# UN warns of global food crisis



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Globe and Mail
January 7, 2011

Food prices have soared to record levels around the world, raising fears that poor countries could face a crisis similar to the one that led to rioting and rationing two years ago.

âWe are entering a danger territory,â Abdolreza Abbassian, an economist at the United Nationsâ Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) told reporters Wednesday.....

.......âThere is still room for prices to go up much higher, if, for example, the dry conditions in Argentina tend to become a drought and if we start having problems with winterkill in the northern hemisphere for the wheat crops,â Mr. Abbassian said. âI am feeling less optimistic than I was in November â we have not had much good news.â

Prices for many agricultural commodities started rising last fall largely because of poor grain crops in Canada, Russia and Ukraine. They have spiked even higher recently because of dry weather in Argentina, a major soybean producer, and flooding in parts of Australia, which has wiped out many wheat crops. The price of wheat has jumped about 17 per cent in the last month while corn is up 11 per cent. Both are now close to two-year highs. Other food staples have been soaring as well, including canola, up 43 per cent last year, and sugar, which hit 30-year highs.

âThe price spike has raised fresh concerns about food price inflation,â said Kenrick Jordan a senior economist at the Bank of Montreal. Mr. Jordan said while the impact will be manageable for developed countries: âIn developing countries, where food accounts for a much more significant part of household budgets, the inflation threat is much greater.â
The tight supply situation is expected to get worse................. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-spark-fears-of-social-unrest/article1859417/

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

I guess instead of flying all those scientists to Cancun to rant about "climate change" , they should have spent the money on food


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I guess instead of flying all those scientists to Cancun to rant about "climate change" , they should have spent the money on food


:hysterical:


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I guess instead of flying all those scientists to Cancun to rant about "climate change" , they should have spent the money on food


:hysterical:

The US always had a huge surplus of food... well, until like the 80s. I think our only sizeable surplus now is wheat. But, the point I want to make is, when we had all that surplus that we would occasionally ship to less-developed countries, they complained! They didn't want our tons of food being dumped into their local economies, as it screwed up their markets.

I guess they'd rather have cold, hard cash than food.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

A food crisis is only a matter of time. We're still breeding like locusts and our food production is teetering on the brink.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

fishhead said:


> A food crisis is only a matter of time. We're still breeding like locusts and our food production is teetering on the brink.


Maybe they should have thought things out better before they put so many small farms out of business.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> A food crisis is only a matter of time. We're still breeding like locusts and our food production is teetering on the brink


There's far more than enough food in the world.
These claims are about *money and power *and have little to do with actual food supplies.


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's far more than enough food in the world.
> These claims are about *money and power *and have little to do with actual food supplies.


Yes indeed. We need to look past the smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

EasyDay said:


> Maybe they should have thought things out better before they put so many small farms out of business.


They? They who? How did this "they" put farms out of business anyway?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

fishhead said:


> A food crisis is only a matter of time. We're still breeding like locusts and our food production is teetering on the brink.


Yup, nothing like turning our corn/soybean into ethanol instead of using the fields for food.

Imagine starving people to save the planet.. It just goes to show there really isn't any length some will go to save the planet from man..


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Windy in Kansas said:


> They? They who? How did this "they" put farms out of business anyway?


 For sure. And the amount of and the kind of corn going into Ethanol is not that much nor is it the same kind of corn that goes into food.
This will just mean the mega farming will just get larger. Many dairy farms in WI are getting even bigger. Multimillion dollar barns that have just gone up in the past year or so. 
And some want to go back to small farming days. How in the world could that even help? We need even more large farms to keep up. Not going back to the 50's. More technology needed in farms, as many smaller ones have not kept up with the times and that has hurt more then anything else. Many never wanted to embrace technology when they should have done so years ago, to keep up now.
Why shouldn't a "farm" be run like any company? They are selling a product, and that product does go into the world market. Never will understand why some wanted to stay will the old ways. And it is reports like this that is starting to "bite" that kind of thinking.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> A food crisis is only a matter of time. We're still breeding like locusts and our food production is teetering on the brink.


