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

The Fatal Harvest Reader by Andrew Kimbrell (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Harvest-...dp/155963944X/
ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220837838&sr=1-1

pgs 19 - 23
MYTH FOUR
INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE IS EFFICIENT
THE TRUTH
Small farms produce more agricultural output per unit. area than large
farms. Moreover, larger, less diverse farms require far more mechanical
and chemical inputs. These ever increasing inputs are devastating to the
environment and make these farms far less efficient than smaller, more
sustainable farms.
Proponents of industrial agriculture claim trial "'bigger is better"
when it comes to food production. They argue that the larger the farm,
the more efficient it is. They admit that these huge corporate farms
mean the loss of family farms and rural communities, but they maintain
that this is simply the inevitable cost of efficient food production.
And agribusiness advocates don't just promote big farms, they also push
big technology. They typically ridicule small-scale farm technology as
grossly inefficient, while heralding intensive use of chemicals, massive
machinery, computerization, and genetic engineering ‹ whose
affordability and implementation are only feasible on large farms. The
marriage of huge farms with "mega-technology" is sold to the public as
the basic requirement for efficient food production. Argue against size
and technology ‹ the two staples of modem agriculture ‹ and, they
insist, you're undermining production efficiency and endangering the
world's food supply.
IS BIGGER BETTER?
While the "bigger is better" myth is generally accepted, it is a
fallacy. Numerous reports have found that smaller farms are actually
more efficient than larger "industrial" farms. These studies demonstrate
that when farms get larger, the costs of production per unit often
increase, because larger acreage requires more expensive machinery and
more chemicals to protect crops. In particular, a 1989 study by the U.S.
National Research Council assessed the efficiency of large industrial
food production systems compared with alternative methods. The
conclusion was exactly contrary to the "'bigger is better"'' myth:
"Well-managed alternative farming systems nearly always use less
synthetic chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics per unit of
production than conventional farms. Reduced use of these inputs lowers
production costs and lessens production costs and lessens agriculture's
potential for adverse environmental and health effects without
decreasing ‹ and in some cases increasing ‹ per acre crop yields and the
productivity of livestock management's systems."
Moreover, the large monocultures used in industrial farming undermine
the genetic integrity of crops, making them more susceptible to diseases
and pests. A majority of our food biodiversity has already been lost.
This genetic weakening of our crops makes future food productivity using
the industrial model far less predictable and undermines any future
efficiency claims of modern agriculture. Moreover, as these crops become
ever more, susceptible to pests, they require ever greater use of
pesticides to produce equal amounts of food ‹ a classic case of the law
of diminishing returns. This increasing use of chemicals and fertilizers
in our food production results in serious health and environmental
impacts.
With all this evidence against it, how does the "bigger is better" myth
survive'' In part, it survives because of a deeply flawed method of
measuring farm "'productivity' which has falsely boosted the efficiency
claims of industrial agriculture while discounting thee productivity
advantages of small-scale agriculture.
OUTPUT VERSUS YIELD
Agribusiness and economists alike tend to use "yield" measurements when
calculating the productivity of farms. Yield can be defined as the
production per unit of a single crop. For example, a corn farm will be
judged by how many metric tons of corn are produced per acre. More often
than not, the highest yield of a single crop like corn can be best
achieved by planting it alone on an industrial scale in the fields of
corporate farms. These large "monocultures" have become endemic to
modern agriculture for the simple reason that they are the easiest to
manage with heavy machinery and intensive chemical use. It is the
single-crop yields of these farms that are used as the basis for the
"bigger is better" myth, and it is true that the highest yield of a
single crop is often achieved through industrial monocultures.
