A cheap and reliable food supply

Heritagefarm · #21 07/04/10, 06:21 PM

And all this is happening because people are getting too lazy to do stuff themselves. It's all a Me, Me, Me society.

sleeping_gecko · #22 07/04/10, 06:22 PM

Is it a good thing? I'd say no.

Is it a necessity? I'd say certainly not.

I'd even say it's not actually cheap (as others have pointed out).

In effect, many (perhaps most) of our fellow Americans have lost the ability to feed themselves.

Here comes a long, rambly post. Be warned.

Someone mentioned education. I think that can help, but only insofar as people apply that education. For example, I had health classes in school, and classes in general integrating health information (including nutrition) from k-college. I still have terrible habits of eating junk food, but I'm working on it (motivated by our budget :P ).

I've never thought of this stuff until recently, despite having the dream of homesteading since early in high school, but the current situation makes NO LOGICAL SENSE!

In my town (Terre Haute, Indiana), in the late 1920's, the vast majority of food consumed in Terre Haute was raised (and, if applicable, processed) within something like 100 miles of Terre Haute. There were over 400 grocery stores in town, all locally-owned, selling local products, most selling the same inventory, and, therefore, not really competing, but getting along. There were thriving regional industries (regional box factories, broom factories, etc, all providing products used in this area). People seemed, largely, to be happy making "enough". In fact, it seems like there used to actually be an idea of "enough". Now, "enough" is defined as "a little more than what I have now".

Now, thanks largely to artificially cheap energy, there are under a dozen grocery stores in town (the town is more spread out, though there are fewer people; only 5 of the stores are not giant national chains). I don't have a statistic, but I would bet that the majority of food is raised and processed quite a ways away (there's no way that peach grew in Indiana in February!). Out of all the local industry, there is VERY little left: Clabber Girl baking powder factory is still here, but gone is most everything else, including the Root glass company, who invented the Coca-Cola bottle shape.

When I mention the feasibility of small-scale family farming, people scoff. Those are "hobby farms", not a practical way of living! Don't you know that, SG?

I told my parents and in-laws I was planning to garden on our little city lot. They both said we don't have enough sun. I figured they knew, but then I saw some tomatoes growing in a much shadier spot than most of our yard. Saturday, I put in my first raised bed, planning to have some radishes and greens for the fall, and we'll see how it goes to plan for next year. If it doesn't work, I'm seriously considering guerrilla gardening 1 of the multiple vacant lots in a 2-block radius...

A historian came to a class I took last fall and told us about the way Terre Haute has changed (used to be mostly self-sufficient if needed, most people grew their own vegetables, locally-owned businesses, super-walkable/great public transit, etc). Sounds like, 90 years ago, it was a self-sufficiency or environmentalist's dream! Funny how we can be launched into the future by embracing what worked in the past, eh?

Not long ago, I was behind someone at a grocery store. They were buying fried chicken wings (from the deli), fried chicken wings (frozen, microwaveable), cookies (from the deli), Pepsi (in cans), and a couple other junk food items. All. with. food. stamps.

After I (through my hard-earned tax dollars) paid for their on-coming diabetes and obesity, I paid for my simple ingredients that go towards our food.

It led me to write this blog post.

Why are we selling chicken meat to Russia? Perhaps, if we have to be supplying the world's chicken to turn a profit, we (as a whole society) are using unprofitable methods. Joel Salatin seems to be doing pretty well supplying his region...

How is it cheaper to buy American chicken than Russian chicken?

Why is it cheaper to buy shipped-from-timbuktu peaches than the peaches a local grower brings to farmer's market?

If we survived eating chickens that were free-range, etc, for so long, why do people now have to don bio-barrier suits and rinse their shoes in chemical baths before entering super-crowded, enclosed factory farm chicken pens? If a chicken is so weak it can't walk on its own, can't survive exposure to fresh air, etc, then should we be eating it?

