What would be the difference in price if Roundup and Bt corn ban

industrial ag is probably the least viable method of feeding 7+ billion people you could ever devise. Just look at all the worlds water tables, in big ag areas. not everyone eats like big fat americans and needs two pounds of meat a day that took 10 times that in grain to grow. and if the only possible way to feed all the people on the earth big ag supporters keep crying about is with there precious grains than how come some organic fruit orcards are getting returns of 30x the calories per acre.

Our area used to be big into growing potatoes, too. And POW labor was used here as well. Growing potatoes in big quantities was extremely labor intensive before the machinery came along. My step-dad did 3 acres in potatoes one year and that just about killed us!

The Homestead Act let people claim 160 acres to farm, and in some areas you could get another 160 acres if you planted trees on it. This was, what, 1872? 320 acres for one man, and this was well over 100 years ago.

I think there is a perception problem about the agrarian life in this country. The "yesteryears" put forth by Ernie and others are more like the European or Asian "small family farm" model, where there were already so many more people and so much less land available that the small plot, intensive farm evolved. It's a good model, I just don't see why people are so dead set on making it the ONLY acceptable model for agriculture.

I live smack dab in the middle of row crop country. Corn, soybeans, a little winter wheat. Our own land had been in continuous soybeans for years before we bought it. We took a soil test, no amendments needed to plant pasture. The soil was not "strip mined", it was in good shape. It is a healthy landscape with abundant wildlife, not a toxic wasteland, from modern farming. So I'll believe what I see and experience for myself.

__________________
It is still best to be honest and truthful; to make the most of what we have; to be happy with the simple pleasures and to be cheerful and have courage when things go wrong.
Laura Ingalls Wilder

To keep thinking the only way we can continue to feed the world is the way we currently do is simply put retarted. And every single one of the big ag supporters deep down knows this is true. They just deny either because they grew up with it or have family that is big ag or they themselves are. Continuing to poising the earth just because it is the easiest and most economical way dosent prove it is the only way, it just proves it is the lazy man of todays way. if we really wanted to we could easily find another way to feed the world without poluting but simply put" its easier not too.

So do you have any better ideas of how to feed 10 billion people with less land in 2050? It simply cannot be done without modern technology like GMO's and herbicides.

I have a question.

There is a lot of land that is in other countries that is now needing food produced here.

They destroyed it in a political uprising and now are starving. Why can't that land be reused if they really want to eat? Why are we putting in the poisons on our land and water for areas that have water and land and don't use it to feed themselves?

(also, please lighten up on the forceful comments back and forth. This is a very touchy and passionate subject to many engaged in growing food commercially or for themselves.)

__________________
"Live your life, and forget your age." Norman Vincent Peale

[QUOTE=potatoguru;7018109]So do you have any better ideas of how to feed 10 billion people with less land in 2050? It simply cannot be done without modern technology like GMO's and herbicides.[/QUOTE

Yeah you could easily go organic with a less meat based diet, saying it simply cannot be done is silly. "The real question should be how will you provide drinking water for 10 billion people or even water for your big ag crops in 2050 without going a completely different rout.

I am sure they could produce food if needed to. However the US's economy might just enjoy the income they get from provided food that grows well in our climate. I don't think our farmers would be happy if we told them to grow their own instead of buying ours.

__________________

But it would solve the problem of this heated thread.

__________________
"Live your life, and forget your age." Norman Vincent Peale

No, it would not. It just changes the focus to the farmers losing their farms because they lost a viable market for their product.

__________________

What did they do before that country had the overthrow and was a breadbasket? How did our farmers survive then?

__________________
"Live your life, and forget your age." Norman Vincent Peale

Different world then. They have invested time and money into their markets, machinery and infrastructure.

__________________

so, they get depreciation of equipment off the taxes.

And the world is changing more, so why should it still be the same for them? Any them?

ETA: isn't this about roundup and such, and not big equipment? Seems the equipment would be enough if the other country took the breadbasket aspect back into being.

