A cheap and reliable food supply

**Ross** · #**261** 07/12/10, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie

It's cheap, but I would disagree that it's reliable. It's only about fifty years old and hasn't been stressed yet. It's like a mountain climber's rope that hasn't been up the mountain. You don't know you can depend upon it until you've hung there with only death below.

I'm assuming we're talking about the corporate agricultural system, both the large factory farms and then the "independent" farmers who subsist on government subsidies and live in thrall to Cargill.

I have book after book that shows statistics but numbers don't wake people up.

Drive through the rural countryside and count the new barns. Count them. I'll be surprised if you see as many as 3 every 100 miles. What you'll see is decrepit old barns ready to fall down and cornfields planted right up to the doorstep of aged old farmhouses. You'll see suburbs where there used to be food production.

Go down to the local bait and tackle shop in your small rural town and see how many old farmers are gathered around a table drinking coffee at 9am in the morning. Ask them where their sons are. I'll be surprised if 1 in 5 of them tells you that their sons are farming.

Go to your local supermarket and take an eyeball at the produce. Look at the labels where it's from.

Do you want to know a little known fact? Its the disappearing farmers that motivates me to share what I know with the last people interested in rural living and hopefully farming. You're absolutely correct Ernie.

Heritagefarm · #**262** 07/12/10, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treasureacres

The FACT is that we will not change our habits until we are forced to. PERIOD. You need to look past the edge of your farm and realize that the WORLD depends on these big farmers to eat. Due to current world population this is the only system that will work. In my opinion, it would be cruel to let people around the world starve when we have the capability to feed them. We, as small producers, need to keep promoting eating local grown produce and meat the best we can and expose more and more people to it. But we are only one option for food, and right now we are the most expensive option so it is a harder sell. Cost is not the only factor though. Time. People do not want to take the time to prepare and home cook meal like the good old days. It is much easier to stop at a fast food joint or get frozen meals from the grocery store and throw them in the oven. Both of these food choices are made from low cost, mass produced, ingredients and many preservetives, but it is cheap and quick!

So what you are saying is that we indeed have the capacity to change.

treasureacres · #**263** 07/12/10, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

So what you are saying is that we indeed have the capacity to change.

I think we all have the capacity to change, but usually it takes a catastrophic event for us to make huge changes like what you are proposing. Education is not enough because for the majority of people it will still come back to cost and convenience , and if you look at our society, that will be almost impossible to change.

bruce2288 · #**264** 07/12/10, 06:04 PM

I will post before I read the last page, or should I get ring side seats for the death match? Rodale institute, I used to get their magazine, loved it a lot of great ideas, many of which have been incorporated by conventional ag. I ask this question. Do you think Rodale is without bias? Some take their findings as fact and use peer review as proof. OK. The evil monsanto also has scentific studies peer reviewed, do you take those as fact. They also have a bias.
I find it interesting that many promoteing organic, have no experience trying to make a living from the land, but have read a bunch of articles. Note I did not say raise a garden or have a few hobby livestock, I said make a LIVING farming.
The following will be backed by my own experience of farming for 30 years and a degree in biology. There is not an actual farmer (one who actually sits on the tractor seat or tends the livestock) today who would not love to quit applying fertilizer or pesticides. Why? It costs money and takes time. When the greenbugs are sucking your milo dry, you apply an insectide or loose the crop. If rust is destroying your wheat crop you apply a fungicide. Stop all fertilizeing and possibly cut your crop in half. Those are the realities of farming. I know a bit about organic methods and have tried some and lost a fair bit of money doing some things. I do rotate crops, not like I used too. You can not afford equipment to do everything. I mostly raise cattle and sheep now, I rotate between 10 pastures, some sudan and turnips. I have been renting out the land I would rotate to corn as the risk of planting a crop and not getting a good yeild or low prices is better left to the renter in my operation. I will unequivically state this as fact without any references. Converting to an entirely organic agricultural system, mass world wide famine would be the result. The worlds population has grown with modern production agriculture and by-passed the carrying capacity of organic. If, when oil is unavailable we will fface that fact and better prepare. Which can be done to transform individually but not to provide for every human on earth today.
A couple other comments, the buffaloe worked because nothing left the system, they died on the prairie, the predators, wolves or people that killed them shat and died on the same prairie. Nutrients were recycled not removed. If my cattle are eaten in New York the nutrients never get back to this land. Buying mineral, mined in some distant region is a way to replace some of those nutrients.

