[kublikhan]

So this topic poster over on JD's blog, but I didn't see it covered over here. I frequently hear that our far flung food distribution system is made possible only by cheap oil and once cheap oil goes bye bye we will have to switch to a local distribution system to cope. IE, 3000 mile ceasar salad = bad, local farmer's market = good. But it has been suggested that food-miles is not what we should be looking at, rather it should be pound-gallons, and by this metric, the current food distribution system uses far less fuel than local farmers markets. For example: a 5 mpg semi-trailer carrying 40,000 pounds of food traveling 1500 miles from the farm to your local supermarket uses far less fuel than dozens of farmers driving 50 miles with 200 pounds of goods.

I would like to propose that we abandon the concept of food miles in favor of the more revealing and accurate “pound-gallons,” a horribly ugly phrase, I admit. What matters in terms of fossil fuel consumption is not how many miles the food has traveled, but how many gallons of fuel are in each pound of food. (Pound-gallons can also be used to compare fossil fuel consumption between industrial and local food production as well [eg, tractor use]) The food miles framework is very misleading. The reality is that there are substantially fewer pound-gallons in 40,000 pounds of produce trucked 1500 miles (0.0075) than in 200 pounds of produce trucked 50 miles (0.021). At 550 pounds of produced trucked 50 miles, the local pound-gallons and the industrial pound-gallons would be equivalent.

Pound-Gallons, Not Food Miles

In fact, local food currently uses much more fossil fuel, especially in distribution, on a per pound basis. This is so painfully the case that one example will suffice, my own.

I drive seventy miles round trip to the farmers market on Saturdays. Some people drive more, some people drive less. I think that on average, my mileage is not untypical, but the average might be closer to fifty miles. This market season, on a bad day, I would sell ten pounds of meat (an amount that does not cover the cost of gas to get there). On a good day, I would sell forty to fifty. One of the biggest farmers market meat sellers in our area that I am aware of probably sells about 200 pounds a week.

Lets take a good day for me:
Miles per pound — 70 (miles driven) divided by 50 (pounds of meat) = 1.4 miles per pound

Gallons of fuel per pound — 70 (miles driven) divided by 12 (miles per gallon) = 5.8 (gallons of fuel) divided by 50 (pounds of meat) = 0.116 gallons per pound

Industrial [3000 mile ceasar salad]:
Miles per pound — 1500 (avg. miles driven) divided by 40,000 (pounds of chicken on a tractor trailer) = 0.0375 miles per pound

Gallons of fuel per pound — 1500 (avg. miles driven) divided by 5 (miles per gallon) = 300 (gallons of fuel) divided by 40,000 (pounds of chicken) = 0.0075 gallons per pound

I would have to sell 750 pounds of meat every week to match the gallons per pound efficiency of industrial distribution. That is fifteen times more than I currently sell, and 3.75 times more than the biggest seller in our area that I am aware of

Local Food (On Average, As it Currently Really Exists) Does Not Use Less Fossil Fuel

[americandream]

What your point? That we continue to fly/trailer in in unarguably cheaper food with fuel we can ill afford to waste? Presumably the same reasoning applies to sending American jobs to China. Makes book-keeping sense but will it work when oil reaches premium value? In fact, will there come a time when the energy costs outstrip these savings. Of course, we may discover the secrets to free energy, time travel, shape shifting, or sending plastic pumpkins through wormholes.

Why bother to prepare anyone. The books are good and who knows what the scientists may come up with.

[americandream]

I don't think thats the point being made in the calls to buy local, whether it be by a vegetarian or not. Anyways, thats not how I'm taking it. Our local veggie market incidentally is an all year round affair and quite competitive in fact. Likewise, when I lived in the far north island of Orkney, there was always a range of fresh veggies available at the local farmers market during the dark wintry days. Nothing as sexy as mangoes and melons of course, but fresh all the same.

Anything JD and his coterie of vegetarians says is nonsence.

The only way you an get fresh vegetables (I assume we have all heard of rickets, scurvy, atherosclerosis, diabetes, etc.) is to ship a lot of water. Veggies are 95% H20. Can't can bioflavanoids and anthrocyanadins.