__________________
"Live your life, and forget your age." Norman Vincent Peale

There has always been a demand for North American product somewhere else. In the 1800s it was barley and beef, later in the century cheese got added in the mix. Then in the last century things got interesting.
Keep in mind there's been war off and on in Europe at least on a pretty regular basis since North America was settled. Pretty well the only places on the planet that haven't suffered wide-spread shortages due to war or weather in the last couple of centuries have been Canada and the US and maybe Australia and New Zealand.
Which somewhat explains some of the attitudes people have. I can tell you from talking to recent immigrants from Africa and Asia they're a lot more interested in WHETHER the food is produced than HOW it was produced.

__________________
The internet - fueling paranoia and misinformation since 1873.

I don't understand what you are saying?

__________________

You brought up the equipment and infrastructure and market, I was just saying it's able to be written off on taxes, the equipment.

Then they can develop other markets, or go more 'natural' for the current state of natural that many are wanting to purchase.

It's marketing and bottomline.

__________________
"Live your life, and forget your age." Norman Vincent Peale

That gets kinda touchy too.....

It becomes a political deal.

The short answer is the leaders of the country don't know much about real things, they know they want to be in charge and they want this or that political friend of a country, but they are not leaders that want to to help their own people rise up to higher levels.

And so the people continue to stagnate and are left with no real direction, no help, no way to work themselves out of their position.

For the people themselves, if a new set of leadership comes through every 6 months with new ideas on property righs, ownership, taxes, etc. well, you learn to sit on your rear, because the same tank with different markings on it is going to drive over your garden again every 6 months, what's the point.

A very simplistic view of what happens, but how it is.

Established countries and ag regions are almost in the same situation. The leadership of Argentina and Brazil both apply taxes and new policies upon their ag regions that just destroy what would be a very fast growing ag ecconomy and better yields, etc. the inflation in Argintena is terrible, farmers keep their grain until it is time to plant, because the inflation is so bad if they sold crops right away, the fuel and fertilizer would inflate to where they couldn't afford it. But, storing the crop so long leads to storage losses, extra costs, and THRN transportation issues.....

Brazil needs a good railroad track into the center of their country to haul out all the grain and sugar they already grow, much less the improved yields they are starting to get. But the govt keeps switching the taxes collected to do other, city improvements and so ag can't grow - if it could, it would pay more taxes to help both the cities and the rural.

Anyhow, yes countries like central Africa and Haiti and such used to be good ag producing countries, but the politics have messed that up, and no one can get back on track to get those countries back on track. And we have found, we can't just barge in and tell 'those people' what to do to make it better either, that never ends well.

Paul

Paul - but does all that make it where we should contaminate our land for their eating pleasure? Would they make their place better if not relying on us?

__________________
"Live your life, and forget your age." Norman Vincent Peale

USA farmers groups are always traveling the world sharing info.

We have done numerous travels to trade info with china on raising hogs, and giving thrm hog genetics to have better, leaner hogs.

South America just in general.

Even Cuba, we've worked with their beef.

Now certainly, we like selling them pork, or soybeans, or corn, and we have -that- in mind too! But if those countries are not healthy and well fed, they will not be a good customer. First and for most they need their own ag to support themselves somewhat, and then buy or trade with us what they need.

We can't sell stuff to Haiti when they have no money or work. We need then to be prosperous themselves, before we can trade with them.

So we do a lot of trading of information for free.

Some of those countries are just so tormented politically there is no leadership, no easy way to visit, educate, help, in any way.

Paul

Now I have a question on the other side of the coin.

How do you get that 3 acres and a hoe? I can get the hoe fairly easily, even a shovel, too. But those 3 acres cost money I may not have, and I think there are many in the same situation.

So, we have that problem.

__________________
"Live your life, and forget your age." Norman Vincent Peale

Work, save.

__________________
I saw something nasty in the woodshed