The amount of food isn't the greatest problem. Its transportation and politics. Doesn't matter how much food you have in Canada if you can't get it to the starving people because either there is no way to transport it or the local thugs use it as a weapon to control their people.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I guess instead of flying all those scientists to Cancun to rant about "climate change" , they should have spent the money on food


Spew Alert.

Ironically, if global warming IS occuring, this prediction by the UN will be untrue since we will be able to grow more crops in the nice warm weather in new areas. :nana:


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

fishhead said:


> A food crisis is only a matter of time. We're still breeding like locusts and our food production is teetering on the brink.


AMEN to that. I can picture a time in the future when we WILL be limited to how many children we can have, how long we can live, etc.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

EasyDay said:


> Maybe they should have thought things out better before they put so many small farms out of business.


How would having more small farms alleviate world hunger?


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> How would having more small farms alleviate world hunger?


We put small farms in those countries out of business with our subsidised cheap grains here in America.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

beccachow said:


> Spew Alert.
> 
> Ironically, if global warming IS occuring, this prediction by the UN will be untrue since we will be able to grow more crops in the nice warm weather in new areas. :nana:


When? And where? Will that come to pass before or after tens of millions of people have died from starvation?

Crops are already being grown on most known arable land and those crops are already being effected by climate change. Where is there uncultivated arable and hospitable land in places that might become warmer in the future?

.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Well, once the glaciars melt away, we will have lots of irrigation and new fresh soil; plants do better warm and moist, as a rule, right? 

Now I WAS being facetious, but now I wonder...

global warming, early man (cro magnon) (spelling, sorry) starving and trying to follow the path of the mammoth who was also starving, think about the cycles here, folks. Seems like the earth just kind of flushes itself every so often like a big old terra-toilet for the next thing to come along?!

(Don't mean to sound harsher than normal, no sleep in nearly 48 hours plus a 5 year old bouncing off the walls next to me means little room in the brain for tact)!

And I have to wonder...this is an awful thing, I will blame it on the lack of sleep for sounding this bad...if earth cannot support those millions of people, what are we SUPPOSED to do, realistically? It's like Ethiopia, for example. I feel HORRIBLE for those kids on the ads, but when it comes down to it, it is earth's way of saying, STOP breeding, we cannot support you. Now I DO have my own child and the mom and human in me cries at the injustice of it...but ultimately, sending $1 a day still means they are trying to support millions of people who will die once the money stops coming in. Realistically, this is ONE thing that GW folk and Non GW folk share, I think we ALL agree, too many people. What will get us? A plague? Starvation? SOmething will get us, it always has (think Black Plague, TB, Influenza, Cancer, AIDs, people on people violence, etc). Does this sound to rough, because I don't mean it to, really, but I am trying to articulate and my brain is fuzzy. In other words, earth will NOT let us overpopulate her, any more than she will allow us to destroy her. She's been around a few years before us, and will be here after we are gone. A couple thousand years from now, will some archaeolgist stumble onto a computer and figure out how to fire it up? Come across this Forum? Say things like, "The humans were well advanced for their time, but warfare and disease destroyed the population; they have been extinct for a thousand years?" EVERYONE initially thought THEY were top dog...til the next top dog came along and unseated them.

Global warming? Natural progression?

Not meant to offend, sorry if it did, and I hope someone can make a coherent thought out of all that.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Right on Becca-that will tee off the cultist that can't think for themselves


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya, the Mammoths were starving so much that they have been found with a mouthful of grass. There was so much to eat. But they froze to death right place while eating. GW, h,mm seems like it was a bit chilly for that.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

beowoulf90 said:


> Yup, nothing like turning our corn/soybean into ethanol instead of using the fields for food.
> 
> Imagine starving people to save the planet.. It just goes to show there really isn't any length some will go to save the planet from man..