Wanda · #**265** 07/12/10, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

OK, everyone who has said huge farms are essential to feed the millions, read this:

I have calculated, and we have 7.4 acres for every person in the united states. After I take away the 650 mil that the gov owns, we have 5.5 acres per person. That is more than sufficient for every person to grow their own food. Then, though, we have to find out how much cities take up...

Find a family in a major city and match them up with there 5.5 acres to grow food. Where will the land be located and how will they get to it daily to take care of there crops? Now do this a few million more times and you will have a good start for a solution! When you lay out these parcels how are you going to give access to the plots without taking a tremendous part out of of production for roads paths, parking ect? This will just be the tip of the iceberg.

Heritagefarm · #**266** 07/12/10, 06:32 PM

That was not my point, my point was that we have enough land to farm on smaller scales that we do not need mega farms.

Heritagefarm · #**267** 07/12/10, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruce2288

I will post before I read the last page, or should I get ring side seats for the death match? Rodale institute, I used to get their magazine, loved it a lot of great ideas, many of which have been incorporated by conventional ag. I ask this question. Do you think Rodale is without bias? Some take their findings as fact and use peer review as proof. OK. The evil monsanto also has scentific studies peer reviewed, do you take those as fact. They also have a bias.
I find it interesting that many promoteing organic, have no experience trying to make a living from the land, but have read a bunch of articles. Note I did not say raise a garden or have a few hobby livestock, I said make a LIVING farming.
The following will be backed by my own experience of farming for 30 years and a degree in biology. There is not an actual farmer (one who actually sits on the tractor seat or tends the livestock) today who would not love to quit applying fertilizer or pesticides. Why? It costs money and takes time. When the greenbugs are sucking your milo dry, you apply an insectide or loose the crop. If rust is destroying your wheat crop you apply a fungicide. Stop all fertilizeing and possibly cut your crop in half. Those are the realities of farming. I know a bit about organic methods and have tried some and lost a fair bit of money doing some things. I do rotate crops, not like I used too. You can not afford equipment to do everything. I mostly raise cattle and sheep now, I rotate between 10 pastures, some sudan and turnips. I have been renting out the land I would rotate to corn as the risk of planting a crop and not getting a good yeild or low prices is better left to the renter in my operation. I will unequivically state this as fact without any references. Converting to an entirely organic agricultural system, mass world wide famine would be the result. The worlds population has grown with modern production agriculture and by-passed the carrying capacity of organic. If, when oil is unavailable we will fface that fact and better prepare. Which can be done to transform individually but not to provide for every human on earth today.
A couple other comments, the buffaloe worked because nothing left the system, they died on the prairie, the predators, wolves or people that killed them shat and died on the same prairie. Nutrients were recycled not removed. If my cattle are eaten in New York the nutrients never get back to this land. Buying mineral, mined in some distant region is a way to replace some of those nutrients.

All I have is one question: Why try to feed the millions? The US produces far more food than it can consume. I personally am not going to change from organic to conventional, when so far organic is working just fine, so that I can feed the millions and they live on my cheap food that cargill and ADM and the rest process and make a killing off of.

bruce2288 · #**268** 07/12/10, 06:53 PM

You don't have to feed the millions. I said this can be done individually. I just stated it would result in mass starvation. I guess let em die?

MrCalicoty · #**269** 07/12/10, 07:25 PM

I wonder if USA farmers (large and small) aren't in a good position in the future when oil prices go up from, say, $2.75/gal at the present to $5 or more? If we're feeding the world then a hungry global population will spend whatever it takes to feed themselves.

It's not necessarily a rosey scenario for ANYONE because that means prices will skyrocket for all of us. But those of us who CAN grow their own food may not feel as much of the pain.

I believe that we're entering a time where oil is about to jump very high. If oil is in short supply we'll see rationing by the government. That rationing will go to at least three main areas: Ensuring the government is stable, Military purposes, and large scale farming.

What say you?

arabian knight · #**270** 07/12/10, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

All I have is one question: Why try to feed the millions? The US produces far more food than it can consume. I personally am not going to change from organic to conventional, when so far organic is working just fine, so that I can feed the millions and they live on my cheap food that cargill and ADM and the rest process and make a killing off of.

