Vineyards are not farms!

[Rebel Rose]

From the 2004 Q&A with Andrea Sottimano:

I don't think to be a wine maker, I prefer to think to myself simply as a "vigneron", someone that work the most of the time in the vineyard trying to grow, to develope, to concentrate and then to "catch" the best that I can from every single parcel.

He must be an InFielder.

[JohnL]

NOTE: I can imagine that someone might take exception to me saying that wineyards are not farms, but they aren't. I love wine as much as anyone (and more than teetotalers), but vineyards are not farms.

I would be willing to bet that there is a huge chasm between the average winemaker and the average farmer, in terms of income*. With the exception of "Green Acres" (a Sixties sit-com that was a bunch of poppycock: a rich lawyer decides to leave his cushy job in New York City, dragging his reluctant city-girl wife to the countryside with him), there aren't too many stories of people who got so wealthy that they decided to buy a working farm and "go back to the earth." However, sitting here in Napa, the little microvineyards owned by yuppies are a cliche (sorry, I can't make diacriticals on this borrowed PC). In fact, there is one such vineyard visible out the back window of the house where I'm staying. It's probably illegal, too, as they bulldozed an entire hillside to plant vines, encouraging total erosion of the soil.

There are challenges unique to vineyards, but mostly their problems are an entirely different set than those which befall the farmer with CSAs, farmers markets, the demands of chefs in restaurants, and so on.

So I don't think vineyards are farms. This is not to say that they aren't practicing agriculture, just that the end result is not food. And while winemakers are doing good things, I reserve my ultimate respect for farmers who are feeding the world, and not really making a buck doing it. I don't think it would be any kind of an exaggeration to say that rich people have wineries, and poor people farm. I think that's how those cards lay.

Does anyone here agree? Disagree? Original discussion here.

This is a myth--or misconception--that I encounter frequently, so I can understand these comments, if not embrace them as a definition of who we are. Should I allow my customers to visualize Dover Canyon as a spreading land grant with untended vines gracefully waving in gentle breezes? It would probably be a smarter marketing move. Actually, I think I will.

But I am passionate about the challenges and drama inherent in farming. And I love our farm. I am proud to call our vineyard a "farm." Somehow I don't think we'd ever convince Andrea Sottimano that he's not farming . . .

←

What exactly is the point of all this?

The dictionary states that "farm: a tract of land used for raising crops or livestock."

Simple enough!? That's the accepted definition.

If one wants to quibble over livestock vs crops or ranch vs farm so be it. (an apples and oranges thing).

Many others in this thread have dealt with the "definition" issue on its elementary level.

However-the real point that is being made is: small is good and big is bad, poor is good, rich is bad.

"Green Acres" was closer to the truth than some may want to admit. Every day one sees more stories of people who have made money at various professions going off to be farmers (or wine makers). To enter into farming today costs money, land costs money -especially quality farmland. should we look down on these people?

In fact it is "wealthy" restaurateurs and their "wealthy" customers who are driving much of the CSA activity and success. Let's not forget that the products from these "small" farms costs money so most of the consumers are--well...well off!

Look at Coach --they made their money selling leather goods and "retired" to be farmers. They now produce artisinal cheeses. How about Blue Hill at Stone Barns? If not for the support of David Rockefeller (yeah the guy whose money comes largely from oil) it would not exist. By the way oil is "organic" and it certainly helps farmers via tractors, generators, and trucks to get their produce to market.

The argument that it is "nobler" if farmers are poor rather than rich is based in the assumption that a poor farmer is in it to help feed the world is mind boggling. I refuse to believe that these farmers are so altruistic (or maybe they are not really poor). Using this logic a farmer who gives his or her produce away is "better" yet! Also, to place a "value" on a crop or agricultural product based on its value as a life sustaining substance is equally crazy. In that case the rice grower or the manioc grower is "valued" over the fancy lettuce grower. And to further illustrate the illogic--wouldn't the large agribusiness that can produce the most quantity feeding the most people be the most revered?

These are the traps in the original poster's definition.

In the end--this should be about the quality of food. Not about the bank account of the farmer or the farmer's intent or raison d'etre. or even the size of the farm or whether the farm's end product is wine or onions or herbs or apples or apple cider or applejack etc.

We could have a lively debate over "organic" vs non organic. ( I can't tell the difference) or Bio Dynamic vs non Bio....

The problem is--many proponents of CSA's seem to be drawn to the subject because of politics "class warfare" etc. and "listening" to them go on about the "evil rich" and "noble poor" farmers is tiring and pointless. This should be about the food!

Anyone who produces something I enjoy eating (or drinking) gets my respect.

[jsolomon]

In the end--this should be about the quality of food. Not about the bank account of the farmer or the farmer's intent or raison d'etre. or even the size of the farm or whether the farm's end product is wine or onions or herbs or apples or apple cider or applejack etc.

We could have a lively debate over "organic" vs non organic. ( I can't tell the difference) or Bio Dynamic vs non Bio....

The problem is--many proponents of CSA's seem to be drawn to the subject because of politics "class warfare" etc. and "listening" to them go on about the "evil rich" and "noble poor" farmers is tiring and pointless. This should be about the food!

Anyone who produces something I enjoy eating (or drinking) gets my respect.

←

I really do disagree with your second sentence. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a consideration toward the producers' intents or raisons d`etre. One thing that gets swept under the rug is the concept of "voting with your dollars."

When you simply distill it down to the level which you state (and I hope I'm misconstruing what you wrote) you validate things like the trade in illegal migrant workers, resident illegal workers, food factory maltreatment of workers a la "Fast Food Nation".

