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

Last night reading in bed with my sweetie, & the window wide open, two
bats flew in the bedroom and zoomed round and round near the ceiling! For
four or five minutes we and an equally delighted chihuahua watched them
swooping about like two pieces of velvet in an updraft, flitting &
fluttering, until finally they went back out the window. More fun to watch
than House or Smallville!

-paghat the batgirl
--
visit my temperate gardening website:
http://www.paghat.com
visit my film reviews website:
http://www.weirdwildrealm.com

"paghat" wrote in message
...
Last night reading in bed with my sweetie, & the window wide open, two
bats flew in the bedroom and zoomed round and round near the ceiling! For
four or five minutes we and an equally delighted chihuahua watched them
swooping about like two pieces of velvet in an updraft, flitting &
fluttering, until finally they went back out the window. More fun to watch
than House or Smallville!

-paghat the batgirl
--
visit my temperate gardening website:
http://www.paghat.com
visit my film reviews website:
http://www.weirdwildrealm.com

Most people have screens on their windows these days.

paghat wrote:
Last night reading in bed with my sweetie, & the window wide open, two
bats flew in the bedroom and zoomed round and round near the ceiling! For
four or five minutes we and an equally delighted chihuahua watched them
swooping about like two pieces of velvet in an updraft, flitting &
fluttering, until finally they went back out the window. More fun to watch
than House or Smallville!

-paghat the batgirl


Be careful - they can carry rabies. I know a doctor in Pittsburgh that
had one fly down on her and scratch her leg in a hospital parking lot.
She had to undergo the rabies shots.

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

Jangchub said:


On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:16:46 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:


Be careful - they can carry rabies. I know a doctor in Pittsburgh that
had one fly down on her and scratch her leg in a hospital parking lot.
She had to undergo the rabies shots.

As Paghat was awake and aware, that's not an issue with this particular
incident.


How many cases of rabies from bats have there been in the last 40
years?

The most recent case of human rabies in Michigan (1983) is believed to
have been the result of a bat bite.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000052.htm

Bats are the animal most frequently diagnosed with rabies in the state of Michigan.


http://www.michigan.gov/images/emerg...p_238906_7.jpg

I just recently an article about rabies in my morning paper. There is a nationwide
shortage of human rabies vaccine.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...WS05/809070490

From the article:
"Michigan bats have tiny teeth that may not leave a bite mark, said Shane Bies,
an epidemiologist with the Oakland County Health Division.

"'A sleeping individual may not be able to tell they were bitten. Or they may
think it's an insect bite,' Bies said.

"'We want people to call their local animal-control office or police department'
with the goal of catching the animal and having it tested, he said."
........

If you *wake up* with a bat in the room, the last thing you should want
to dois shoo it out the window. In that case, the Health Department would
recommend the full series of shots. If the bat is submitted for testing and is
negative, you can avoid that.

According to the Organization for Bat Conservation:
"As long as the bat never touches anyone, there is no need to worry
about transmitting any diseases or viruses. The Center for Disease Control
recommends that anyone that comes in direct, unprotected, contact with
wild mammals should receive rabies post-exposure treatment from a
health-care provider, if the animal is not able to be caught and tested.
Rabies post-exposure treatment should also be administered in situations
in which there is a reasonable probability that such contact occurred (e.g.,
a sleeping person awakes to find a bat in the room or an adult witnesses a
bat in the room with a previously unattended child, mentally disabled person,
or an intoxicated person)."

http://www.batconservation.org/content/Batproblems.html



--
Pat in Plymouth MI ('someplace.net' is comcast)

After enlightenment, the laundry.

The CDC says there are 2 to 3 human rabies cases every year
http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/epidemiology.html

There have been 28 cases since 1995.

-dickm



On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:51:01 -0500, Jangchub
wrote:

In other words, one noted case in 25 years.



On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:03:49 -0400, Pat Kiewicz
wrote:

Jangchub said:


On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:16:46 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:


Be careful - they can carry rabies. I know a doctor in Pittsburgh that
had one fly down on her and scratch her leg in a hospital parking lot.
She had to undergo the rabies shots.