For YOU Fine leave it at that it IS working for YOU and what you are doing. But it will not work nation wide for the whole country to switch it just won't. Too many people now in the USA. This is the 21st Century, where science and chemistry works for the huge farms going organic for THEM will not work.
Nobody is saying what YOU are doing is wrong. Just that on that small a scale, it works for you, but will not when taking in the big picture as America feeds so many, and has been doing so now for years, and those people depend on it.
Nobody wants to starve off those folks now do ya?
You ask WHY we feed them. Cause this is a Christ like Country, and it IS the Christian thing to do.

oneokie · #**271** 07/12/10, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

Well, maybe you should, because all I've seen you do is disagree.

I have been playing the devils advocate with the OP. The majority of the links she? has posted are to the same Rodale article. I still stand by my junk science opinion of that. When the information is cherry picked from the base data and only that presented it presents a slanted/biased case.

It doesn't have to be, nor is it. The idea that everything will fix itself is wrong, and unless we the people change our motives, the country is in for it. We don't DEMAND conventional food, we just buy it. No one DEMANDS GMO food, they just buy it, because most people don't even know what GMO is. No one DEMANDS stuff be made in China.
We Must Be The Change We Want To See. It does no good to say "I wish people would eat organic" and then buy a bag of doritos. Similarly, it does no good to say "I know that what I'm doing is bad for me, you and the planet, I know this pesticide is toxic, this fertilizer is killing fish in the Gulf and my soil is about to go bankrupt, but I'm going to keep doing this because I make money doing it."

Others have addressed that statement already.

.....

Heritagefarm · #**272** 07/12/10, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian knight

For YOU Fine leave it at that it IS working for YOU and what you are doing. But it will not work nation wide for the whole country to switch it just won't. Too many people now in the USA. This is the 21st Century, where science and chemistry works for the huge farms going organic for THEM will not work.
Nobody is saying what YOU are doing is wrong. Just that on that small a scale, it works for you, but will not when taking in the big picture as America feeds so many, and has been doing so now for years, and those people depend on it.
Nobody wants to starve off those folks now do ya?
You ask WHY we feed them. Cause this is a Christ like Country, and it IS the Christian thing to do.

All right. Then at the very, very least, lets do better tests on GMOs and pesticides, by labs NOT paid off by big companies.
EDIT: It is the Christian thing to grow food in a way that is abusive to the land? I'm sorry, but that's backwards.

Now, we seem to have been talking about factory-farmed grains. Let's go to the meats. Factory farmed animals are even worse on the land than produce. They are kept in areas too small to actually live, and are pumped full of antibiotics to force them to stay alive. Chickens for eggs are kept in small cages, and they often are missing a large amount of their feathers. They also are pumped full of antibiotics. Salmonella? If the cookies dough has our eggs in it, I'll eat. Store eggs - no way. Store meat is packaged in plastic, which is bad, and with CO, and nitrites, which are highly carcinogenic. Who knows where the meat itself came from? MO? KS? OR? Maybe 2 cuts in the same package from OR and MO? Maybe I'm buying a cut from a cow raised a mile away, maybe a thousand. The factory-farmed meat industry is cruel, unsustainable and highly unnecessary. And these are not words coming from a hippie - I've done a lot of research of factory farmed meat, and it thoroughly scares me, WAY more, WAY more than any giant cornfield.

Patt · #**273** 07/12/10, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treasureacres

The FACT is that we will not change our habits until we are forced to. PERIOD. You need to look past the edge of your farm and realize that the WORLD depends on these big farmers to eat. Due to current world population this is the only system that will work. In my opinion, it would be cruel to let people around the world starve when we have the capability to feed them. We, as small producers, need to keep promoting eating local grown produce and meat the best we can and expose more and more people to it. But we are only one option for food, and right now we are the most expensive option so it is a harder sell. Cost is not the only factor though. Time. People do not want to take the time to prepare and home cook meal like the good old days. It is much easier to stop at a fast food joint or get frozen meals from the grocery store and throw them in the oven. Both of these food choices are made from low cost, mass produced, ingredients and many preservetives, but it is cheap and quick!

You really don't have any idea what we are actually doing to the rest of the world do you? We have destroyed their food economies. We aren't feeding them we are starving them.

Patt · #**274** 07/12/10, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCalicoty

I wonder if USA farmers (large and small) aren't in a good position in the future when oil prices go up from, say, $2.75/gal at the present to $5 or more? If we're feeding the world then a hungry global population will spend whatever it takes to feed themselves.