I (like many people) am in a tight spot, as we can't afford to spend $4+/lb on meat on an ongoing basis, and I can't pay $5 for a pint of green beans (roughly the prices at the farmer's market a few blocks from my house yesterday). I'd love to support local farmers, but I can't afford to. Right now, my solution is to try to become a super-local farmer by growing some of our own food. We'll see how it goes.

sleeping_gecko · #23 07/04/10, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

Kris in MI wrote, “IMHO, cheap food is not as necessary to keep people from starving as EDUCATING people to FEED THEMSELVES is. So many people have no idea what to do with real food--as in whole foods like they come from the farm fields--that the price of that 'ingredient' doesn't make a difference in whether or not they starve. If you can't take rice and cook it, doesn't matter how cheap it is. Same for fresh veggies, meats, etc. If you don't know what to do with it once it's in your hands, the ability to buy tons and tons of it won't keep you from starving.”

I think it is the old, “ You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” People do not want to cook with basics. As the vast majority of our population gets further from the farm, we lose the interest in basics. I know of a woman that only buys frozen breaded, precooked chicken, so she won’t have to deal with touching a “real” chicken. Another woman I know is very health conscious. Lean Cuisine fills her freezer. I’ve tried to explain to her what quality beef goes into ALL processed products, but she shuts me up. People do not want to know. A bag of rice doesn’t get picked up, but throw some flecks of red peppers in it and put it in a box, it flies off the shelves.

Seems to me the main cause of the French Revolution was food, or rather the lack of it. “Let them eat cake.” didn’t sit well with the masses. A few lost their heads over it.

I think it's time for a food revolution!

I mentioned the lack of real education in the blog post I linked to in my last post to this thread. Kids are pounded with "Junk bad, healthy good!" but no real solutions. For example, I never was taught how to actually cook food. If it weren't for my parents and for my food adventurousness (and innate distrust of giant conglomerates), I would never had figured out how to prepare anything beyond PB&J and jello. I know people who think it's amazing that I can cook our own bread (I used to be one of them).

If people can just see how much easier, more healthful, and all-around BETTER it is to eat REAL FOOD, more will start eating it. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what our society is aimed towards.

edcopp · #24 07/04/10, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmy D

Ed Copp, nobody bought my vote for the food I donated to the local food pantry this week...how silly to say that the people who donate food are doing it to secure votes for the current admin...I did the same when I live in Florida and Bush was the current admin then!

Emmy

If the shoe does not fit, do not wear it. I did not mention named did I?

ksfarmer · #25 07/04/10, 06:49 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.

Ernie: I hate to be so blunt, but you are so full of it.

Yes, drive through the country and look at old barns, they were built when farming was done with horses , they aren't needed any more and aren't worth the cost to keep up. You can't stack big round bales of hay in them either. On this same drive did you notice any new steel buildings housing tractors and combines, or steel grain bins to store crops in?. You bet you did.
As for the old farmers and where their sons are, yep, a lot went to the city, the one out of 5 that stayed now farms the others land. Of course you would call them "factory or corporate farms". Yes, my 2 sons chose not to farm, but the neighbor boy did, he now farms my land plus another 4 or 5 "old farmers" land, while we meet at the coffee shop to compare notes on how well he is doing. One fact is indisputable: Time marches on, things change..

Not to say some disaster can't occur to threaten our food supply, but not for the reasons you mention.

springvalley · #26 07/04/10, 07:55 PM

Ksfarmer, I`m sure glad not everyone has the same idea about the old barns, and farm buildings as you do. You sure can refit alot of old barns to hold round bales, farm shops, on farm stores, even houses to name a few. A metal shed sure does not have the same ambience for the farm as the barns once did. Yes there usefull, do the job, and don`t look to bad, but they sure ain`t a barn. Do you and your farmer friends keep your notes about your tenant to yourselves or do you all gang up on him and say , well we had a meeting in the coffee shop the other day and think you should be doing this. I bet some of you guys are getting for rent almost what you paid for your farms so many years ago. I myself have had some fantastic landlords and could not have farmed without them. But the farming game has gotten so cut throat and dog-eat-dog, I have choosin to give up renting ground and just farm what I own. I have no want or need to run half the county. A large part of big agriculture is run on paper now days and they just do a good job of shuffling the papers around to keep everyone happy. The government wants big farmers, not small farmers, they can control a few big farmers, but they can`t many. It will be a sad day when a few people will be running all the ground. Then see what you pay for cornflakes, or burgers, it will knock your hat off. And the Monsanto`s of the country do not want small agriculture either, they want to be able to tell everyone what to grow and were to grow it. All for now>Thanks Marc

Patt · #27 07/04/10, 08:21 PM

Wow a lot of excellent responses here, so glad to see people have really thought about this.

