During the current recession, it is a rule of thumb that those low to the ground are most likely to survive.

The big banks making unwise investments that grew into a tower of debt were the ones that crumbled. Automakers whose investments, debts and obligations extend worldwide have collapsed. Large newspapers have closed. Major retail chains have been hit hard.

Thus, Vermont's dairy farmers, whose commodity is tied into a market affected by worldwide demand and volatile fluctuations of price, have suffered during the recession.

By contrast, Vermont's small banks have weathered the storm relatively well. And while major newspapers have shut their doors, small-town newspapers are surviving, mostly. In agriculture, diversified local operations, with less debt and less vulnerability to wide market swings, are not facing the crisis that Vermont's dairy farmers are facing.

As with any rule of thumb, there are exceptions. Goldman Sachs and some of the other major banks have reported profits recently, suggesting that their size, combined with their acumen, have helped them survive as their competitors failed. Toyota lost money for the first time during the recession, but its size no doubt has helped it take advantage of the problems of General Motors and others.

Some well-positioned dairy farms are probably doing all right, as well. The usual process is that during a downturn, the dairy industry consolidates — big farms buying out their neighbors and getting bigger.

But by definition, misery during a recession is widespread, and in Vermont there is much misery at present on the farm.

So far this year the state has lost 43 dairy farms. The number is now 1,046. The stress has become so severe on some farms that agriculture officials worry about the potential for suicide or other harmful outcomes. Suicides among dairy farmers have already occurred in Maine and California.

Meanwhile, officials continue to look for relief from the federal government. Vermont Agriculture Secretary Roger Allbee and other agriculture officials from the Northeast have pushed Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack for increases in the milk price support program. Sen. Bernard Sanders is pressing for an antitrust investigation of the large milk processors.

The problem is stark, and farmers appeared before the Vermont Milk Commission last week to tell their story. Farmers are making about $100 less per cow per month than they were a year ago, according to one farmer. For a herd of 200 cows that's $20,000 per month. The price they are receiving is hovering around $11 per hundredweight, though the cost of producing milk is around $17 per hundredweight. The state has offered low-interest loans to help farmers get through the downturn, but farmers can only go so far into debt.

Agriculture secretaries from the Northeast have reminded Vilsack that the region, including New England, New York and Pennsylvania, produces 20 percent of the nation's milk and the industry supports 145,000 jobs. A decline in the industry can only go so far until the infrastructure that supports farmers —feed, fertilizer, equipment and processing businesses, for example — crumbles. And without an infrastructure, the remaining farmers would face new difficulties.

Vermont's diversified agricultural sector has grown in recent years. Growers of vegetables and fruit and makers of cheese and other products have found new opportunities. But they represent a relatively small segment of the agricultural economy, and farmers with hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in a dairy operation cannot easily close down to start growing arugula. The nation needs milk, and as the economy is presently constituted, the mass market in Boston and other metropolitan areas depend on large, commodity-oriented farms.

Many businesses throughout the economy have witnessed how that rule of thumb works: those low to the ground survive — either low to the ground or gigantic. For the time being, the dairy farmers of Vermont are trying to survive. We all depend on it.