[frankthetank]

Kublikan-

Have you seen this?
http://www.railexusa.com/

The Railex platform features three refrigerated, mega-transload distribution centers; one in Delano, California, one in Wallula, Washington, and one in Rotterdam, New York. These three coast to coast distribution centers run a scheduled weekly five (5) day service 55 car refrigerated unit train, with the capacity to transport the equivalent of 220 trucks of refrigerated merchandise each and every week, both ways! The train consists of all new 64-foot series cars with fresh air exchange, GPS tracking and temperature control. Railex incorporates the latest technologies with its own infrastructure and private non-stop rail service to ensure the same scheduled departure day and time every week, 52 weeks a year. Five (5) day coast-to-coast delivery is GUARANTEED!

You can't get much more efficient then rail when dealing with large volumes. One reason that large cities may not turn into starving zombie freak fests.

If you shipped a bag of frozen veggies from China to LA by ship and then loaded that onto a train to NYC... i wonder what would be the equivalent of growing it locally if driven to the farmers market by a pickup truck? (like how many miles)... (i ask because the last bag of veggies i bought for $.89 was from China )

[Tanada]

I think the 50 miles per pound estimate is grossly inaccurate myself. Around here we have two fairly large farmers markets in our county, one on the east side and one on the west, and possibly more I have not used myself. Going to those markets the local produce farmers would not need to travel more than 15 miles, and the two of them are only 20 miles apart. Maybe in Cali or wherever produce farmers routinely drive 50 miles to sell a pickup load of goods, but not here in Michigan.

Farmers are not stupid, if the market is too far to sell at a reasonable profit or so far that there will be too much competition then they will either sell to a wholesaler or club together to build a new market closer to themselves.

[americandream]

kk is correct in ascribing to these large scale trans-national and inter-national efficiencies, particular advantages at the moment. Where he is wrong is that he seems to assume that they apply per se.

In a peak oil context, buying local takes on a certain significance and the efficiencies of scale assume a more local nature, although they need not necessarily be of the degree he seems to assume. Theres nothing to suggest that local farmers will always be moving their produce to market on fleets of privately owned pick-up trucks. Co-ops may well emerge. In fact we don't even have to wait for peak oil to embark on an efficient programme of localisation and self-reliance.

Its misleading and perhaps dangerous to assume that what works pre-peak oil is a universal rule without giving it some thought.

I think the 50 miles per pound estimate is grossly inaccurate myself. Around here we have two fairly large farmers markets in our county, one on the east side and one on the west, and possibly more I have not used myself. Going to those markets the local produce farmers would not need to travel more than 15 miles, and the two of them are only 20 miles apart. Maybe in Cali or wherever produce farmers routinely drive 50 miles to sell a pickup load of goods, but not here in Michigan.

Farmers are not stupid, if the market is too far to sell at a reasonable profit or so far that there will be too much competition then they will either sell to a wholesaler or club together to build a new market closer to themselves.

[blukatzen]

[quote="kublikhan"}Local Food (On Average, As it Currently Really Exists) Does Not Use Less Fossil Fuel[/quote]

Hi Kublikhan,

That might have been the idea even a few years ago, but with technology coming up to speed, this wholesaler (for instance) in Chicago, (which is in Illinois, where we both live is making life a lot easier with a UPS based business technology called "Roadnet Anywhere" which can track and save a lot of time for the company. They service over 300 clients (who have multiple stores) so these savings on time, money, and logistics can really add up.

Go to www.goodnessgreeness.com and look up their March 09 company news (on the front page) about the Roadnet study they participated in.

Also, if you browse around their website, they participated in a study downstate at Un. of IL-Champaign on how to get more of the old produce line (before the Interstates killed a lot of the local business) that came up from downstate, via train sytem, back in action. This is something the State is taking an active look at, as Chicago has been very active in the call for Regional farming and support of local production, quality of food, etc. This came about due to the likes of some of the big-name Chefs in the City like Charlie Trotter("Charlie Trotter's), Rick Bayless (Topolobambo, Xocho, Frontera Grill), etc. also go to http://www.Chicagogreencitymarket.org/chefs and you'll see many more that are demanding the same from our regional farmers.

We here in Chicago have one of the BEST and FINEST BAR NONE regional Farmer's Markets IN THE NATION. Not in the region. In the Nation. Because we support it. AND it is YEAR ROUND. It includes farmers and artisan foodmakers and bakers and cheesmakers, beef, elk, poultry, egg, dairy, etc. for a start. There is no reason that other cities can't DO the same. We are NOT on "the Coast" (where most people think the food trends start and end).

We are the ones pushing the standards that others will look up to, whether it's in developing ways to cut costs of food miles, due to re-estabishment of the 1-85 food train or UPS routing equipment on wholesale delivery trucks.