So from what I can see we all are agreed that cheap food is not helping anyone right? If I understand farm subsidies right the regular payments all go to commodities which consist mainly of grains like corn, wheat, rice and soybeans. A good sized chunk of that then goes to feed animals and meat and dairy are also subsidised. If there is a subsidy for the sort of healthy stuff we should be eating mainly like carrots and spinach and fruit I am not finding it.

So what is subsidised are all the things we are told to eat less of and that cause things like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. 2/3's of Americans are obese or overweight! For the first time in American history the life expectancy of our children is actually LESS than that of their parents! We are killing our children with cheap over abundant food! If you want a real eye opener watch Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution and see what sort of crap is being fed to our kids in schools thanks to the USDA and those farm subsidies.

Obesity costs us 150 billion a year in health care costs.

See statistics in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/di...farm.html?_r=1

A small excerpt from it:

Quote:

The 2002 farm bill provided $143.3 billion for nutrition programs like Food Stamps, $16.8 billion for conservation and $67.6 billion to subsidize the planting of certain crops. Almost all of the subsidies usually go to growers of five commodities: soybeans, corn, rice, wheat and cotton. Fruit and vegetable farmers do not get subsidies.

Supporters say the subsidies have kept food affordable for Americans. Critics disagree and say the subsidies lead to cheap snack foods and soft drinks, made from ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated soybean oil. Meanwhile, the lack of subsidies for fruits and vegetables makes them expensive by comparison.

Between 1985 and 2000 the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables increased nearly 40 percent while the price of soft drinks decreased by almost 25 percent, adjusted for inflation, according to a study done by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a group in Minneapolis set up to help save family farms and rural communities.

Health professionals say calories from those subsidized foods are partly responsible for the epidemic of childhood obesity and the increased incidence of diabetes.

Another really good article here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ing.html?cat=5

DeerHaven · #28 07/04/10, 08:21 PM

I can see where Ernie is going with his post. If he lives in upstate NY instead of KS he is more right than you know. We have lost so many small farms since the mid 1980's that it has become depressing to take rides in the countryside just for all the old barns falling in. There truly are not that many factory or corporate farms in our area buying up the land either. Some of the land is being used for crops, but i'd have to say that the majority is growing up in brambles and briars at this point. Our friends own one of the last diary farms in the area, and he has just heard word that 3 of the other larger family farms in the surrounding 30 miles are going to be gone by the end of the year. We are not a a big crop area, farmers around here are dairy for the most part, and the price of milk is not sustainable for the smaller farms.

Patt · #29 07/04/10, 08:55 PM

Question 2 was: is it a necessity in order to keep people from starving?

I would say that's a no brainer considering the fact we just amply proved we have way too much cheap food available with 2/3's of adults here being overweight and Childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past 30 years. Almost 20% of children are obese and another 20% are overweight.
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity/

Quote:

The aggregate food supply in 2000 provided 3,800 calories per person per day, 500 calories above the 1970 level and 800 calories above the record low in 1957 and 1958 (fig. 2-1). Of that 3,800 calories, USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates that roughly 1,100 calories were lost to spoilage, plate waste, and cooking and other losses, putting dietary intake of calories in 2000 at just under 2,700 calories per person per day. ERS data suggest that average daily calorie intake increased by 24.5 percent, or about 530 calories, between 1970 and 2000. Of that 24.5-percent increase, grains (mainly refined grain products) contributed 9.5 percentage points; added fats and oils, 9.0 percentage points; added sugars, 4.7 percentage points; fruits and vegetables together, 1.5 percentage points; meats and nuts together, 1 percentage point; and dairy products and eggs together, -1.5 percentage point.

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf

Keep in mind that is calories per capita, that means the amount of calories used for every man, woman and child! Someone posted a 25% net difference in harvest between organic and conventionally farmed foods. So let's say just for the sake of argument we lost 25% of the calories available due to a switch to organic farming practices and dumping subsidies. That means we would go back to the number of calories consumed in 1970 which was also before the current epidemic of obesity......so not only would no one starve we would actually go back to being healthier saving us money on health care costs which would easily make up any difference in food costs!