And, beyond my responsibilities as a consumer, as a producer, I have [had] similar responsibilities. Along with those responsibilities was a hell of a lot of pride. With that pride came a lot of interesting opinions about producers who grew other crops. It's exactly the same as in the military where the Army has rivalries with the Marines and Navy. Or, in research where you have the theoreticians versus the experimentalists. In programming where you have the application guys versus the database guys. Even in medicine, where you have the ED people versus The Great Unwashed of the Rest of the Hospital.

The simple fact is corn farmers from Nebraska have found the path to truth light and happiness, and everyone else in agricultural production is envious

Oh, wait, there's a different moral. With the amount of work our producers put in, we can't, as consumers label them ourselves. We've got to hear what the producers want to be called and use their labels because they are their own culture, and we're in a world of hurt if we severely piss them off.

[JohnL]

The original post dealt with small farms and farmers who are engaged in sustainable farming. This in itself is an interesting topic and what these farmers are doing is certainly a noble endeavor.

However what the poster was really doing was applying a value system to the subject that is based upon a very narrow perspective. As you point out, things are never so simple. I agree.

The fact is there is a battle of sorts going on in Northern California (where the original poster resides -I believe). That battle is over land. It is essentially one side that wants to use the land for the growing of grapes for eventual use to make wine vs those who see this as an intrusion into a different way of life.

The original poster is obviously "immersed" in this imbroglio to the extent that she is unable to see the forrest for the trees. (or the lettuce for the grapes!)

She was "playing" with the definition of "farm" for a political reason--to advance her cause.

She was also denegrating those she sees as "the other side" she did this making false assumptions and assigning a value system that made no sense to someone who can look at both sides of the issue. So because she sees "rich" people coming into Northern California to buy land for grapes to be made into wine as "evil" she makes the mistake of oversimplification:

She is toying with the definition of farming ( a noble profession in most peoples eyes) because she can not accept that grape growers/wineries are even remotely involved in anything "noble" or honorable!

She then goes on to "assume" anyone who is rich is bad and anyone who makes money at framing is less worthy of our respect than farmers who make money.

This she does to hedge her original argument that grape growers are not really farmers.

So you see, this was never really a discussion of what the definition of farming is nor was it a discussion about small sustainable farms/farmers. It was really a very narrow argument for one side in a dispute that is going on in Northern California.

PS:

My post was not an "endorsement or acceptance of the abuse of factory workers -again it ain't that simple. Big agribusiness is not inherently "evil" nor are all small farmers inherently godlike. The converse is equally true. Two things should be present for any good debate: perspective, and facts.

[Rebel Rose]

The simple fact is corn farmers from Nebraska have found the path to truth light and happiness, and everyone else in agricultural production is envious

You are too modest. Your operations shall henceforth be known not as a cornfield, but as a maizerie.

And those who work the hallowed earth of Nebraska shall be known as a graintner (pronounced grantner).

You are all Rich Beyond Belief, and yet you choose to squander the wealth of your soil on tortillas, booze and corn syrup, which I do not consider food. (Popcorn, however, is okay in my book.) Please repent immediately and send me a CSA Popcorn Sampler.

[Pan]

I must be dense, but what does CSA stand for?

[ludja]

I must be dense, but what does CSA stand for?

←

Community Supported Agriculture

Basically, you can purchase a "subscription" to a local farm; then each week, (or seasonally, depending where you live), you get a box of fruits and vegetables. With some CSA's you can work on the farm for part of your payment. So it's another way for smaller farmers to sell their food and for consumers to get locally grown produce. Also, it can help small farmers w.r.t. financial stability b/c they have a guaranteed customer for the season or else the months you sign up. Some of the farms tanabutler talks about on the "small farms" thread or in her offsite blog participate in CSA's.

This website: www.localharvest.org has lots of information re: the many CSA farms across the country that you can sign up with and gives a lot more detail on CSA's in general.

There are also a number of threads on egullet re: CSA's, but here's a thread where people share the "loot" they get each week: click

Edited May 24, 2005 by ludja (log)

[rancho_gordo]

The Small Farms thread was closed so I thought I'd post this here. The Napa Register just did a story on the unique problems of farming among the vineyards here in Napa.

But few Napa County residents are willing to take a chance on the business, with vineyards creating so much more value.

"Unless you're independently wealthy, you can't afford to grow vegetables," said Haberger, only half-joking.

Morgan may be the only one who earns a living solely off locally-grown produce sold to local families. He and Haberger agree the cost of land makes it difficult, and not coincidentally, both lease land.

The article (which isn't all that interesting)

I know lots of grape growers and their issues are completely different than mine, as mine are differnt to a citrus grower as his are to a taxi dancer in a border town.

[Rebel Rose]

I’m not certain as to what your point is. What issues?

I’m quite certain you have all these things in common with a vineyard:

site selection, soil preparation, plant selection, trellising, soil amendments, mowing and tilling, tractor talk, tractor envy, neighbors, birds, insects (specifically leaf-chewing beetles), rodents, mammalian marauders, diseases, row covers, tying and staking, labor, frost, hard rains during bloom and fruit set, selecting a harvest date, staggered harvests according to type and maturity, debris removal, and composting.

Now if your experience is limited strictly to Napa growers, that—I agree—is an issue in itself. Napa has become a lifestyle destination, a gollybubble. I don’t envy you the task of farming in such an over-inflated area.

Do you know that Napa grapes go for $4,000 to $9,000 a ton or more? Quality winegrapes from Lodi fetch only $700 a ton. Paso Robles (which is three times the size of Napa and has a wider diversity of microclimates and varietals) commands $1200 to $4000 a ton. Some Napa wines cost $150 a case just for the grapes! That’s before barrel aging, processing, packaging (and glass isn’t cheap), and overhead. It’s crazy. So I do agree with you that the issues facing Napa growers are not necessarily representative of most farmers--grape growers included.