I just went to my local "Trader Joes", and found out that they are now too expensive, that I can get CHEAPER organic produce at my local "Tony's" Supermarket, which has been listening to what customers want, and have responded by getting in a lot more items in their produce AND foods section. They're not "Whole Foods" by any means, but I can save a lot of money this way. I ended up leaving a lot of things I normally *would have* purchased at Trader Joes' a few years back and headed to Tony's.

Yep, and I'm off to the Farmer's Market tomorrow as well.
Tony's Foods AND the Farmer's Markets..All regional. All local farmers. Organic.
Trader Joe's and Whole Foods....Home of the 3000 mile salad. Organic, Supports your news article.

Guess where a lot of folks are now heading to? (hint: The kid who rang me out at a local Whole Foods also admitted he shops at Tony's for Organic produce for a whole lot less....)

Things are turning around! Who'd a thunk it a few years ago....?

Blu

[kpeavey]

A problem with the pounds per mile equation is that the pounds are not equal.

Food grown by Big Ag is not produced or selected for its nutrition or flavor, it is grown to withstand shipping and look good on a retail shelf. Sure you can haul a pile of junk hundred of miles, and do it with great efficiency. Put it next to Farmer Ted's stuff and compare.

Next, I can spend money on Big Ag food all day. I doubt they will ever come into my town and spend a buck at a local establishment or drop a buck in a can to help someone who's house just burned down, or attend the local high school football game and cheer along with the rest of us. Farmer Ted will probably be a guest at the next wedding of a friend I go to. Ted Jr delivers my newspapers. Mrs Ted cuts my hair every couple of months.

If the fuel is not available, regardless of price, Big Ag is not shipping its product 1500 miles. If I am dependent on Big Ag, I starve to death. Farmer Ted is right down the road. I can help him dig potatoes by hand if I have to.

Good quality, wholesome food is not an equation. Food security can not be reduced to arithmetic. I will surely grant that shipping in volume is an efficient use of fuel. But when there is no fuel, all those Farmer Ted's out there will be what saves our bacon.

[kiwichick]

all good

but fossil fuels still produce the vast majority of food

[blukatzen]

You know another thing I didn't bring up is the topic of Food "Deserts" (NOT "desserts", lol) that are in a lot of major and mid-size cities. For the past several years, a lot of major food chains ("Jewels Food Stores" a local Albertson's based chain) in the City limits, has all but closed most of the in-city stores. Why?
Here's a good article to read on that same "Goodness Greeness" website I just listed in my last post.
http://www.goodnessgreeness.com/spotlights/24/

Retail Spotlight: Love Your Green Grocer!
There have been big changes over the past several years in how Chicagoans go grocery shopping. National retailers have closed dozens of chain store locations in and around the city; in their wake a number of local, independent retailers have grown strong and are thriving. Why are these neighborhood markets doing so well, where big supermarkets couldn’t afford to stay open? One straightforward answer is that independent stores have more flexibility when it comes to honoring customer requests. If you ask the produce manager in your neighborhood’s family-run store to carry a specialty item, the store is very likely to stock that item as soon as possible to keep you happy. The employees at a store run by a national corporation have to answer first to a hierarchy of managers and ultimately to the expectations of the corporation’s board. A national chain is most likely to stock items that can be consistently sold for a high margin, on a national scale. A smaller independent store is most likely to stock items that will make it a destination for neighborhood shoppers to maintain community loyalty. ......"

As well, a good article on Food Deserts from the Huffington post, and how they are part of the problem that you mentioned above....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mari-gallagher/brother-can-you-spare-an_b_124762.html

May everyone be fed in this Harvest Season!


Blu

[blukatzen]

all good

but fossil fuels still produce the vast majority of food

We're talking about *delivery methods* of produce here, however, if it's organic produce, much of the fossil fuel can be slashed by production methods, if by organic permaculture, even more! We're not discounting what you're saying, but this can be tweaked.


Blu

[kpeavey]

all good

but fossil fuels still produce the vast majority of food

How will you survive when those fossil fuels are gone? You can choose to support Big Ag because their product is cheaper. You can choose to support Farmer Ted, Farmer John, Farmer Jill because they grow organically, with no fossil fuels, pesticides or herbicides, and build soil fertility and biodiversity with each crop, and are right down the road.

One plan saves you money, one plan saves your life. Recalculate your equation with this in mind.