Yep. Don't know if he was accurate but I heard an " expert " on radio a couple days ago say that 40% of our corn goes into ethanol now. That is a LOT of food being burned for something that has no future. He was interesting to listen to.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> Well, once the glaciars melt away, we will have lots of irrigation and new fresh soil; plants do better warm and moist, as a rule, right?


Nope. There is no arable topsoil under glaciers. It's mostly a mixture of rocks, sandy silt, and clay. More rock than anything else.

Northern tundra is out - wrong kind of soil, mostly peat, it won't support crop plants growth without soil amendment.

Deserts are out for obvious reasons, and deserts are growing.

The soil of coniferous forested areas in the north won't support crop foods without soil amendment.

The arable soil that crops are being grown on right now was previously transported there by glaciers before the glaciers receded, and then by wind and water.

.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Patt said:


> We put small farms in those countries out of business with our subsidised cheap grains here in America.


How many countries have shown a net loss of grain production not caused by natural events and how exactly does consolidating farms decrease the amount of grain produced?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> For sure. And the amount of and the kind of corn going into Ethanol is not that much nor is it the same kind of corn that goes into food.
> This will just mean the mega farming will just get larger. Many dairy farms in WI are getting even bigger. Multimillion dollar barns that have just gone up in the past year or so.
> And some want to go back to small farming days. How in the world could that even help? We need even more large farms to keep up. Not going back to the 50's. More technology needed in farms, as many smaller ones have not kept up with the times and that has hurt more then anything else. Many never wanted to embrace technology when they should have done so years ago, to keep up now.
> Why shouldn't a "farm" be run like any company? They are selling a product, and that product does go into the world market. Never will understand why some wanted to stay will the old ways. And it is reports like this that is starting to "bite" that kind of thinking.


The kind of corn grown could be changed to food types or to wheat.
We may have to cut down on meat from our diets to be able to feed every one.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Some of the melting glaciers are supplying the water that irrigates the crops that feed over a Billion people. When they disappear in the coming decades the food will disappear right along with the irrigation water.

Worldwide we are overpumping aquifers that produce the crops that feed hundreds of millions of people. When those aquifers are dry or ruined from saltwater infiltration so will the food they are producing.

Much of the world rice production takes place in low river deltas that are vulnerable to hurricanes. As the sea level rises that food supply will disappear also as will the land the farmers are living on now.

In our lifetime we will see massive forced migrations of people. Few countries can withstand tens or hundreds of millions of immigrants crossing the borders.

National Geographic has a good story on our growing water crisis.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Naturelover, please proofread your first and last sentence.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

beccachow said:


> AMEN to that. I can picture a time in the future when we WILL be limited to how many children we can have, how long we can live, etc.


I am looking forward to a Logan's Run type life myself. :thumb:


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

THAT'S the one. Couldn't think of it! 

But honestly...food shortage...too many people...what does logic dictate should happen? Again, don't mean to be rough, come after my child and I will kill you, trust me...but historically...what SHOULD happen if we are overpopulated? What is happening now, that we are trying to stop? Can we plug a sliced artery with a bandaid? Only for a short while, then it will all fall apart.

Again, the earth can only take so much, then it purges. We are so egocentric to think that we either created the catastrophe, or that we can stop it; we aren't the center of the earth's universe, it is OURS. And when it's had enough, it will move on, no matter how we tax, deregulate, regulate, regurgitate, ambulate...no amount of cap and trade now will stop what is coming down the pike in another 1000 years or so, whether you believe we caused GW or not. We will be another layer of the earth's crust to be dug up and inspected, and speculated about.

I, however, will be seen as a great Wise Leader who few people followed when MY posts are unearthed here on GC. (lol)


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> How many countries have shown a net loss of grain production and how exactly does consolidating farms decrease the amount of grain produced?