Smaller farms rarely can compete with this "monoculture" single-crop
yield. They tend to plant crop mixtures, a method known as
"intercropping.' Additionally, where single-crop monocultures have empty
"weed" spaces, small farms use these spaces for crop planting. They are
also more likely to rotate or combine crops and livestock, with the
resulting manure performing the important function of replenishing soil
fertility. These small-scale integrated farms produce far more per unit
area than large farms. Though the yield per unit area of one crop ‹
corn, for example‹may be lower, the total output per unit area for small
farms, often composed of more than a dozen crops and numerous animal
products, is virtually always higher than that of larger farms.
Clearly, if we are to compare accurately the productivity of small and
large farms, we should use total agricultural output, balanced against
total farm inputs and "externalities,''' rather than single-crop yield
as our measurement principle. Total output is defined as the sum of
everything a small farmer produces ‹ various grains, fruits, vegetables,
fodder, and animal products ‹ and is the real benchmark of 'efficiency
in farming. Moreover, productivity measurements should also lake into
account total input costs, including large-machinery and chemical use,
which often are left out of the equation in the yield efficiency claims.
Perhaps most important, however, is the inclusion of the cost of
externalities such as environmental and human health impacts for which
industrial scale monocultured farms allow society to pay. Continuing to
measure farm efficiency through single-crop "yield" in agricultural
economics represents an unacceptable bias against diversification and
reflects the bizarre conviction that producing one food crop on a large
scale is more important than producing many crops (and higher
productivity) on a small scale.
Once, the flawed yield measurement system is discarded, the "bigger is
better" myth is shattered. As summarized by the food policy expert Peter
Rosset, "Surveying the data, we indeed find that small farms almost
always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger
farms. This is now widely recognized by agricultural economists across
the political spectrum, as the "inverse relationship between farm size
and output."' He notes that even the World Bank now advocates
redistributing land to small farmers in the third world as a step toward
increasing overall agricultural productivity.
Government studies underscore this "inverse relationship.' According to
a 1992 U.S. Agricultural Census report, relatively smaller farm sizes
are 2 to 10 times more productive than larger ones. The smallest farms
surveyed in the study, those of 27 acres or less, are more than ten
times as productive (in dollar output per acre) than large farms (6,000
acres or more), and extremely small farms (4 acres or less) can be over
a hundred times as productive.
In a last-gasp effort to save their efficiency myth, agribusinesses will
claim that at least larger farms are able to make more efficient use of
farm labor and modem technology than are smaller farms. Even this claim
cannot be maintained. There is virtual consensus that larger farms do
not make as good use of even these production factors because of
management and labor problems inherent in large operations. Mid-sized
and many smaller farms come far closer to peak efficiency when these
factors are calculated.
It is generally agreed that an efficient farming system would be
immensely beneficial for society and our environment. It would use the
fewest resources for the maximum sustainable food productivity. Heavily
influenced by the "bigger is better" myth, we have converted to
industrial agriculture in the hopes of creating a more efficient system.
We have allowed transnational corporations to run a food system that
eliminates livelihoods, destroys communities, poisons the earth,
undermines biodiversity, and doesn't even feed the people. All in the
name of efficiency. It is indisputable that this highly touted modern
system of food production is actually less efficient, less productive
than small-scale alternative farming. It is time to re-embrace the
virtues of small farming, with its intimate knowledge of how to breed
for local soils and climates; its use of generations of knowledge and
techniques like intercropping, cover cropping, and seasonal rotations;
its saving of seeds to preserve genetic diversity; and its better
integration of farms with forest, woody shrubs, and wild plant and
animal species. In other words, it is time to get efficient.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1016232.html

