It is accepted generally that anaerobic digesters (AD) are efficacious technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from livestock operations (Pronto and Gooch, 2009). In addition, AD technology has a number of other potential benefits including: energy production for use on the farm and for sale, separation of manure solids for ease of use or export off-farm, pathogen reduction leading to healthier labor and herd outcomes and odor control. It is also clear that in the USA, research and extension efforts, including public financing of AD technology installations, have disproportionally been focused on larger farms- e.g., dairy farms with at least 500 milking cows. The latter has begun to change as more resources are being invested in AD technology for smaller livestock farms. We present the results of a pre and post survey implemented at four workshops on small-scale AD technology for livestock farmers in northeastern New York State. Results indicate that information presented shifted farmers’ attitudes such that they viewed AD technology as not overly complex; and, they became less interested in selling generated surplus power off-farm.

This paper briefly outlines a topology of small farms and then considers the role of the government versus the market in key public policies such as commodity income support, environment, stability, research, and rural development. A number of options are explored for public policy to better serve small farms, including drastic alternatives such as graduated property taxes on farmland, with exemptions or lower rates for small farms. These and other alternatives are not necessarily recommended. Improved extension education and human resource development offer some of the most promising public policy opportunities to help small farmers.

Distances to common production and marketing supply chain destinations may vary, and this has economic and animal health implications for small-scale food animal operations. Proximity to these destinations can affect the economic viability and marketing decisions of small-scale operations and may represent significant barriers to sustainability. Data were collected using a cross-sectional survey conducted by the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Animal Health Monitoring System in 2011 using a stratified systematic sample of 16,000 small-scale (gross annual farm sales between US$10,000 and 499,999) operations from all 50 states. A total of 7925 food-animal operations were asked about the farthest one-way distance (in miles) to slaughter facilities, destinations where they sold animals or products, and feed sources. Across all small-scale operations, 95% of operations reported the farthest distance animals or products were transported for sale was 241 km (150 miles) or less. For distance to slaughter facilities, 95% of operations reported the farthest distance was 145 km (90 miles) or less. For feed shipped by a supplier, 95% of operations reported the farthest distance was 322 km (200 miles) or less. The 95th percentile for distance increased as farm sales increased, indicating larger operations were more likely to travel long distances. The results of this study are an important benchmark for understanding the economic and animal health implications of long transportation distances for operations that are small and/or focused on direct marketing.