I don't think you are really understanding what I am talking about. They don't consolidate into bigger farms in Africa the small farmers get driven out of business and due to a variety of reasons the locals are left without food.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

beccachow said:


> THAT'S the one. Couldn't think of it!
> 
> But honestly...food shortage...too many people...what does logic dictate should happen? Again, don't mean to be rough, come after my child and I will kill you, trust me...but historically...what SHOULD happen if we are overpopulated? What is happening now, that we are trying to stop? Can we plug a sliced artery with a bandaid? Only for a short while, then it will all fall apart.
> 
> ...


:clap:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

SquashNut said:


> The kind of corn grown could be changed to food types or to wheat.
> We may have to cut down on meat from our diets to be able to feed every one.


 Ethanol has had very little in the cause of "feed" prices going up. Very Little.
Think:
Drought in the corn belt, Think Floods in the corn belt, like Iowa, many farmers had to plant a 2nd crop because of flooding just to get a crop. Say nothing that is was small being a 2nd planting. 
Think Fuel Prices. Think Fertilizer Prices due to oil prices which never have come down since the crud oil prices were high.
Higher costs for everything from diesel, to even insurance rates, to getting a tractor repaired at the local shop. rates there have gone up as well.
There are many many things that affect prices of feed costs, that are not connected to ethanol at all. Even at that, ethanol adds to feeds from their by-products.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

I know, right? LOL! I need to come here after being up for two days more often.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

megafatcat said:


> Naturelover, please proofread your first and last sentence.


Yes? What is your point? Maybe I missed something?

What's under existing glaciers now is all rock and rock flour. You can't grow anything on rock and rock flour, so the assumption that once the glaciers are gone there will be arable land left behind in their place is a misconception. That land will have to be built up with topsoil, which can take thousands of years.

The soil that was previously deposited by glaciers in other places is already being used. When the glaciers receded they didn't take any rocks or soil back with them. The glaciers just melted, they didn't move backwards.

.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

NL, I concede your point 100%. Gigantic slabs of ice moving across rock, equals stone dust. The stuff I line my stalls with. Can't grow a thing but an ocassional stubborn weed out of it.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

beccachow said:


> NL, I concede your point 100%. Gigantic slabs of ice moving across rock, equals stone dust. The stuff I line my stalls with. Can't grow a thing but an ocassional stubborn weed out of it.


Becky, I've never heard of stalls being lined with stone dust. What kind of stalls and what is the purpose? Does it inhibit bacterial growths? Does it compact to become like concrete to allow for efficient runoff of fluids in the stalls?

.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

That's what we call it around here, literally fine stone dust, I assume what you called stone flour would be similar! And yes to the compacting for run off. Also, cheap, and long lasting as a good base. Our horse barn , in fact, is built on it as well as under the trough and out to the gate. Lasts a good while. Every few years, might need another ton or so (maybe what, $25 a ton?) to reline and smooth out the erosions.

Google it for the advantages. There are some disadvantages a farrier told me about, since it is literally ground up stone and could have pebbles that could get caught in horse hooves and create problems, theoretically; never had it happen yet, though.  A really solid and cheap ground cover. Then of course, you can overlay it with hay or straw.

One huge disadvantage...kind of like our own glacial melt )), there are grooves that form with the rain and DO cause erosion and wash outs if extreme enough. We are currently in need of a new base coat over here for that reason.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I, however, will be seen as a great Wise Leader who few people followed when MY posts are unearthed here on GC


:bow: :bow: 
:bow::bow:
:bow:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Ethanol has had very little in the cause of "feed" prices going up. Very Little.
> Think:
> Drought in the corn belt, Think Floods in the corn belt, like Iowa, many farmers had to plant a 2nd crop because of flooding just to get a crop. Say nothing that is was small being a 2nd planting.
> Think Fuel Prices. Think Fertilizer Prices due to oil prices which never have come down since the crud oil prices were high.
> ...