It's not necessarily a rosey scenario for ANYONE because that means prices will skyrocket for all of us. But those of us who CAN grow their own food may not feel as much of the pain.

I believe that we're entering a time where oil is about to jump very high. If oil is in short supply we'll see rationing by the government. That rationing will go to at least three main areas: Ensuring the government is stable, Military purposes, and large scale farming.

What say you?

I would tend to agree with you. In order for the government to stay in control they would have to make sure those three get supplied first and foremost. I also believe we will see prices continue to move upwards slowly but surely. Anyone who thinks our current methods of high oil input agriculture and cheap food shipping are going to last forever are in trouble.

texican · #**275** 07/12/10, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

Well, the fact is, we have millions of acres sitting idle that could very easily have small gardens put on them. We have no need for these huge unsustainable farms.

I totally agree. Let's have the millions getting their unlimited unemployment checks, and the sixty million or so on foodstamps, out there working that land, from sunup till sundown, busting their chops, breaking the ground, plowing, planting, weeding, and harvesting. Keep the oversight down to a minimum, and anyone not in a wheelchair or obviously infirmed must work, or get off relief.

Chances of your idea or mine reaching fruition? Less than zero. Unless the country, along with civilization falls, and famine becomes the rule, not just a curiosity, it's not going to happen. Get an unemployed machinist or IT person out all day in the sun, hoeing weeds? An overweight Oprah watching land whale squashing tater bugs?

Nothing wrong with ideas, but without proper 'enthusiasm', nothing is going to change. If wishes were fishes...

Only solution I can see to get from where we are to where some want to be... is hunger. Real rib gnawing hunger... rumors of cannibalism kind of hunger...

sgl42 · #**276** 07/12/10, 11:37 PM

first, it's possible for organic and conventional to coexist side by side, just like it's doing now. (altho i fear if GMO crops pollinate non-GMO crops, then coexisting systems may not be possible.)

second, statements such as "people don't want to cook" may be true for the US, but when you're talking about "feeding the world" in the same sentence, i doubt that statement is true for the entire world.

third, there's also been a conscious strategy for several decades within the US to encourage "get big or get out" in domestic farming. and today, there are very few farmers that can fully support themselves entirely from farming; as i understand it, most either have an off-farm job themselves, or a spouse with an off-farm job. so saying "you can't support yourself with an organic farm" may be true, but it's mostly true for conventional farmer also, and hence not much of a revelation.

fourth, i think there has been a conscious US strategy to use subsidies, ag products and the IMF to co-opt developing countries from being food-independent, and make them dependent on selling a few cash crops on the world market and using that to pay for food imports for the population. if those cash crops fail one year, or world prices drop, then they go hungry. and many crop prices can be manipulated by speculators in the commodity markets.

the US uses subsidies for US farmers to export, encourages in various ways for countries to lower tariffs to allow US ag products in the country. this then wipes out the local producers. the US and IMF then gives loans to get them focused on a single commodity, eg coffee, and use the income from coffee to pay for food imports that they use to have local farmers producing for their own country.

then, if the coffee crop fails, or if worldwide coffee production is high and the price drops, then they don't have sufficient income to pay back the IMF loans, or to import enough food to feed their populous. (i'll leave it to you to decide how much influence you think goldman sachs has on world commodity prices, and how benevolent they are.)

so now, after a few decades of this policy, saying "we have to do it this way because it's the only way to feed the world" is a bit of a misunderstanding of how and why we've arrived at the current global ag system, and how the "old" system, had it not been disassembled over the last few decades, might have worked.