So somebody please show me any statistics that support our current farming and farm subsidies!

ksfarmer · #30 07/04/10, 10:00 PM

I owe Ernie an apology. Although I don't agree with him, I need not have been insulting. I agree that I have no idea what farming in NY is like. The point I wanted to make is that in my farm country, the old barns have served their purpose, they are not in disrepair because the farmer cannot repair them. They simply cannot accomodate modern farm machinery. Add to that the fact that where 75 years ago, a kansas farm family lived and farmed on far fewer acres than today. In my area there are remnants of farmsteads from those days, The population of my county was over 15000 people, now the population is 6000. There are an occasional barn that someone renovated but that one usually doesn't belong to a farmer.
Oh, and we don't usually gang up on the young farmers when we meet at the local coffee shop. In fact he will join us on a rainy day or when he has the time.

Heritagefarm · #31 07/04/10, 10:25 PM

All of these problems we see right now can be solved, partly by buying locally, and partly, by growing stuff yourself and trading stuff. Less gas is spent by buying locally, it did not take prodigious amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and are thus far healthier for you. Just by having a garden, a small one even, we can all make a difference.

texican · #32 07/04/10, 10:55 PM

So, logically, if you dislike the concept of cheap and reliable, then you are for expensive and unreliable.

How would making food more expensive, and hard to get, be good for hungry people?

If we start adding up all the "true" costs of everything, no one would be able to afford anything.

Peaches from Timbuktu (or wherever?)... anyone here had much luck harvesting peaches in December? If people want to go back to the good old days where they only had fresh fruit and vegetables for a few months out of the year, and it was salt pork, cornbread, and beans (or cow peas around here) the rest of the year, then we will. Of course, we might "have to" go back at some point (the day when oil gets hard to come by).

Yes, every ounce of food is 'drenched' in oil... every facet of our lives is drenched, multiple times, in oil. Without it, 90% of us wouldn't exist. Hard fact for some to digest... we're still in the Age of Oil (declining maybe, but we're still dependent).

I'm all for sustainability... that's what I strive to create here in my Kingdom! But, food I grow requires more time, money, and energy to produce and process than that which is bought. I'm building the infrastructure, for the day when I have unlimited time, no money, and there are no grocery stores to visit.

...btw... there are zero lost or wasted calories here... each calorie is 'processed' through several animals, till there's nothing left.

Uh... so what if people are fat/obese? Are we going to go all Kagan Knows Best, and ok rules for the govt. to mandate people go on diets? I'd rather not go down that road, thanks! Besides, I'd rather have fat/obese zombies chasing me, than lean and mean 'hard body's' coming down my lane. I couldn't outrun a hardbody, but I could a whale boy. (No country is more than three days away from revolution... take away food, and you're going to have troubles).

It has been theorized that the French Revolution was a direct result of the volcano Katla erupting (widespread famine)... also the one of the coldest winters on record in the US (Washington's crossing the Delaware, through the ice floes)

If American's wanted expensive food, there'd be a Whole Foods grocery store in every hamlet throughout the country... instead of the current situation, where they exist only in densely populated areas where there are people with lots of disposable income.

oneokie · #33 07/04/10, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

So 2 questions: is it really a good thing and is it a necessity in order to keep people from starving?

See below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by texican

(No country is more than three days away from revolution... take away food, and you're going to have troubles).

The majority of grocery stores today, have a 3 day stock of goods. Those goods depend on oil for transportation. And passable roads. Interrupt either and there will be rioting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

Keep in mind that is calories per capita, that means the amount of calories used for every man, woman and child! Someone posted a 25% net difference in harvest between organic and conventionally farmed foods. So let's say just for the sake of argument we lost 25% of the calories available due to a switch to organic farming practices and dumping subsidies. That means we would go back to the number of calories consumed in 1970 which was also before the current epidemic of obesity......so not only would no one starve we would actually go back to being healthier saving us money on health care costs which would easily make up any difference in food costs!

Got any statistics to bolster your reasoning? Reducing production by 25% will result in more than a 25% increase in price. What you are proposing is trading dollars. aka a catch 22 situation.

Thread drift.

Food processors love "value added" products. Adds to their bottom line and they get to pass on the costs of the glitzy packaging. The American public in general loves convienence.