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


When General Mills decides to do a production run of
Coca Crispies cereal, they order the box printing by the
hundred thousand units, to get the cheapest price from the
printer, they order the plastic bag for the cereal by the
hundred thousand units, to get the cheapest price for the
bag, and they want to order the corn by the hundred
tons, because when their production line gets going they
are slamming those boxes out at a box a second at the
end of the assembly line, and they have to feed the
corn into the assembly line at a tremendous rate.

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.

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
There are other arguments against "industrial" agriculture but this is
the first I came up with.


When General Mills decides to do a production run of
Coca Crispies cereal, they order the box printing by the
hundred thousand units, to get the cheapest price from the
printer, they order the plastic bag for the cereal by the
hundred thousand units, to get the cheapest price for the
bag, and they want to order the corn by the hundred
tons, because when their production line gets going they
are slamming those boxes out at a box a second at the
end of the assembly line, and they have to feed the
corn into the assembly line at a tremendous rate.

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.

Ted




It's called a "Co-op". Just go to any farming community and look for
the grain elevators.

Bob

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.


When General Mills decides to do a production run of
Coca Crispies cereal, they order the box printing by the
hundred thousand units, to get the cheapest price from the
printer, they order the plastic bag for the cereal by the
hundred thousand units, to get the cheapest price for the
bag, and they want to order the corn by the hundred
tons, because when their production line gets going they
are slamming those boxes out at a box a second at the
end of the assembly line, and they have to feed the
corn into the assembly line at a tremendous rate.

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.
You didn't read the chapter. Chem ferts kill top soil. The less top
soil, the more chem ferts, and more pollution of ground water and
fishing areas. Who pays to remediate the land and the water? The tax
payer does. It is called "privatize the profits and socialize
the costs". The price of the box is only part of the price.

This is why the big agribusinesses thrive, it is the
presence of a market.
And the 34 billion dollars of advertising for products we don't need.
The American farmer produces 600 calories/consumer more than we need.
Adverti$ing --- consumption --- over weight --- medical bills.

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.
It is being done with no help from Washington. The 2008 Farm Bill
is same ol', same ol'.

Ted

Price of corn in a box of corn flakes: 4 cents
Price of a box of corn flakes: $4
**** 'em.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1016232.html

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.

Isabella
--
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"
-T.S. Eliot

"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.

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,
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. And
the breakfast cereal makers spend so much money setting up a production
line to make a specific product, that it isn't profitable unless your
making large quantities.

This isn't to say that there's not a market for smaller quantities and
that co-ops don't exist. It is just that there IS a demand for quantities
of such a large scale that -only- the agribusinesses can service that
demand, that is why they exist at all.

Ted

"Billy" 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.


When General Mills decides to do a production run of
Coca Crispies cereal, they order the box printing by the
hundred thousand units, to get the cheapest price from the
printer, they order the plastic bag for the cereal by the
hundred thousand units, to get the cheapest price for the
bag, and they want to order the corn by the hundred
tons, because when their production line gets going they
are slamming those boxes out at a box a second at the
end of the assembly line, and they have to feed the
corn into the assembly line at a tremendous rate.

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.
You didn't read the chapter. Chem ferts kill top soil. The less top
soil, the more chem ferts, and more pollution of ground water and
fishing areas. Who pays to remediate the land and the water? The tax
payer does. It is called "privatize the profits and socialize
the costs". The price of the box is only part of the price.

You don't actually have to remediate the land and water, you
know. At one time we didn't. People would just use the
resources until they were all gone, then move to a new place.
However, nowadays people are valuing clean water and
clean land more than they used to. So now there is a cost
for those things that we didn't have before, which is now being
factored in. That is why you have to file environmental
impact statements nowadays when you want to build a factory.
They didn't require environmental impact statements when
those large farms were created years ago. So the real question
is, are we going to apply current laws retroactively?

Since it's illegal to smoke Marijuana today, is it right to
go to everyone in Alaska, including Sara Palin, and arrest them
today because they smoked it years ago when it was legal to do
so then?

If not, then how are you going to justify taking current
environmental requirements for creating a large farm and
apply it to large farms that were created years ago?

Grandfather clauses are an integral part of law, particularly
land-use law, today. Sure, you can argue that it might be
good to set them aside for these large farms. In which
case the suporters of those large farms might decide to
come after your own house that you live in which is in
violation of current insulation codes, and demand you
rip it apart and re-insulate it to current code, so that you
use less energy.


This is why the big agribusinesses thrive, it is the
presence of a market.
And the 34 billion dollars of advertising for products we don't need.
The American farmer produces 600 calories/consumer more than we need.

Great! It's something to sell overseas to other countries to help
balance our foreign trade.

Adverti$ing --- consumption --- over weight --- medical bills.

I am sure you think your a liberal but a real liberal believes in
people having the freedom to make their own decisions, that is
why real liberals are pro-life and are not in the crowd trying
to shut down Abortion clinics and take away more of our
rights in the process.

If people choose to listen to the advertising, and choose to follow it
and get the size of Porky Pig, then are you going to advocate the
Republican way of we just pass a law banning things? Hell why
not? Let's ban sex on TV, books, flag burning, and advertising
food on TV. After all, Big Brother knows best, you know.


