How One Region Has Gone from Breadbasket to Food Crisis

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How will that impact the consumers of our exports?

It's radical. It means local economies shifting towards agricultural self sufficiency. Some exporting and importing is of course necessary, but not on the scale that it currently is now.

Fine by me, but you do realize that even more people in ####### countries will die?

Because they'll grow food to be consumed locally instead of cash crops? Sounds like a reversal of the effects of colonialism than a death sentence to me.

[mawilson 2,133]

How will that impact the consumers of our exports?

It's radical. It means local economies shifting towards agricultural self sufficiency. Some exporting and importing is of course necessary, but not on the scale that it currently is now.

Fine by me, but you do realize that even more people in ####### countries will die?

Because they'll grow food to be consumed locally instead of cash crops? Sounds like a reversal of the effects of colonialism than a death sentence to me.

Because they can't. We can - maybe. They can't for sure. Too many people, not enough food.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How will that impact the consumers of our exports?

It's radical. It means local economies shifting towards agricultural self sufficiency. Some exporting and importing is of course necessary, but not on the scale that it currently is now.

Fine by me, but you do realize that even more people in ####### countries will die?

Because they'll grow food to be consumed locally instead of cash crops? Sounds like a reversal of the effects of colonialism than a death sentence to me.

Because they can't. We can - maybe. They can't for sure. Too many people, not enough food.

Can you give an example of a Third World Country that is incapable of sustaining itself on mostly on it's own agriculture?

[dalegg 143]

How will that impact the consumers of our exports?

It's radical. It means local economies shifting towards agricultural self sufficiency. Some exporting and importing is of course necessary, but not on the scale that it currently is now.

Fine by me, but you do realize that even more people in ####### countries will die?

Because they'll grow food to be consumed locally instead of cash crops? Sounds like a reversal of the effects of colonialism than a death sentence to me.

Because they can't. We can - maybe. They can't for sure. Too many people, not enough food.

Can you give an example of a Third World Country that is incapable of sustaining itself on mostly on it's own agriculture?

How would a country like Egypt do it?

[mawilson 2,133]

Can you give an example of a Third World Country that is incapable of sustaining itself on mostly on it's own agriculture?

Depends on how you define "sustaining itself."

60% of rural households in developing countries have too little land to subsist.

[*JG* 2]

How will that impact the consumers of our exports?

It's radical. It means local economies shifting towards agricultural self sufficiency. Some exporting and importing is of course necessary, but not on the scale that it currently is now.

Fine by me, but you do realize that even more people in ####### countries will die?

Because they'll grow food to be consumed locally instead of cash crops? Sounds like a reversal of the effects of colonialism than a death sentence to me.

Because they can't. We can - maybe. They can't for sure. Too many people, not enough food.

Can you give an example of a Third World Country that is incapable of sustaining itself on mostly on it's own agriculture?

Jamaica is discussing this very issue in all the current papers.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Can you give an example of a Third World Country that is incapable of sustaining itself on mostly on it's own agriculture?

Depends on how you define "sustaining itself."

60% of rural households in developing countries have too little land to subsist.

People go hungry because much of arable land is used to grow feed grain for animals rather than people. In the US, 157 million tons of cereals, legumes and vegetable protein – all suitable for human consumption – is fed to livestock to produce just 28 million tons of animal protein in the form of meat.

In developing countries, using land to create an artificial food chain has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions of people. An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre used for meat production; legumes such as beans, peas and lentils can produce 10 times more protein and, in the case of soya, 30 times more.

Global corporations which supply the seeds, chemicals and cattle and which control the slaughterhouses, marketing and distribution of beef, eagerly promote grain-fed livestock. They equate it with a country’s prestige and climbing the “protein ladder” becomes the mark of success.

Enlarging their meat supply is the first step for all developing countries. They start with chicken and egg production and, as their economies grow, climb the protein ladder to pork, milk, and dairy products, then to grass-fed beef and finally to grain-fed beef. Encouraging this process advances the interests of agribusinesses and two-thirds of the grain exported from the USA goes to feed livestock. The process really got underway when “green revolution” technology produced grain surpluses in the 1970s. The UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation encouraged it and the USA government linked its food aid programme to the producing of feed grain and gave low-interest loans to establish grain-fed poultry operations. Many nations have attempted to remain high on the protein ladder long after the grain surpluses disappeared.

