Someone recently asked me what advantages large meat operations have over small family farms.
The honest answer?
It depends on who you’re asking.
Large operations have some real advantages. They can spread costs over more pounds of meat, buy supplies in larger quantities, access capital more easily, and operate on margins that might put a small family farm out of business.
That’s simply the reality of scale.
But bigger doesn't automatically mean better for the entire food system—or for the farmers and consumers who depend on it.
When the industry becomes focused almost entirely on volume and efficiency, we can end up with fewer independent processors, less competition, lower prices paid to farmers, and fewer choices for consumers.
And let me be clear: This isn't an attack on large farms. Many large operations are well-managed businesses that work hard to produce a safe, quality product.
The problem isn't that they are big.
The problem is when the playing field is designed in a way that allows large operations to take advantage of economies of scale while expecting small and family farms to compete under the same rules—with far fewer resources.
Efficiency for one business doesn't always mean a healthier food system for everyone.
I believe we need both.
We need large producers who can efficiently supply food at scale. And we need small and mid-sized family farms that give consumers more choices, keep money circulating in local communities, and provide competition in the marketplace.
Because at the end of the day, consumers deserve choices—and farmers deserve a fair opportunity to make a living doing what they love.
A healthy food system needs room for both big and small.
And if we want family farms to still be here for the next generation, we need to make sure they have a fair shot at competing.