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.
It is being done with no help from Washington. The 2008 Farm Bill
is same ol', same ol'.

Ted

Price of corn in a box of corn flakes: 4 cents
Price of a box of corn flakes: $4
**** 'em.

People can buy the bagged corn flakes in bulk, I have done so and
they taste the same as the $4 box. Enough people do so regularly
that the bulk cornflakes are readily available in any decently sized
city. As for the rest who are buying the cardboard box, if you are
so incensed about this, then I would suggest that you take one of
your Saturday afternoons, and buy a couple bags of the bulk
cornflakes, then about 100 sandwitch bags and make up 100
little "sampler" bags of the bulk cereal, and then stand there in
the parking lot of your local grocery store and hand out samples.
With any luck you will be able to give people who have never bought
the bulk cereal a taste test of it and they may just start buying
the bulk cereal as a result.

Ted

In article ,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:

You don't actually have to remediate the land and water, you
know. At one time we didn't. People would just use the
resources until they were all gone, then move to a new place.

Slash and burn agriculture is really old fashion and not recommended
for anyone, given our fragile ecosystems. It amazes me that you post in
a gardening group yet seem to be unaware of cover crops and crop
rotation, which slow the loss of top soil and don't pollute the
environment.

Personally, I don't have time for your Newt Gingrich impersonation,
so I leave you to the ministrations of our fellow posters.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1016232.html

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.

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? 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.

...And the breakfast cereal makers spend so much money setting up a
production line to make a specific product, that it isn't profitable
unless your making large quantities.

This isn't to say that there's not a market for smaller quantities and
that co-ops don't exist. It is just that there IS a demand for quantities
of such a large scale that -only- the agribusinesses can service that
demand, that is why they exist at all.

Sorry, I just don't think you've shown that quantity is the problem,
though I value your opinion.

Isabella
--
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"
-T.S. Eliot

In article ,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
[...]
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.

You didn't read the chapter. Chem ferts kill top soil. The less top
soil, the more chem ferts, and more pollution of ground water and
fishing areas. Who pays to remediate the land and the water? The tax
payer does. It is called "privatize the profits and socialize
the costs". The price of the box is only part of the price.

You don't actually have to remediate the land and water, you
know. At one time we didn't. People would just use the
resources until they were all gone, then move to a new place.

What? When the Earth's population was only a few million? Surely you
are not defending this practice in the current timeframe?

However, nowadays people are valuing clean water and
clean land more than they used to. So now there is a cost
for those things that we didn't have before, which is now being
factored in. That is why you have to file environmental
impact statements nowadays when you want to build a factory.
They didn't require environmental impact statements when
those large farms were created years ago. So the real question
is, are we going to apply current laws retroactively?

No, I don't think that is the real question at all. Environmental laws
have been on the books for decades. Nowadays? The Clean Water Act goes
back to at least the 1960s, no? That's nearly 50 years FCOL. Since
when has it been legal to pollute and contaminate your neighbor's
property with a stinking mountain of pig or cow shit (pardon my French)
like those created by factory "farms"? What are you talking about and
how is that possibly a meaningful defense for destruction of other
people's property?

If not, then how are you going to justify taking current
environmental requirements for creating a large farm and
apply it to large farms that were created years ago?

What "environmental requirements for creating a large farm" are you
talking about? How is this even relevant? What are you talking about
when you refer to "large farms" created years ago? How many years ago?
I'm just trying to understand what you mean here. Keep in mind that the
average size farm in the 1950s was around 200 acres.
[...]

Isabella
--
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"
-T.S. Eliot

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

...
In article ,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
[...]
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.

You didn't read the chapter. Chem ferts kill top soil. The less top
soil, the more chem ferts, and more pollution of ground water and
fishing areas. Who pays to remediate the land and the water? The tax
payer does. It is called "privatize the profits and socialize
the costs". The price of the box is only part of the price.

You don't actually have to remediate the land and water, you
know. At one time we didn't. People would just use the
resources until they were all gone, then move to a new place.

What? When the Earth's population was only a few million? Surely you
are not defending this practice in the current timeframe?


