Re #26 – Yes, that would be wonderful (to recast the Farm Bill). Unfortunately the revised bill passed just last year and will be in force for several more. It had a few beneficial tweaks but the chair of that committee was Sen. Grassley from Iowa who is all corn, all the way. Our national and local policies are all much too tilted toward commodity crops that are shipped not just out of state, but out of country – and subsidized by taxpayers.

The new moves on the Greenbelt Advisory Board are a welcome start, as reported in earlier Chronicle stories. But has been pointed out to me, even commodity growers who put their property into restricted status are at least preserving the tillable soil.

As the footnote of the fact sheet states, the LFI is based on a calculation by two researchers from Vermont and Massachusetts. You can read that article from the Journal of Extension here: [link]

To calculate the LFI, I used USDA Agricultural Census data from 2007 (the Ag Census is done every 5 years). The LFI calculation compares per-capita consumption with per-capita production of 13 or 14 general classes of ag products (tree fruits, grains, dry beans, milk and dairy, etc). If production exceeds consumption for a particular product, I used the consumption value for the rest of the calculation – in other words, if a county produces a ton of apples, like Kent County does, only the apples that people who live in Kent County could eat count toward its LFI.

So, in order to have a high LFI, a county (or state, or region – it works with any defined area) must produce reasonably high PER-CAPITA quantities of several different types of crops – because if the area just produces a lot of one thing, the surplus is exported (we assume) and doesn’t count toward LFI.

The counties in the state with the highest LFIs are in southwestern Michigan, where they produce a lot of fruits and vegetables in addition to grains and meat products, AND where populations are a little lower. Washtenaw County’s score is not lower than neighboring Monroe and Lenawee because there is any significant difference in what we grow, but because we have so many more people to feed.

What could make Washtenaw’s LFI higher? Growing more vegetables and fruits, and producing more meat and dairy products, basically anything but growing a larger surplus of corn and soy.

I have to mention a few flaws in this measure, which you astute readers are likely to notice. First, since it’s based on the Ag Census, we’ll only be able to update it every 5 years and we’ll be limited by the precision of the data- it often doesn’t capture very small producers, tends to underestimate yields, and reports “production” in dollars- so reflects the market value of commodities rather than quantity. Second, as some readers above have pointed out, the county is an arbitrary boundary and probably not the best way to define “local” – why not think of Tuscola County beans, or Allegan County blueberries, as local? This is another case of being limited by the data. One more- the best estimate of consumption is the national per-capita value… so if we Washtenites eat more fruits and vegetables than the average American, our LFI is probably an overestimate. (There’s no data to suggest we’re above average, but wouldn’t we all like to be?) And the last major one: the LFI assumes that all local demand will be met with local products before anything is exported, and that’s not necessarily true.

BUT – all that said, think of the LFI as a general measure of the diversity and relative (to population) quantity of our agricultural production. As imprecise as it is, if it goes up, that’s a good thing- we’re closer to being able to feed ourselves locally.

Here is how Cuyahoga County (Ohio, near Cleveland) is handling it. They are using a complex set of data and tools to answer this question. [link]

Where are we now? Good, Fair, or Poor

Where are we going? Getting Better, Stable, Getting Worse, Don’t Know

FYI – we have 24 approved chicken permits in the city from 2008 and 2009 – none yet in 2010 – Up to 96 legal chickens could be in your neighborhoods

A minor correction: The local food production index that Jeff cites is described thus on the sheet: “The local food production index describes both the quantity and diversity of agricultural production in a county. It is obtained by comparing county per capita production of major food crops with national per capita consumption of those crops. The highest possible index score of 100 indicates that sufficient quantities of all included crops are produced within the county to meet local demand. Michigan’s statewide production index score is 30.”

In other words, within the State of Michigan overall, we produce enough food to feed our total population at 30 on a scale of 100. (I don’t know whether this means we produce 30% of the food required in quantity, or whether it is referring to types of food.) So it is not accurate to say that the “state average is 30″. That is simply the score for the entire state.

Wayne County’s score is 0, by the way. Lenawee is 13, Jackson is 16 and Monroe is 12. It would be nice if we could raise our score (currently 9) to near those more traditionally agricultural counties. It would mean that we are more locally self-sufficient.

The Ten Percent Washtenaw campaign, launched at the Food Summit, is specifically looking at and re-imagining our county food system. This is not, however, intended to define local as county-wide. It simply picks one region that is close at hand, easily measurable and conveniently well matched in farmland and consumers.

Rather than wondering “what if everybody?” or deciding what exactly constitutes natural, or deciding if 10% is too little or too much for us to take on, we have looked squarely at what this relatively simple shift could do for our economic situation. Early analysis by Alex Rosaen shows that we make $1 Billion in food purchases each year and that shifting to 10% county production of that food would net over 1000 new jobs. This even before the potential we could generate circulating those dollars in our community and in selling food to our surrounding communities. Further analysis shows that this production would constitute less than 5% of our present farmland. This because growing food using inovative, sustainable practices produces 200 times as much food value per acre than the commodity crops that are in great surplus, stacking up in silos and in our waistlines.

The other beneficial outcomes that are likely to arise from this shift are left to others to calculate. These could easily be imagined to include better health outcomes, a more resilient food system, a higher standard of transparency into all our food choices, better access to healthy foods for people of lower income, a viable alternative to urban sprawl, less petroleum intensive farming practices and less fertilizer run-off into waterways.

Tools are being developed to track the data about our food economy (in dollars) as well as all the informal ways we grow, share and consume food. With these sources of digestible information (ok, a little pun intended), we will be able to help individuals, businesses and institutions see the impact of their food purchasing decisions and act accordingly.

To Matt and Steve’s comments in #15 and 17, the best indicators of our local food system will certainly be found at the county level. The Michigan Dept. of Agriculture posts detailed information about our food system on a county by county basis, and one important figure, hiding down at the bottom of the page, is the Local Food index. The index is designed to measure the overlap between what a community grows and what they eat. While we rank very poorly right now in Washtenaw County (9 being well below the state average of 30), I feel we have a unique opportunity to lead the state and am dedicated to helping us get there.

Even this relatively small shift in our food priorities will involve major new projects (wouldn’t it be something if we flipped the equation and bought 90% locally while still enjoying a bit of coffee, chocolate, spices, citrus and/or olive oil from afar?). A new meat processing plant closer to Ann Arbor would be one of many possibilities. New local investment options will allow our community to invest a portion of our assets in projects like this that will work to benefit all. One of the biggest hurdles will be helping many qualified young people who want to grow our food get access to land and other assets needed to start their own farms. As a consumer, activist or entrepreneur, I look forward to meeting you in this movement.

I’d like to take an opportunity here to laud Edible Avalon, which is (in cooperation with Food Gatherers) helping Avalon tenants to grow their own food. Another strike for food (self) sufficiency.

I agree with Steve Bean that it is a good long-term goal to support local farmers so that they are able to produce more of our food. This is important for long-term community food security in the event that our food supply lines are interrupted. We are fortunate to live in an area (and a state) with a relatively diverse agriculture.