As Paghat was awake and aware, that's not an issue with this particular
incident.


How many cases of rabies from bats have there been in the last 40
years?

The most recent case of human rabies in Michigan (1983) is believed to
have been the result of a bat bite.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000052.htm

Bats are the animal most frequently diagnosed with rabies in the state of Michigan.


http://www.michigan.gov/images/emerg...p_238906_7.jpg

I just recently an article about rabies in my morning paper. There is a nationwide
shortage of human rabies vaccine.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...WS05/809070490

From the article:
"Michigan bats have tiny teeth that may not leave a bite mark, said Shane Bies,
an epidemiologist with the Oakland County Health Division.

"'A sleeping individual may not be able to tell they were bitten. Or they may
think it's an insect bite,' Bies said.

"'We want people to call their local animal-control office or police department'
with the goal of catching the animal and having it tested, he said."
.......

If you *wake up* with a bat in the room, the last thing you should want
to dois shoo it out the window. In that case, the Health Department would
recommend the full series of shots. If the bat is submitted for testing and is
negative, you can avoid that.

According to the Organization for Bat Conservation:
"As long as the bat never touches anyone, there is no need to worry
about transmitting any diseases or viruses. The Center for Disease Control
recommends that anyone that comes in direct, unprotected, contact with
wild mammals should receive rabies post-exposure treatment from a
health-care provider, if the animal is not able to be caught and tested.
Rabies post-exposure treatment should also be administered in situations
in which there is a reasonable probability that such contact occurred (e.g.,
a sleeping person awakes to find a bat in the room or an adult witnesses a
bat in the room with a previously unattended child, mentally disabled person,
or an intoxicated person)."

http://www.batconservation.org/content/Batproblems.html
Victoria

"If the present and the future
were contingent on the past,
then the present and the future
would have existed in the past."

-Lama Tsongkhapa

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

But that link also says this is down from a 100 per year earlier in
the century.

"In this century, the number of human deaths in the United States
attributed to rabies has declined from 100 or more each year to an
average of 2 or 3 each year. Two programs have been responsible for
this decline. First, animal control and vaccination programs begun in
the 1940's and oral rabies vaccination programs in the 2000’s have
eliminated domestic dogs as reservoirs of rabies in the United States.
Second, effective human rabies vaccines and immunolglobins have been
developed "

So while you're right, now a days you stand a better chance of getting
struck by lightning, it's only because of an effective & active
ongoing re & post infection vaccination program.

That link also says that if you have contact with a bat, there's a 24%
probability it's rabid. I'm not sure I want to play those odds.

In my county, they've identified 16 rabid bats so far this year. An
all time record.

-dickm

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:42:44 -0500, Jangchub
wrote:

Okay, so let's see...country with three hundred million and counting
humans, there have been 28 cases since 1995...I'd venture to guess
most of those were dumb humans seeing a sick animal and trying to pet
it or touch it. So, if a percentage of those were directly caused by
human stupidity, what does that leave us? You have a better chance of
being raped, killed, hit by a train, die in a car accident, from
disease caused by sexual contact, and any number of human diseases
which end in death.

Thank you for the link.





On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:00:50 -0500, dicko
wrote:


The CDC says there are 2 to 3 human rabies cases every year
http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/epidemiology.html

There have been 28 cases since 1995.

-dickm



On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:51:01 -0500, Jangchub
wrote:

In other words, one noted case in 25 years.



On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:03:49 -0400, Pat Kiewicz
wrote:

Jangchub said:


On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:16:46 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:


Be careful - they can carry rabies. I know a doctor in Pittsburgh that
had one fly down on her and scratch her leg in a hospital parking lot.
She had to undergo the rabies shots.

As Paghat was awake and aware, that's not an issue with this particular
incident.


How many cases of rabies from bats have there been in the last 40
years?

The most recent case of human rabies in Michigan (1983) is believed to
have been the result of a bat bite.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000052.htm

Bats are the animal most frequently diagnosed with rabies in the state of Michigan.


http://www.michigan.gov/images/emerg...p_238906_7.jpg

I just recently an article about rabies in my morning paper. There is a nationwide
shortage of human rabies vaccine.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...WS05/809070490

From the article:
"Michigan bats have tiny teeth that may not leave a bite mark, said Shane Bies,
an epidemiologist with the Oakland County Health Division.