[americandream]

I suspect that kc was replying to kk's take on food as it makes its way to our supermarkets and food outlets. Delivery methods are all well and good when theres a tiger in your tank. Local buying seeks to minimise foods impact on oil demand by first bringin the production home. The next step once its home is the delivery process which kk seems to conflate with who knows what. I'm still mystified by his point if its intended to go beyond the mere vagaries of balancing ones books, instead taking issue with the desire of local buying to tweak oil usage down to the minimal, profit and loss accounting aside. It seems that way to me. Why on a Peak Oil website however. Strange person.

all good

but fossil fuels still produce the vast majority of food

We're talking about *delivery methods* of produce here, however, if it's organic produce, much of the fossil fuel can be slashed by production methods, if by organic permaculture, even more! We're not discounting what you're saying, but this can be tweaked.


Blu

[frankthetank]

If i did my math correct, a container ship used .0054 gallons of fuel per pound of cargo for a trip between China and Los Angeles... Very approximate with lots of rounding to get that figure...may be completely wrong... Then add the trucking from Los Angeles to La Crosse where i live...about 2000 miles...so a semi used.... .0074 gallons of fuel (using diesel in both cases, although i think ships use bunker fuel) to ship my 1lb of veggies...

SO to ship my 1lb of veggies from China to La Crosse consumed .0128 gallons of fuel vs my car using .4 gallons to get to the store and back!!! Holy crap..

edit: I think it shows you that hauling large amounts is a heck of a lot more efficient then small amounts.

If i grew 1000 pounds of carrots and hauled them to a farmers market... on a per pound basis, i could drive round trip to Madison, WI and back to equal the .0128 gallons it took the ship/truck to haul my pound of frozen here from China... I'm guessing my car would get about 20ish mpg hauling a 1000 pounds... I think that works!

[blukatzen]

SO to ship my 1lb of veggies from China to La Crosse consumed .0128 gallons of fuel vs my car using .4 gallons to get to the store and back!!! Holy crap..

edit: I think it shows you that hauling large amounts is a heck of a lot more efficient then small amounts.

If i grew 1000 pounds of carrots and hauled them to a farmers market... on a per pound basis, i could drive round trip to Madison, WI and back to equal the .0128 gallons it took the ship/truck to haul my pound of frozen here from China... I'm guessing my car would get about 20ish mpg hauling a 1000 pounds... I think that works!

As KPeavey says, we have to start building the infrastructure HERE, and NOW. We can't wait until China decides to stop funding the banker's/congress' stupidity, and that's the end of the low-cost veggie-fish farming-fruit run.
If it's frozen veggies (or farmed fish, or chicken parts), there's also an inbuilt cost of refridgeration that you may not be adding in.

We'd have to see the idea behind HOW MANY NUTRIENTS are still intact. Are you eating that carrot, and is it (just) supplying fiber, or does it still have it's beta-carotoids, etc. intact because it only got out of the ground last night or this morning? Which would you rather eat?

I eat food not to just fill the hunger hole, but to get as many vitamins as I can FROM my food. That's the way food used to be eaten. Now, it's just to fill the hunger hole, and to provide "taste". (which is how so many Americans got hooked on the cheap food because they can tweak it so you get hooked on the MSG, Corn Syrup-induced sugar high, and extra fat for "mouthfeel". And they've cheapened it ever further by introducing the GMO food, and milk laced with Bgh.

Sorry, you can keep the Melamine-laced food from China. Or Ecuador fish farming, or from a lot of places that have issues with poor food safety management.I don't know what pollution-laced sewage that poor fish you're expecting me to eat has been swimming in, or what chemicals that plant has in it's soil, downwind from the refineries, the plastic or paint factories, that we once had, and have now exported to them.

I don't expect the folks in their countries to have to eat that garbage passing as food either. But that is the problem when factories have to face when placed side by side with food production areas. Here OR there.
We just decided to get rid of a lot of our EPA problems by shipping the factories over there.

Something to think about when buying food. When you get a little bit older and having the aches and pains, you start looking at the things that provide quality of life. If people had that all throughout their life, they'd age differently, think more clearly with more drive and focus. Most Americans are in a brain-fog, and it's not from "drugs" per se, it's from what they eat, that's not providing them with enough nutrients for energy and the correct fuel for their bodies.

Again, good reading as always is at WestonAPrice.org

Blu

[frankthetank]

Blukatzen-
I'd much rather buy something from a small farmer/locally grown then anything sold by big AG. Monoculture needs to disappear.

You know though, even the Romans imported food from distant lands. They grew crops in present day Tunisia to feed the masses back in Rome... So the idea has been around for some time.

In the end i think it comes down to the availability and cost of fuel. Until the price skyrockets, the 8000 miles frozen good will still sit on the store shelves...