I never was.

However, nowadays people are valuing clean water and
clean land more than they used to. So now there is a cost
for those things that we didn't have before, which is now being
factored in. That is why you have to file environmental
impact statements nowadays when you want to build a factory.
They didn't require environmental impact statements when
those large farms were created years ago. So the real question
is, are we going to apply current laws retroactively?

No, I don't think that is the real question at all. Environmental laws
have been on the books for decades. Nowadays? The Clean Water Act goes
back to at least the 1960s, no? That's nearly 50 years FCOL. Since
when has it been legal to pollute and contaminate your neighbor's
property with a stinking mountain of pig or cow shit (pardon my French)
like those created by factory "farms"?

You should ask Billy. He is the one that is asserting that such behavior
is legal. From his list post:

"...the more chem ferts, and more pollution of ground water and
fishing areas. Who pays to remediate the land and the water? The tax
payer does..."

YOU just said here that pollution of ground water from chem ferts is
against the Clean Water Act. If so, then Billy is full of baloney.

What are you talking about and
how is that possibly a meaningful defense for destruction of other
people's property?


You can't have it both ways. Either what the factory farms are doing
is legal or it isn't. If it is then what I said stands and your out of
order -
as I said, when the farms got going, people didn't value the environment
the way they do today. If what they are doing is -illegal- then Billy is
out of order when he rants against them, implying there's nothing we can
do.

So, make up your mind.

If not, then how are you going to justify taking current
environmental requirements for creating a large farm and
apply it to large farms that were created years ago?

What "environmental requirements for creating a large farm" are you
talking about? How is this even relevant? What are you talking about
when you refer to "large farms" created years ago? How many years ago?
I'm just trying to understand what you mean here. Keep in mind that the
average size farm in the 1950s was around 200 acres.

It has only been in the last 10 years that ranting against agribusinesses
has become fashionable due to environmental concerns. Now, farm
subsidies, that's a different matter - people have been complaining about
farmers being propped up by the government since the 70's. But before
the advent of the large agribusinesses, nobody was ranting against large
farms because, as you pointed out, they didn't exist.

Billy's problem is that he sees that large agribusinesses are bad, which
so far is true. However he is unwilling to grasp the simple fact that it
is not the agribusinesses fault that they are bad. It is the CONSUMER'S
fault.

Every time someone walks into the supermarket and picks up a box
of Frosted Flakes for their kids, instead of getting the bulk sugar corn
flakes from the bulk food bin which cost half of Frosted Flakes, they
are contributing to the problem.

If people didn't buy all of the processed food they do, then the large
food manufacturers like General Mills wouldn't be setting up large
production runs of Frosted Flakes and demanding 100 tons of
corn at a time. (or whatever it is) There would be no need for the
agribusineses and they wouldn't exist. Billy needs to be ranting and
railing against the dumb consumers not the agribusinesses.


Ted

"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

In article ,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:

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

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

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?

Non-sequitur. Irrigation is not the issue.

You didn't answer the question. Why can't co-ops comprised of many
small farms deliver large quantities of basic grains? Upon what are you
basing your opinion?

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.

You were talking about companies that *buy*--- not produce their own---
grain for making boxed cereal. Recall your own discussion about
negotiating contracts? You're changing horses in the middle of the
stream here. Please address the question.

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? Seems like a false premise to me.

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.

You are equivocating--- hiding behind an invented obstacle because you
cannot support your contention. I think you well know that no outdoor
farming entity, no matter what nomenclature you use to describe it, can
ever guarantee crops for a period of ten years.

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.

Again, you are changing terms. A long term contract is not necessarily
the same as guaranteeing a crop each year for a period of ten years.
Contract terms can be as simple as the farmer promising whatever crop he
happens to produce to the buyer at a specified price for a period of
years.

...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.

You've talked an awful lot but you have to to give a single shred of
evidence as to why farmers' co-ops can't deliver large amounts of grain.
I can only conclude your opinion here has no basis in fact.

Isabella
--
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"
-T.S. Eliot

"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:

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.

