraid that you are entirely wrong about the relative carbon contributions re; the urban/rural dweller. Think shared walls, roofs and ceilings in the majority of cases, to give one more example. The scientific evidence estimates rural living to have a six-times per capita higher carbon footprint.
The number of “locavores” may well be on the increase, but that contribution is utterly insignificant. In some cases, imported foods have a significantly smaller footprint than locally produced.
Then you get personal as well as very presumptuous and refer to me as “hypocritical” with regards to eating meat. Wrong again. At no point did I mention eating reared animals. You see, perhaps I only eat road kill. Then again, my few words of yesterday where never about the “I”, rather general observations.
I am sure that your “popular womens’ magazine” is highly informative and is packed with very cosy and cuddly articles, however, the rare breeds are rare breeds for a reason. So who should give a shit if they die out?
This may sound like I am criticising your lifestyles and endeavours, I am not. I need to point this out otherwise you may come over all prespumtious on me, which would be unjust given that at no point have I expressed a personal opinion on anything.
Felix
May 4, 2008 at 7:35 am
Jo @ LittleFfarm Dairy
Hi Felix,
I’m somewhat perplexed by your response!
If you feel rural living is such an environmental catastrophe, why do YOU apparently do it? Don’t you care?? Or am I just being presumptuous again, owing to the fact that you say you produce everything you eat ergo are unlikely to live in a town? Apologies; I probably am - & I stress this is by no means a personal attack - I am purely replying to the issues you raised in the above comment.
However, by the fact that you say you produce ALL your own food, in order to do so you must therefore be a farmer, crofter or smallholder owing to the amount of land required to produce self-sufficient food for one person per annum - ergo a “farm” does indeed, produce the food that you eat, too - so I don’t think I was being entirely presumptuous on that score.
It is genuinely heartening that you produce all your own food - I’m sure more people wish they could, too; & I applaud you for it. We do the best we can, but still need an occasional trip to the shops regardless. But at least you know you are keeping your OWN carbon footprint to a minimum by doing so - which in fact makes you a classic locavore.
My apologies if you have misconstrued my comment as ‘personal’ regarding your meat-eating; my riposte was purely in defence of what appeared to be your attack against farmers who raise animals for meat (of which Paula is of course one). As you state you are a meat eater & produce ALL your own food, I gather (unless the only meat you eat, is indeed only roadkill) you also “cut otherwise happy lives very short”. I’m curious to know why you do so, if you feel it’s wrong? And although you may have meant “we” you did use the word “you” which I took to be a direct attack on what Paula does - sorry if I misread your phrasing.
No, the “popular womens’ magazine”, wasn’t particularly informative & was indeed packed with cosy, cuddly articles to a point - it’s certainly not my normal reading material (as I mentioned, I was perusing it for market research purposes only).
Regardless, I do believe we SHOULD all give a *proverbial* about rare breeds; the reason many of them became rare in the first place, is of course because of intensified farming methods demanding bigger, faster, more. Rare breeds are thankfully enjoying a revival as the meat they supply is generally of superior texture & taste; or the other products they provide, of higher quality. The longwool breeds of sheep, for example, were under threat purely because mechanisation rendered their type of fibre more difficult to process en masse. Thankfully the superior quality of their wool is widely recognised & its use is enjoying a well-deserved revival. Look at the quality these rare breeds offer; & I think you’ll find the answer to your (I assume, as you claim at no point you are expressing your personal opinion) hypothetical & rather direct question.
As for the “shared walls, roofs & ceilings” of the town dweller, unless these are adequately insulated, they still leach out valuable energy. And then there’s the street lighting, the office blocks, the daily journey to said office, etc etc….I must do some more research on this scientific evidence as perhaps I am unclear regarding the precise definition of ‘urban’ & ‘rural’ dwelling. It’s such a shame that the people who built this cottage four centuries ago, where we now live, weren’t told how much environmental damage they were causing by doing so!
As you say, SOME imported foods have a smaller carbon footprint than those which are locally produced (I hesitate to use the word ’significantly’ however); but that’s only a very small minority. Indeed, some locally but intensively-farmed foods - & even some organic ones - are regularly treated with fertilizers & pesticides which have travelled miles to reach the farms on which they’re used, having a negative impact on the environment - this debate has been raging only recently in fact.
But whilst the current number of locavores may presently make a relatively insignificant contribution to the economy as you suggest, the numbers are - thankfully- growing: in a recent survey 22 per cent of shoppers claimed to buy regional foods at least once a week with another 17 per cent once a month. Three-quarters of those surveyed said that regional foods are important to them, two out of three because they want to support small producers. Hopefully this growing awareness will help to rejuvenate local economies once more - which can only be considered a positive thing, surely?
Felix, I am sorry if it appeared I was being presumptuous & making a personal attack: I most certainly wasn’t - just as you say you were not directly criticizing those who live in the countryside, either. Sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword; & if my words appeared cutting, I apologise - they were not meant that way; nor are they, ever (I have a soft heart & a head to match!). But as I said in my previous post, it’s great to debate - & that’s all I was intending to do.
