Why Small Farms Need the Ability to Sell Locally

In discussions about agricultural sales in Barrington Hills, one argument that keeps surfacing is the idea that wholesale sales are acceptable while direct-to-consumer sales are somehow a different, more problematic category. But when we take a step back, does that distinction actually make sense?

More importantly, does it align with the realities of farms within a residential community? 

Barrington Hills already allows certain types of small-scale sales from home under its home occupation rules—like tutors, piano teachers, and even cottage industries—without requiring full commercial zoning. Given that agriculture is already a permitted use, it’s reasonable to question why a small-scale agricultural sale—one that doesn’t disrupt the character of the area—would be treated differently. Selling a handful of flowers or vegetables grown on-site is no more disruptive than a private music lesson or a home-based craft business. If the village values agriculture as part of its character, then small, responsible farm sales should naturally fit within that vision.

Wholesale vs. Direct Sales

Wholesale and direct sales both serve the same purpose—allowing farmers to sustain their operations by selling what they grow. The key difference is who the products are sold to and how they get there.

• Wholesale: A farm sells large quantities to florists, grocery stores, or distributors, who then resell to consumers. This often involves trucks, shipping logistics, and supply chain contracts that small farms struggle to meet.

• Direct sales: A farm sells small amounts directly to consumers—whether through U-pick, farm stands, or pre-arranged appointments—allowing the community to access locally grown products without unnecessary intermediaries.

Ironically, wholesale operations can be more disruptive. They require regular large-scale deliveries, potential refrigeration or storage infrastructure, and the ability to meet bulk demands. Direct sales, on the other hand, tend to be smaller in scale, self-regulated, and integrated into the rhythm of rural life. So why the push to make wholesale the preferred model?

The Ecological Cost of Wholesale Farming vs. Small-Scale Farming

The debate over wholesale versus direct sales isn’t just an economic issue—it’s an environmental one. Wholesale farming often relies on monocropping, where large fields are planted with a single crop year after year. This practice depletes soil nutrients, increases vulnerability to pests, and requires heavy applications of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to maintain yields.

In contrast, small-scale farms prioritize biodiversity by planting a variety of crops in smaller plots. This diversity naturally reduces pest pressures, promotes healthier soil, and supports pollinators and local wildlife. A mixed planting approach also reduces the need for chemical inputs, making small farms more ecologically sustainable.

The Reality for Small Farms

For small farms, wholesale is a tough road. Many local grocery stores and florists demand consistent supply, something large-scale farms can provide but small, diversified farms cannot. Wholesale pricing also puts immense pressure on farms to lower costs, often at the expense of sustainability.

Selling directly to the community allows small farms to operate in a way that makes sense for their scale. It’s not about large volumes; it’s about meaningful, sustainable connections between farmers and the people who value their work. If the concern is maintaining the rural character of Barrington Hills, direct sales should be the preferred model, not wholesale.

Why “Free” is Not a Solution

Another argument that’s come up is that farms in Barrington Hills may operate, but only if they give everything away for free. This might sound generous on the surface, but in reality, it introduces more problems than it solves:

• “Free” attracts crowds, not control. The biggest concern raised about visitors on farms/ agricultural sales is crowds and traffic. But nothing draws more people than the word “free.” If the goal is to keep things small and manageable, charging a price does exactly that, creating a natural limit on participation.

• It devalues the farm. Running a farm isn’t free. Soil amendments, water, seeds, infrastructure, these all cost money. If farms were required to operate for free, it would ensure only the wealthiest landowners could participate, leaving no room for working farms to survive.

• It’s not applied consistently. No one suggests that piano teachers, home bakers, or riding instructors in Barrington Hills work for free. Why should farms be singled out?

The Bigger Picture: Keeping Farming Viable in Barrington Hills

The village’s comprehensive plan mentions agriculture nearly 20 times. It doesn’t say that only wholesale farming is allowed, nor does it suggest that all farms should be nonprofit or donation-based. If we’re serious about keeping Barrington Hills a place where agriculture exists in harmony with residential life, then we need to allow farms to function in a way that makes sense, not force them into models that don’t work.

Direct sales are low-impact, community-driven, and perfectly in line with the village’s rural character. If the goal is to ensure that farming remains part of Barrington Hills’ landscape, then we should support small farms in the way they actually function, not impose arbitrary restrictions that make it impossible for them to exist at all.