Corn is a commodity. It is sold at market prices. The only leverage a
farm has is to store its grain until the price goes up or sell futures.
Both small and large farms can take advantage of this through co-ops.
The difference is that large farms frequently don't go through a co-op
and are more apt to have their own storage facilities. Unfortunately,
the misguided idea of using food for energy with little accommodation
for supply has created high food prices and high energy prices.

Here in Pennsylvania, ethanol plants are located near coal mines since
the transportation of corn is much cheaper than the transportation of
the coal needed for ethanol production. Identical plants are used for
either gasoline additives or vodka. The agricultural industry is using
different varieties of corn for ethanol and food, so futures are very
popular.

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

This statement is grossly false in the West where many regions are only
agricultural because of irrigation and there are very large farms. When
you fly over the West you see the landscape dotted with large circles of
green where irrigation systems make agricultural regions in what is
otherwise a dessert or prairie. When I moved from the West Coast to the
East Coast, I was surprised that many farms in the East didn't even have
access to irrigation. This is standard in the West. If you buy a farm
in the West, you buy irrigation rights or the deal doesn't go through
since the farm would be worthless. In the East they cry drought and
ask for disaster assistance.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
18,000 gallon (17'x 47'x 2-4') lily pond garden in Zone 6
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA

In article ,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:

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

...
In article ,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
[...]
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.

You didn't read the chapter. Chem ferts kill top soil. The less top
soil, the more chem ferts, and more pollution of ground water and
fishing areas. Who pays to remediate the land and the water? The tax
payer does. It is called "privatize the profits and socialize
the costs". The price of the box is only part of the price.

You don't actually have to remediate the land and water, you
know. At one time we didn't. People would just use the
resources until they were all gone, then move to a new place.

What? When the Earth's population was only a few million? Surely you
are not defending this practice in the current timeframe?

I never was.

Then what exactly did you mean when you said, "You don't actually have
to remediate the land and water, you know."

However, nowadays people are valuing clean water and
clean land more than they used to. So now there is a cost
for those things that we didn't have before, which is now being
factored in. That is why you have to file environmental
impact statements nowadays when you want to build a factory.
They didn't require environmental impact statements when
those large farms were created years ago. So the real question
is, are we going to apply current laws retroactively?

No, I don't think that is the real question at all. Environmental laws
have been on the books for decades. Nowadays? The Clean Water Act goes
back to at least the 1960s, no? That's nearly 50 years FCOL. Since
when has it been legal to pollute and contaminate your neighbor's
property with a stinking mountain of pig or cow shit (pardon my French)
like those created by factory "farms"?

You should ask Billy.

No, I am responding to what *you* said, not Billy.

He is the one that is asserting that such behavior is legal.

You appear to be making a ridiculous inference but it's up to Billy to
counter that, not me.

From his list post:
"...the more chem ferts, and more pollution of ground water and
fishing areas. Who pays to remediate the land and the water? The tax
payer does..."

YOU just said here that pollution of ground water from chem ferts is
against the Clean Water Act. If so, then Billy is full of baloney.

Point to where I said that, Ted. Quote me exactly. You won't because I
said no such thing. Pardon me but if there is baloney here, it seems to
have your name on it. First you concocted a false dilemma with the
ridiculous inference (above) and then used that to draw other erroneous
conclusions. Your reasoning is circular.

What are you talking about and how is that possibly a meaningful
defense for destruction of other people's property?

You can't have it both ways.

Have what both ways? You haven't even explained yet what you were
talking about in your previous post when you said:
_______________________________________________
"However, nowadays people are valuing clean water and clean land more
than they used to. So now there is a cost for those things that we
didn't have before, which is now being factored in. That is why you
have to file environmental impact statements nowadays when you want to
build a factory. They didn't require environmental impact statements
when those large farms were created years ago. So the real question
is, are we going to apply current laws retroactively?"
________________________________________________

Let me see if I can simplify this by asking how applying laws
retroactively is relevant. There isn't anything about that in Billy's
article which, essentially, contests the idea that bigger farms are
better. I cited the Clean Water Act, in response to your assertion
about retroactivity, because it's been around for nearly 50 years. Many
communities have statutes on the books going back a lot farther than
that. It's why most cities don't have outbreaks of cholera and typhoid
fever anymore--- not for at least 100 years anyway. I'd call that a
pretty long time of caring about clean water. Wouldn't you? So I
don't understand either what kind of timeline you're talking about when
you say "retroactive" or how that is even relevant to the quoted article
or anything I said.