Yours aye, J @ LittleFfarm Dairy.
May 4, 2008 at 9:06 am
Felix
Love and luck to you all. Felix gone now.
Felix
May 5, 2008 at 9:17 pm
paula
Thanks for all giving your thoughts and ideas. I hugely appreciated the time and effort you’ve given to express them.
Interestingly I have thought about the points that Felix raised in his comments; if you look at posts in the category Climate Change you will see that many of the topics are discussed and questioned there. I also feel that in future decades it could well be unacceptable to grow/kill stock for food.
These dilemmas and conundrums will continue to challenge us and I guess the more we question, the more we think, the more we listen the more capable we’ll be in understanding the actions and directions we need to take.
May 6, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Lizzy
Probably not helpful, but : here goes. I think Felix felt shouted down a bit. I can’t imagine why else he has politely said his goodbyes. I tried to put similar views forward on another post (perhaps the one Paula refers to), but got a similar response or was ignored.
I’ll say again something I said before just in case someone would like to respond. Does it have to be country vs town all the time? Why do we have to be separate? There is no barrier between the town and the country and in fact we can learn useful things from one another. I wish more people with alternative views would come and live in the country (or at least come and visit this blog) to redress this awful imbalance.
Paula - I believe it will be unacceptable to kill animals for food one day in a very distant future. And I agree with his (Felix’s) point that it just doesn’t make sense to love the animals and care for them to extent an organic farmer needs to, only to put the fear of God into them and slit their throats in the prime of their lives. I am aware that well cared for animals are killed by someone who does it in the best way possible - which under the circumstances is the best that can be done, but gently killing a trusting animal gently is surely the ultimate in contradictory terms.
I acknowledge that a roast lamb dinner is delicious but it comes at an enormous price. And one that I (for one) am not sure is really worth it. Should animals be processed in any way just so we can have a ‘traditional’ lunch. Tradition I feel is generally over-rated.
May 6, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Mopsa
I think this should be chewed on over a bottle of something fairly strong!
May 6, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Lizzy
Is that an invitation?
May 13, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Jo @ LittleFfarm Dairy
Oops sorry, Lizzy:
I’m naturally just passionate about, what I’m passionate about - I felt Felix’s initial post was strong & justified a suitable response. I had no intention to offend him, merely to debate the points he raised as they were salient & poignant; I wasn’t for one moment, attempting to shout him down.
I agree with you about the country vs town issue however as we’ve seen from other posts Paula & poeple in other Blogs have kindly shared, alas it isn’t just a case of suspicious farmers aggressively shouting “Gerroff moi laaaand” but also of some ‘city slicker’ urbanites attacking the countryside as ‘boring’, ’smelly’, ‘dirty’ & doubtless filled with simple yokels who wouldn’t know a work of art if it slapped them round the face with a wet kipper.
In my previous career I lived & worked in cities throught the UK & indeed across the world; from those colourful experiences, I have learned I prefer the tranquility of the countryside & am just not cut out for city life. That said I believe strongly in education & feel any ‘them’ & ‘us’ situation, is inevitably unhelpful & unhealthy - we each have our comfort zones which we all need to learn to accept & respect if we are to live together in a more harmonious manner. And you’re absolutely right about learning from each other: the countryside has benfited tremendously from ‘big city’ entrepreneurs turning flagging rural businesses around to the extent that many rare breed animals have been given a new lease of life as a result - whilst inner city schools have likewise encouraged healthier diets & lifestyles in their pupils when farmers have assisted in projects to help children learn about where their food comes from & even take responsibility for it, with allotment or city farm projects.
Anyway as it appears I’ve inadvertently been abrasive & offensive I must apologise & am afraid that I too, must therefore bid you farewell - I’m off to join Mopsa in that ‘bottle of summat fairly strong!’
May we all live happily ever after, to post another day.
May 14, 2008 at 11:02 am
paula
Take heart Jo - I’m sure that Lizzie will be delighted that there has been a response to her comment and that she’s not being ignored. This is what it’s all about after all, seeing things from slightly different perspectives.
It’s great to be passionate and care - keep on.
I hope you feel better after a bottle of ‘fire in the belly’!
May 14, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Lizzy
Yes, I’m delighted. If we (everyone) can be less tribal in our approach to others we’ll experience less division and more communication.
Jo, I take your point regarding the city entrepreneur and the farmers and the inner city children. I suppose there has been an exchange of ideas between people that fit those descriptions. (However some inner city children have a better appreciation of food than some country children. Class and education track quality food appreciation much more accurately than geographical location.) What is useful is access to the countryside for all.
The learning I meant was more subtle than that. I meant that we could learn no one of us has more right to be here or there than any other. I have some friends that visit me every summer and each summer I brace myself for the reception they get on the streets. Their visits cause me (and them) huge stress and no amount of greenery, traditional country fayres or casseroles containing dead, previously happy free-range chickens will make up for it. But we persevere with our ritual because if we don’t nothing will change.