Here is an idea. Build a nuclear powered container ship and the electrify the rail system (which would be powered by nuclear) and then have battery powered autos/scooters/bikes for local moving around of goods I'll keep dreaming.

[americandream]

Local transport (of both the goods and its consumers) obviously needs to be tackled in the localisation equation. The whole point behind localisation is to commence the process of sustainable fuel efficiencies. As long as goods are over in China or wherever, there will be a dependency on fuel inputs. Localisation could conceiveably remove fuel inputs altogether in a worst case scenario (as was the case prior to the advent of crude as a major source of energy).

If i did my math correct, a container ship used .0054 gallons of fuel per pound of cargo for a trip between China and Los Angeles... Very approximate with lots of rounding to get that figure...may be completely wrong... Then add the trucking from Los Angeles to La Crosse where i live...about 2000 miles...so a semi used.... .0074 gallons of fuel (using diesel in both cases, although i think ships use bunker fuel) to ship my 1lb of veggies...

SO to ship my 1lb of veggies from China to La Crosse consumed .0128 gallons of fuel vs my car using .4 gallons to get to the store and back!!! Holy crap..

edit: I think it shows you that hauling large amounts is a heck of a lot more efficient then small amounts.

If i grew 1000 pounds of carrots and hauled them to a farmers market... on a per pound basis, i could drive round trip to Madison, WI and back to equal the .0128 gallons it took the ship/truck to haul my pound of frozen here from China... I'm guessing my car would get about 20ish mpg hauling a 1000 pounds... I think that works!

[blukatzen]

Blukatzen-
I'd much rather buy something from a small farmer/locally grown then anything sold by big AG. Monoculture needs to disappear.

You know though, even the Romans imported food from distant lands. They grew crops in present day Tunisia to feed the masses back in Rome... So the idea has been around for some time.

Sure it has, it will always be there anyway, because a good portion of the Earth is not hospitable to growing things. People will have to make do with what they have available through nature, and adaptable through cultural standards, like they always have.

In the end i think it comes down to the availability and cost of fuel. Until the price skyrockets, the 8000 miles frozen good will still sit on the store shelves...

They will. But we will also see, (as I have said before) the preponderance in those bigger cities of very good farmers' markets, driven by chefs and foodies, moms and dads who want to feed their families quality and regionally. It even works that way for me at the Garden Centers! I DO have regional growers, and folks make sure that they have quality plants from them. You and I are on the same page Frank.
I took a look at the rail system you spoke about earlier, and there's a problem with it. I don't have an issue *right now* of promoting cross-country commerce (we certainly need it!) but sending apples to New England kind of robs the farmers of New England of promoting THEIR apple crop. Same with other things. I'd rather support local farmers, and then keep the money locally. If and when (as they said) the market gets where they need the produce grown in the milder climates (in cold storage) then it gets sent there. I cannot help to think of all the heirloom apple varietals that were brought from the old world with the colonists, lost to us, because of the standardization of *what will travel better*. George Monbiot writes of this, several years ago, in his report on the apples of England http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/10/30/fallen-fruit/. Same old same old. Damn delivery systems kill everything, and train folks to enjoy the bland over the treasured heirloom. Trouble is, "heirlooms" don't always exist to be around later on....

That is what I am trying to preserve, as a Master Gardener, a Foods and Nutrition instructor, and Garden Center professional, is the heritage and integrity of our food supply, and it's genetics.

Here is an idea. Build a nuclear powered container ship and the electrify the rail system (which would be powered by nuclear) and then have battery powered autos/scooters/bikes for local moving around of goods I'll keep dreaming.

How about Urban farming/orchards, along with farming regionally, brought in by biodiesel/electric trucking along with regional rail hooked up to National Rail?

I'll dream along with you whilst eating one of those heirloom apple pie's just out of the oven, along with a glass of smoky apple brandy after a nice dinner, celebrating our Upper Midwestern heritage, Frank. How about that on a lazy Sunday afternoon?

Happy Thanksgiving Frank...

Blu

[Ludi]

Sure it has, it will always be there anyway, because a good portion of the Earth is not hospitable to growing things.

It might be a good idea if humans base their populations on the carrying capacity ("growing things" ability) of their locale. In fact, it's probably necessary in the long run.

Incidentally, more of the Earth is hospitable to growing food things if people didn't insist on using outdated practices like plough monoculture. Things, even edible things, will grow in even quite inhospitable regions like the Trans Pecos.