"Isabella Woodhouse" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:

"Isabella Woodhouse" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message


...
There are other arguments against "industrial" agriculture but
this is
the first I came up with.

They do not want to go out and separately negotiate
orders of corn of this magnitude from 100 separate small
farmers who can each only supply a ton of corn.

This is why the big agribusinesses thrive, it is the
presence of a market.

If you want to get rid of large farms and go back to
a lot of small farms, you need to figure out an efficient
marketing and distribution system.

Small farms in the US have had cooperative distribution systems since
the mid-1700s. I think I recall reading that even the Sumerians (or
was
it the Babyonians?) had cooperative distribution systems for their
agriculture. Lack of distribution systems is clearly not the cause of
factory farming but it certainly was an idea worth exploring.

I don't think that the small farm co-ops can deliver the quantities of
basic grains - corn, wheat, oats, etc. - with the regularity that the
large commercial food processors need.

Why not? Upon what are you basing your opinion? It seems to me that
the weather, which is the most major factor in farm production, does not
distinguish between small and large farms.


And large farms don't irrigate when there is no rain, nowadays?

An agribusiness can deal with a lot of the weather by simply buying another
large farm in a different weather pattern and running both farms. They can
also
spend a lot of money on irrigation and use their political influence to win
water
rights battles.

If you went to a co-op and asked them to sign a contract guarenteeing
you would get (for example) 200 tons of a specific variety of wheat,...

Has that--- the requirement of a contract guaranteeing production of a
crop for any time period, let alone an entire decade--- ever been a
common practice in American agriculture? Can you support this
contention with evidence?

Very few business supplier contracts are public record for what should
be completely obvious reasons. I have no reason to believe agribusinesses
are any different in that regard.

But it is common in the manufacturing industry to have suppliers under
contracts of extended length. Once more, I have no reason to believe
agribusinesses
are any different in that regard, either.

Ted


Seems like a false premise to me.

...every summer Aug 1st, for the next 10 years, I doubt that they would
be able to do it. By contrast an agribusiness that has vast tracts of
land in several different weather regions, very likely can do it.

Can the people actually farming each of those "vast tracts of land in
several different weather regions" guarantee a crop? I can't imagine
how. So, then, why is it not possible for such companies to acquire
their grain from either a large enough co-op or several co-ops in
different regions? It seems to me that quantity, as you stated, is not
really the issue.

Kellog has spent years building up a customer base that buys it's
processed food on a regular basis. They are not going to stop selling
corn flakes for 9 months out of the year because their supplier tells
tham corn is not in season, or was rained out. They are going to
tell their supplier that they expect their shipment of 50 tons of
corn every month come hell of high water and if it's a bad year for corn
that's the suppliers problem.

Ted