Americans have become sedentary in their lives and work habits. They do not burn the calories they take in in at the same rate that they did in 1957-8 or 1970. Life styles have changed, but eating habits haven't.

haypoint · #34 07/05/10, 04:39 AM

Very important point,oneokie, "Reducing production by 25% will result in more than a 25% increase in price." Even small flucuations in supply cause huge swings in prices. Recently we saw it in the housing market. When there were more people than houses, home ownership was like a savings account with annual increases. As soon as there was some slack, or as some say, the bubble burst, prices went into freefall. An increased demand for oil, without an equal increase in production took oil from $30 a barrel to $90 a barrel in no time. anyone remember the sugar shortage and canning lid shortages in the late 1970s?
A 25% decrease in food supplies would, by itself, send prices soaring. Then, human nature kicks in and we all start hoarding. That leads to panic. Prices soar even higher.

The USDA tries to keep supplies stable. They subsidize a crop that may be in short supply because of its lack of profitability. They buy up and pass out to the poor any product that is seen as above current market needs.When Washington politics kills an export market, shouldn't Washington help keep the farmer from foreclosure because of a dramatic drop in value of his crop due to that lost market?

Patt · #35 07/05/10, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneokie

Got any statistics to bolster your reasoning? Reducing production by 25% will result in more than a 25% increase in price. What you are proposing is trading dollars. aka a catch 22 situation.

Come on I just posted a ton of statistics! Heck we waste more than 25% of the food available to us, not to mention what we ship overseas. Prices would not sky rocket.

Patt · #36 07/05/10, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

Very important point,oneokie, "Reducing production by 25% will result in more than a 25% increase in price." Even small flucuations in supply cause huge swings in prices. Recently we saw it in the housing market. When there were more people than houses, home ownership was like a savings account with annual increases. As soon as there was some slack, or as some say, the bubble burst, prices went into freefall. An increased demand for oil, without an equal increase in production took oil from $30 a barrel to $90 a barrel in no time. anyone remember the sugar shortage and canning lid shortages in the late 1970s?
A 25% decrease in food supplies would, by itself, send prices soaring. Then, human nature kicks in and we all start hoarding. That leads to panic. Prices soar even higher.

The USDA tries to keep supplies stable. They subsidize a crop that may be in short supply because of its lack of profitability. They buy up and pass out to the poor any product that is seen as above current market needs.When Washington politics kills an export market, shouldn't Washington help keep the farmer from foreclosure because of a dramatic drop in value of his crop due to that lost market?

The housing bubble was not caused by a lack of homes. It was really complicated but it was anything but a supply and demand issue. Oil prices skyrocket based on stockmarket trading not on supply and demand. In both areas the natural forces of supply and demand have all but been killed by greed and manipulation of those prices to make unnatural profits.

I think what I find the most mind boggling here is that what has been more than amply proven is that our current farm subsidies are killing Americans and you guys don't seem to care.

Heritagefarm · #37 07/05/10, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texican

So, logically, if you dislike the concept of cheap and reliable, then you are for expensive and unreliable.

How would making food more expensive, and hard to get, be good for hungry people?

If we start adding up all the "true" costs of everything, no one would be able to afford anything.

Peaches from Timbuktu (or wherever?)... anyone here had much luck harvesting peaches in December? If people want to go back to the good old days where they only had fresh fruit and vegetables for a few months out of the year, and it was salt pork, cornbread, and beans (or cow peas around here) the rest of the year, then we will. Of course, we might "have to" go back at some point (the day when oil gets hard to come by).

Yes, every ounce of food is 'drenched' in oil... every facet of our lives is drenched, multiple times, in oil. Without it, 90% of us wouldn't exist. Hard fact for some to digest... we're still in the Age of Oil (declining maybe, but we're still dependent).

I'm all for sustainability... that's what I strive to create here in my Kingdom! But, food I grow requires more time, money, and energy to produce and process than that which is bought. I'm building the infrastructure, for the day when I have unlimited time, no money, and there are no grocery stores to visit.

...btw... there are zero lost or wasted calories here... each calorie is 'processed' through several animals, till there's nothing left.

Uh... so what if people are fat/obese? Are we going to go all Kagan Knows Best, and ok rules for the govt. to mandate people go on diets? I'd rather not go down that road, thanks! Besides, I'd rather have fat/obese zombies chasing me, than lean and mean 'hard body's' coming down my lane. I couldn't outrun a hardbody, but I could a whale boy. (No country is more than three days away from revolution... take away food, and you're going to have troubles).