Human consequences of the shift from food to feed were dramatically illustrated during the Ethiopian famine in 1984. While people starved, Ethiopia was growing linseed cake, cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for European livestock. Millions of acres of land in the developing world are used for this purpose. Tragically, 80 per cent of the world’s hungry children live in countries with food surpluses which are fed to animals for consumption by the affluent.

The irony is that millions of consumers in the first world are dying from diseases of affluence such as heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and cancer, brought on by eating animal products, while the world’s poor are dying from diseases of poverty. We are long overdue for a global discussion on how to promote a diversified, high-protein, vegetarian diet for the human race.

Jeremy Rifkin is the author of Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture (Plume, 1992), and The Biotech Century (Victor Gollancz,1998). He is also the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington DC, USA.

http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm

[GaryC 7]

So now mechanization is bad?? Are you kidding me?

You're getting tripped up on semantics. He said, "farming as something to be done by more people on smaller farms with less mechanization and more care, producing less output of higher quality at less cost for greater profit."

Sorry man, you have no idea what your talking about. I come from a farming family. They have been farmers for 6 generations so I think I understand the situation more than you do from reading slanted stories from people that have no clue. Small family farmers may sound quaint but the realities are far different. Small farms are inefficent by nature. A large farm has less overhead per acre and can be managed better. When my grandfather died he had about 500 acres. He divided that land up between my father and his 3 brothers. My father farmed his part for about 20 years and couldn't turn a profit when the cost of equipment, fuel and farm stuctures were taken into account. Eventually my uncle bought out his brothers and added another 500 acres to the 500 he had. Even at 1000 acres was is still considered a small operation. With the cost of overhead continually rising he is hurting. At harvest time he makes about a half million but when he pays for the overhead and next years seed and chemicals I make more than he does net. You have to understand that a combine costs upwards of $500,000. A tractor can run several hundred thousand. Fuel costs are eating him alive. If he has a bad year because of the weather he must borrow to make next years planting. The only way to make it a going business is to industrialize so the cost and risks can be spread out. Family farming worked 100 years ago because our population was a lot smaller. That same set up cannot work today. Times change man, family farming is going the way of the buggy manufactures. If your ideas were ever put into practice wholesale famine would result.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So now mechanization is bad?? Are you kidding me?

You're getting tripped up on semantics. He said, "farming as something to be done by more people on smaller farms with less mechanization and more care, producing less output of higher quality at less cost for greater profit."

Sorry man, you have no idea what your talking about. I come from a farming family. They have been farmers for 6 generations so I think I understand the situation more than you do from reading slanted stories from people that have no clue. Small family farmers may sound quaint but the realities are far different. Small farms are inefficent by nature. A large farm has less overhead per acre and can be managed better. When my grandfather died he had about 500 acres. He divided that land up between my father and his 3 brothers. My father farmed his part for about 20 years and couldn't turn a profit when the cost of equipment, fuel and farm stuctures were taken into account. Eventually my uncle bought out his brothers and added another 500 acres to the 500 he had. Even at 1000 acres was is still considered a small operation. With the cost of overhead continually rising he is hurting. At harvest time he makes about a half million but when he pays for the overhead and next years seed and chemicals I make more than he does net. You have to understand that a combine costs upwards of $500,000. A tractor can run several hundred thousand. Fuel costs are eating him alive. If he has a bad year because of the weather he must borrow to make next years planting. The only way to make it a going business is to industrialize so the cost and risks can be spread out. Family farming worked 100 years ago because our population was a lot smaller. That same set up cannot work today. Times change man, family farming is going the way of the buggy manufactures. If your ideas were ever put into practice wholesale famine would result.

Small is a relative term, Gary. Secondly, I come a family of dairy farmers but grew up on an acre and a quater - we raised chickens, goats, several steers, a sheep and ducks. We grew asparagus, all kinds of squash, melon, corn, rhubarb, you name it...however, I wouldn't lay claim to that making me an expert on farmng.

[GaryC 7]

So now mechanization is bad?? Are you kidding me?

You're getting tripped up on semantics. He said, "farming as something to be done by more people on smaller farms with less mechanization and more care, producing less output of higher quality at less cost for greater profit."