...Either what the factory farms are doing is legal or it isn't. If it
is then what I said stands and your out of order - as I said, when
the farms got going, people didn't value the environment the way they
do today. If what they are doing is -illegal- then Billy is out of
order when he rants against them, implying there's nothing we can do.
So, make up your mind.

Sorry Ted, but I think you are maybe attributing to me things I've never
said. I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are talking about
(which is why I keep asking you to clarify!). Are you talking about my
remark about the mountains of pig and cow shit? I cited that example in
response to your assertion that the real question is "are we going to
apply current laws retroactively?"

I think you are wrong about that. I do not think that applying current
laws retroactively is the real issue here. Factory farms are relatively
new. They came way after most of the environmental laws. So I don't
understand how retroactivity came into the picture or even how that
relates to the main thrust of the quoted article which is that bigger is
not necessarily best in terms of farm size.

If not, then how are you going to justify taking current
environmental requirements for creating a large farm and
apply it to large farms that were created years ago?

What "environmental requirements for creating a large farm" are you
talking about? How is this even relevant? What are you talking about
when you refer to "large farms" created years ago? How many years ago?
I'm just trying to understand what you mean here. Keep in mind that the
average size farm in the 1950s was around 200 acres.

It has only been in the last 10 years that ranting against agribusinesses
has become fashionable due to environmental concerns. Now, farm
subsidies, that's a different matter - people have been complaining about
farmers being propped up by the government since the 70's. But before
the advent of the large agribusinesses, nobody was ranting against large
farms because, as you pointed out, they didn't exist.

Wait just a minute; you are sidestepping again with more balderdash.
Once more, you failed to explain yourself. Can you not answer a direct
question? To reiterate, What "environmental requirements for creating
a large farm" are you talking about? I don't recall ever having heard
of such a thing! That sounds pretty strange to me. To reiterate, what
are you talking about when you refer to "large farms" created years ago?
How many years ago and, for that matter, how large?

Billy's problem is that he sees that large agribusinesses are bad, which
so far is true. However he is unwilling to grasp the simple fact that it
is not the agribusinesses fault that they are bad. It is the CONSUMER'S
fault.

I am not here to discuss Billy. Defend your other assertions.

Every time someone walks into the supermarket and picks up a box
of Frosted Flakes for their kids, instead of getting the bulk sugar corn
flakes from the bulk food bin which cost half of Frosted Flakes, they
are contributing to the problem.

Yes, I can agree with you here that overly processed foods are huge part
of the more general American food industry problem. When they have to
add something to a food-like product to make it "more nutritious", that
is the first really bad sign. I can honestly say that I never, ever fed
my children any cereal coated with sugar. My opinion is that most
so-called convenience foods are a contrivance of marketers to make more
money by marketing to children or by refining valuable nutrients out of
real food. Why sell a quart of real apple juice when you can sell a
quart of only 10% apple juice and 90% water + HFCS for an even higher
price and still call it "apple juice"?

If people didn't buy all of the processed food they do, then the large
food manufacturers like General Mills wouldn't be setting up large
production runs of Frosted Flakes and demanding 100 tons of
corn at a time. (or whatever it is) There would be no need for the
agribusineses and they wouldn't exist. Billy needs to be ranting and
railing against the dumb consumers not the agribusinesses.

Let me defend the consumer. How "dumb" are consumers who buy boxes of
incredibly sugared cereals that have the American Heart Association logo
on them, Ted? How dumb are consumers who, for decades, have based their
meals on the "USDA" dictated food pyramid, therefore consuming a diet
vastly overloaded with carbohydrates and starches? How dumb are
consumers who buy a box of anything that our government allows to say "0
transfats" when it actually has significant amounts of the same? I
could go on and on.

My point is that you can't put this all on the consumer's back. Our own
government and agencies that are supposed to be working for us have
allowed industry to defraud the public at an ever-increasing rate.

Isabella
--
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"
-T.S. Eliot