--sgl

bruce2288 · #**277** 07/13/10, 01:40 AM

the old system has been dissasembled. Government policies have had an infruence, economics have had an influence, mostly peoples choices have caused this. Families do not want to peel potatoes for a meal, simmer a sauce for an hour. They want to open a can or through a premade meal in a micrwave. Families do not want to cook or garden they want to have a job so they can go to the lake every weekend with their new boat. Majority of shoppers can not be bothered to go to the farmers market, they want to go to the store and buy everything in one place. People started moving from the farms to cities long before herbicides and GMO were in existance. Why a better living , more cash. Choices people made. Mechanization was the big factor in expanded farm size. you could farm more ground with a tractor than horses. The people who think the good old days of farm were like the waltons need to talk to an old timer. My uncle would harness and feed the horses then eat breakfast, walk behind driving a team until noon.
Water and rub down that team. Harness the afternoon team eat dinner and walk behind the team all afternoon. Take care of horses, tend other lives stock. No TV, no phones, no AC. Ask those guys if tractors, herbicides and modern hybrid seed made their life any better. Maybe it was a better way to live but the vast majority of Americans (farmers included) do not want to go back to that. Nor do we want to go back to polio, never seeing a mountain or the ocean unless you were born there, only eating canned beef in the summer because of lack of refrigeration, having an orange at christmas because it was a treat,dieing young from a multitude of simple diseases that are treatable today. Gee think of all the coal that would not have to be mined if everyone quit using their computer. We could also hire at least one more person in every business to keep written books. Technology can be a blessing or a curse, it seems to me many decide the technology they espouse is a blessing and what they do not approve of is a curse. I wish everything was that black and white for me.

**ladycat** · #**278** 07/13/10, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruce2288

the old system has been dissasembled. Government policies have had an infruence, economics have had an influence, mostly peoples choices have caused this. Families do not want to peel potatoes for a meal, simmer a sauce for an hour. They want to open a can or through a premade meal in a micrwave. Families do not want to cook or garden they want to have a job so they can go to the lake every weekend with their new boat. Majority of shoppers can not be bothered to go to the farmers market, they want to go to the store and buy everything in one place. People started moving from the farms to cities long before herbicides and GMO were in existance. Why a better living , more cash. Choices people made. Mechanization was the big factor in expanded farm size. you could farm more ground with a tractor than horses. The people who think the good old days of farm were like the waltons need to talk to an old timer. My uncle would harness and feed the horses then eat breakfast, walk behind driving a team until noon.
Water and rub down that team. Harness the afternoon team eat dinner and walk behind the team all afternoon. Take care of horses, tend other lives stock. No TV, no phones, no AC. Ask those guys if tractors, herbicides and modern hybrid seed made their life any better. Maybe it was a better way to live but the vast majority of Americans (farmers included) do not want to go back to that. Nor do we want to go back to polio, never seeing a mountain or the ocean unless you were born there, only eating canned beef in the summer because of lack of refrigeration, having an orange at christmas because it was a treat,dieing young from a multitude of simple diseases that are treatable today. Gee think of all the coal that would not have to be mined if everyone quit using their computer. We could also hire at least one more person in every business to keep written books. Technology can be a blessing or a curse, it seems to me many decide the technology they espouse is a blessing and what they do not approve of is a curse. I wish everything was that black and white for me.

Why do people equate organic with farming methods of old?

Not to mention I think people confuse the terms "organic" with "sustainable".

NOBODY is suggesting we return to the way things used to be done. That's just plain silly.

And ya know what? 100 years, 200 years ago, the farming that was done wasn't what we now call organic. Read the real old farming publications and you'll see the chemicals they used on crops LONG before modern pesticides and fertilizers.

They also used to use all sorts of harmful substances indoors, like painting the bedroom walls with mercury to keep the bedbugs away.

Let's stop this nonsense of thinking that organic proponents want to return to the ways of our grandfathers. Our grandfathers didn't know squat about a lot of things that could have made life easier.

Let's instead talk about sustainablility- the MODERN way.

Heritagefarm · #**279** 07/13/10, 08:07 AM

Sustainability is the capacity to endure. In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. For humans it is the potential for long-term maintenance of well being, which in turn depends on the well being of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

haypoint · #**280** 07/13/10, 08:18 AM

I've done my own survey and have a solution.
I grew three tomato plants in 5 gal pails. I used soil from composted leaves from the city park and pails from the bakery. The seeds are open pollenated that I saved from last year. I picked the bugs off by hand.
I picked a bushel of tomatos from these three plants. I drove to the local Farmers Market and sat in the hot sun for an hour, selling my tomatos for $7.00. After I paid for the fuel that got me there, I made a dollar. I figure I made about 33 cents per square foot from my "garden".
If every farmer would raise 40 acres of tomatos, they can earn over four million US dollars a year. It is true, I've seen it work, I have grown three tomato plants.

We feel so smug when we use the manure from someone else or plow down a cover crop grown from seeds grown by big ag. Call it sustainable and organic and feel one with the earth.