Sorry man, you have no idea what your talking about. I come from a farming family. They have been farmers for 6 generations so I think I understand the situation more than you do from reading slanted stories from people that have no clue. Small family farmers may sound quaint but the realities are far different. Small farms are inefficent by nature. A large farm has less overhead per acre and can be managed better. When my grandfather died he had about 500 acres. He divided that land up between my father and his 3 brothers. My father farmed his part for about 20 years and couldn't turn a profit when the cost of equipment, fuel and farm stuctures were taken into account. Eventually my uncle bought out his brothers and added another 500 acres to the 500 he had. Even at 1000 acres was is still considered a small operation. With the cost of overhead continually rising he is hurting. At harvest time he makes about a half million but when he pays for the overhead and next years seed and chemicals I make more than he does net. You have to understand that a combine costs upwards of $500,000. A tractor can run several hundred thousand. Fuel costs are eating him alive. If he has a bad year because of the weather he must borrow to make next years planting. The only way to make it a going business is to industrialize so the cost and risks can be spread out. Family farming worked 100 years ago because our population was a lot smaller. That same set up cannot work today. Times change man, family farming is going the way of the buggy manufactures. If your ideas were ever put into practice wholesale famine would result.

Small is a relative term, Gary. Secondly, I come a family of dairy farmers but grew up on an acre and a quater - we raised chickens, goats, several steers, a sheep and ducks. We grew asparagus, all kinds of squash, melon, corn, rhubarb, you name it...however, I wouldn't lay claim to that making me an expert on farmng.

That is all well and good Steven, when I was a kid we lived off the land also. Our garden was over an acre in size and we canned, froze or otherwise preserved enough veggies to last us until the next year. We raised our own cattle, pigs and chickens. The only things we bought were things we couldn't grow. But subsistance farming isn't workable today in America. After all, who would feed the millions that live in cites? Industrial farming is the reality of today. There just isn't any way around it unless you want our country to give up it's modern lifestyle and go "back to the land". I doubt if many would want to do that.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think Gary brings up some interesting points that could be circumvented in practice if, and only if, a transitory revamping of farming subsidies existed so as to remove the overhead cost of expensive, modern equipment (that increases farm productivity and efficiency).

The management aspect is indeed the cost analysis that needs to be made in order to define what would be a suitable local size to population ratio. This would help define what a productive, effective, efficient farm would be.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think Gary brings up some interesting points that could be circumvented in practice if, and only if, a transitory revamping of farming subsidies existed so as to remove the overhead cost of expensive, modern equipment (that increases farm productivity and efficiency).

The management aspect is indeed the cost analysis that needs to be made in order to define what would be a suitable local size to population ratio. This would help define what a productive, effective, efficient farm would be.

I don't think anyone is advocating self sustaining farms for each and every household. The idea of sustainable agriculture is to bring the food closer to the consumer. I often wonder why if HOA's can have elaborate neighborhood walkways, parks, and community pools, couldn't also have community crops and perhaps a some livestock? There are creative ways to help bring the food we eat closer to where we live - people can even have a small garden in an apartment with limited space. Perhaps towns or cities can set aside land for locally sold agriculture?

[HAL 9000 96]

Good points. I don't think that an overnight transition would be beneficial... but then again, what changes that happen overnight are ever a success?? These are things that get planned and acted upon with common sense.

Perhaps a mixture between locally subsistent farmland plus modulated expansive capabilities (i.e., scalable farmland) would benefit regions where food shortages arise out of statistical normalcy.

[GaryC 7]

I think Gary brings up some interesting points that could be circumvented in practice if, and only if, a transitory revamping of farming subsidies existed so as to remove the overhead cost of expensive, modern equipment (that increases farm productivity and efficiency).

The management aspect is indeed the cost analysis that needs to be made in order to define what would be a suitable local size to population ratio. This would help define what a productive, effective, efficient farm would be.

I don't think anyone is advocating self sustaining farms for each and every household. The idea of sustainable agriculture is to bring the food closer to the consumer. I often wonder why if HOA's can have elaborate neighborhood walkways, parks, and community pools, couldn't also have community crops and perhaps a some livestock? There are creative ways to help bring the food we eat closer to where we live - people can even have a small garden in an apartment with limited space. Perhaps towns or cities can set aside land for locally sold agriculture?

It's pie-in-the-sky thinking Steven. In this case bigger is better. When your trying to feed 300 million people plus a large portion of the rest of the world the only thing that will do it is industrial farming. Small operations like what your suggesting is poor use of the land and reduces total output.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think Steven is suggesting scalability to be able to surplus food according to demand, not consumption. This actually improves many things at once- overconsumption and extra overhead from excess surplus, among other things.

Besides, when the majority of farmland has shifted to big agricultural conglomerates, what ends up happening is a displacement of farm labor towards the unemployment line.