It has been theorized that the French Revolution was a direct result of the volcano Katla erupting (widespread famine)... also the one of the coldest winters on record in the US (Washington's crossing the Delaware, through the ice floes)

If American's wanted expensive food, there'd be a Whole Foods grocery store in every hamlet throughout the country... instead of the current situation, where they exist only in densely populated areas where there are people with lots of disposable income.

You bring up an interesting point.
If people cannot afford expensive food, they should grow some theirself. It would then have the opposite effect of buying expensive food: it would help their income by not having to buy food.
I don't know about other farms, but ours is not that much more money than store retail prices. For goat milk, we charge $5 per gallon, $1.22 more than the store - something they are willing to pay for real milk. Our beef actually comes out to be cheaper than the store because they buy a whole cow, or half or quarter. And what's the MOST convenient place for something? Your freezer.
Pastured chicken is harder: $2.50 a # versus the store's $0.60 per #.
The lamb is hard to sell - it's a novelty meat around here, with some cuts as much as $20 per #. Because they have a different bone-to-meat ratio than cows.

**ladycat** · #38 07/05/10, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvella

they've been giving away tons of free food for decades. i got free cheese, rice, peanut butter and milk 30+ years ago from the gov't. it's a result of gov't farm policy, not just one president.

They started that in the Great Depression.

And on the subject of falling down barns etc-

It is heartbreaking to watch what's happening around here in north central TX / south central OK.

The farmers get too old to farm. Their kids all moved to the city. Then when the old farmers die, there's nobody to take over the farm. It either sets there and rots, or the land gets sold or leased to ranchers or other farmers.

The houses, barns and outbuildings slowly deteriorate until they fall in on themselves.

More and more land is going fallow, as there are fewer and fewer farmers. Mesquite brush takes over.

I'd like to see an increase in farming around here instead of a decrease.

oneokie · #39 07/05/10, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

we waste more than 25% of the food available to us

My take on the waste is that it is because we have such an abundant and cheap supply of food.

The foreign markets are a large part of of why we have the food production methods that are in use today. Everyone wants to make a dollar. Economy of scale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

Prices would not sky rocket.

You think so? Go over to your other thread and pull up the article you linked to about the organic farmer. Do the math on both the soybeans and corn. The numbers that are shown show a reduction in production of ~25%~ for both. Then do the math on the difference in prices the man received for his organic crops verses the prices received for non organic crops. Doubling the price of the raw product is not a skyrocketing of prices to your thinking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

You bring up an interesting point.
If people cannot afford expensive food, they should grow some theirself.

I am having a hard time visualizing 50% of the people in the large metropolitian areas growing enough of their own food to feed themselves, much less their families.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

For goat milk, we charge $5 per gallon, $1.22 more than the store

My math may be off on this, but that is a 31.4 % increase in price.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

Pastured chicken is harder: $2.50 a # versus the store's $0.60 per #.

That is a 416 % increase.

Niche markets will never feed the number of people that live in the U.S.A.

marvella · #40 07/05/10, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksfarmer

Ernie: I hate to be so blunt, but you are so full of it.

Yes, drive through the country and look at old barns, they were built when farming was done with horses , they aren't needed any more and aren't worth the cost to keep up. You can't stack big round bales of hay in them either. On this same drive did you notice any new steel buildings housing tractors and combines, or steel grain bins to store crops in?. You bet you did.
As for the old farmers and where their sons are, yep, a lot went to the city, the one out of 5 that stayed now farms the others land. Of course you would call them "factory or corporate farms". Yes, my 2 sons chose not to farm, but the neighbor boy did, he now farms my land plus another 4 or 5 "old farmers" land, while we meet at the coffee shop to compare notes on how well he is doing. One fact is indisputable: Time marches on, things change..

Not to say some disaster can't occur to threaten our food supply, but not for the reasons you mention.

my thought was that ernie must live in town or the suburbs. two of my neighbors built new barns in the last 2 years, several more repaired the old ones. i built a new one in 2004. i have several neighbors who are still making a living farming- cattle, hay and a few that still milk, 3 that built new chicken houses and made all their neighbors mad.

as you say, our food supply isn't sustainable but not for the reasons he said.