"'A sleeping individual may not be able to tell they were bitten. Or they may
think it's an insect bite,' Bies said.

"'We want people to call their local animal-control office or police department'
with the goal of catching the animal and having it tested, he said."
.......

If you *wake up* with a bat in the room, the last thing you should want
to dois shoo it out the window. In that case, the Health Department would
recommend the full series of shots. If the bat is submitted for testing and is
negative, you can avoid that.

According to the Organization for Bat Conservation:
"As long as the bat never touches anyone, there is no need to worry
about transmitting any diseases or viruses. The Center for Disease Control
recommends that anyone that comes in direct, unprotected, contact with
wild mammals should receive rabies post-exposure treatment from a
health-care provider, if the animal is not able to be caught and tested.
Rabies post-exposure treatment should also be administered in situations
in which there is a reasonable probability that such contact occurred (e.g.,
a sleeping person awakes to find a bat in the room or an adult witnesses a
bat in the room with a previously unattended child, mentally disabled person,
or an intoxicated person)."

http://www.batconservation.org/content/Batproblems.html
Victoria

"If the present and the future
were contingent on the past,
then the present and the future
would have existed in the past."

-Lama Tsongkhapa

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/
Victoria

"If the present and the future
were contingent on the past,
then the present and the future
would have existed in the past."

-Lama Tsongkhapa

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
Okay, so let's see...country with three hundred million and counting
humans, there have been 28 cases since 1995...I'd venture to guess

You must weigh also the incidents of rabies against mosquito born
diseases prevented by bats.

Gary

Jangchub wrote:
Okay, so let's see...country with three hundred million and counting
humans, there have been 28 cases since 1995...I'd venture to guess
most of those were dumb humans seeing a sick animal and trying to pet
it or touch it. So, if a percentage of those were directly caused by
human stupidity, what does that leave us? You have a better chance of
being raped, killed, hit by a train, die in a car accident, from
disease caused by sexual contact, and any number of human diseases
which end in death.

Thank you for the link.




Sure, but why take chances. Rabies is endemic around here and I suspect
most people would not think of bats as a vector.

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

Take a look...

http://www.cdc.gov/RABIES/

When someone says "bats" & an hysteric cries "rabies!" it strikes me as
rather tragic and symptomatic of the envirophobia that causes too many
humans to live amidst concrete and steel herbiciding every plant and
poisoning every animal, while all wilderness areas are under attack by
human perfidy, greed, ignorance, fear...

Take all the rabies deaths in humans that tested out as bat rabies since
1951 to 2008, it's 51 cases total, so less than one a year. Four of these,
or approximately 8%, were contracted from organ transplants, so worry
about that if you get a new cornea or a lung. Three cases were spelunkers
who regularly entered caves heavily populated by bats.

So statistically you're 25% more likely to die of bat rabies from
transplantation surgery than if you regularly explore caves filled with
bats.

Or, every time you get in your car you are way over 40,000 times more
likely to die, than you are to get rabies of any kind.

If that doesn't convey the abject absurdity of this fear, then we're not
dealing with rational humans at all. A healthy-acting wild animal is not
liable to be rabid, and anyone who tries to catch a sickly wild animal is
doing the right thing by cleaning up the human gene pool of just such
idiots as themselves.

The species in the United States most apt to be rabid is the racoon. Of
proven incidents of animal rabies each year, 50% are racooons, 8% to 10%
are domestic animals. Even though far more people encounter rabid racoons
than rabid bats, the average annual number of raccoon rabies in humans for
the last 50 years is zero.

Others with common sense WILL have bat boxes in their garden, and will NOT
be scared shitless when they realize those boxes on poles or in trees in
many public parks are for bats, which are a benificial part of the
environment & should in every way be encouraged.

-paghat the ratgirl
--
visit my temperate gardening website:
http://www.paghat.com
visit my film reviews website:
http://www.weirdwildrealm.com