Except corn is a commodity and sold as such. What a farmer spends to grow it only affects the price in that if they can't make a profit, they won't grow it. Supply and demand sets the price. Ethanol plants certainly increase demand and therefore affect prices of not only corn but also other commodities like soybeans. Corn is used a lot in cooking oil. If the price of corn gets too high, corn oil becomes more expensive and that drives up the price of other grains used in cooking oil. On the plus side, ethanol does allow farmers to earn more from their crops. It is a trade-off.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Patt said:


> I don't think you are really understanding what I am talking about. They don't consolidate into bigger farms in Africa the small farmers get driven out of business and due to a variety of reasons the locals are left without food.


A variety of reasons yes but large farms in America are not one of them.
Bad weather, civil unrest, and poor harvests maybe, but to lay it all on cheap American grain is bs of the highest order.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

The day will come when countries that have a bad record of regularly growing enough food to feed their citizens, will see their populations starve. If the food isn't grown locally, the locals will starve.

The former system of food distribution was based upon a formula which is failing. When the world is fat and flush, feeding the starving is a noble and honorable thing to do. When the world is thin and tight, it's going to be the poor and starving (that haven't got a chance of ever becoming self sufficient, ever again) that "go" first.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Going back to the Ethiopia comment, it's not like the women are quite exactly pumping out babies _willingly_. I garandangtee they feel the pain of watching a child starve to death and wish it wouldn't have to happen.

Mozambique(thats in Africa) has had quite a turnaround in the past 20 years, you can go read the Wikipedia page on it to start. They have raised the income per capita from 100$ per year(making it the poorest nation in the world) to $1000 per year, as well as developed lots of crops and the infrastructure to raise them and get them to market. They are a democracy(which I might add transitioned FROM marxism), and it's a shame how unsung their success is. 

But that's the stupid thing about how we first world people "see" Africa, we think it is a barren land full of starving(stupid, ignorant) people. It's actually got a tremendous amount of resources and potential, and plenty of resourceful people who can make things work given a little peace and stability. 

If anything I give the starving unwashed in places like Africa MORE of a chance than us here in a land we ridiculously fat consumptors *think* flows with milk and honey, but that milk and honey has been outsourced to China, and the people who used to grow milk and honey are gone. 

Laying the blame on the "rabbit reproduction" of the third world is misdirected--it's cruel to say but they do still live close to the natural order of things, life is very hard, and they die like rabbits too(we forget...). It's that there are too many people who CONSUME way too much resources. IE it's US that is the problem.


----------



## VT Chicklit (Mar 22, 2009)

Bad government policies contribute to our current food shortage situation. The United States use to be the "food Basket" of the world. Our government policies, such as turning off the water to the San Juaquine Valley in Cali, contribute to our problems. The over regulation of farming practices and the subsidies to NOT produce a crop do not help either. Vermont use to be a mainly agracultural state, with many small dairy farms. My small town (pop 350) had 8 small dairy farms in 1970 that sold milk to the co-op. Now there are none. We have 2 small farms that are trying to do a few beef and that is it. The small farms could no longer make a go of it. Between low payment for their milk/crops and the over regulation of their farming processes, the money was not there to be able to continue. I don't mean that they were just not getting rich, they were in a deep financial hole. The government will regulate us all into starvation.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> If anything I give the starving unwashed in places like Africa MORE of a chance than us here in a land we ridiculously fat consumptors *think* flows with milk and honey, but that milk and honey has been outsourced to China, and the people who used to grow milk and honey are gone.


Good point Wyld, and I'm inclined to agree. They won't go into a mass panic over the loss of things they don't already have and those who are strongest, healthiest and most resourceful will survive. Africa has a plethora of untapped resources in many regions, far beyond the natural resources we have remaining here in North America.

North Americans are at greatest risk of breakdown because people here have been living high on the hog, spoiled, grown accustomed to being provided with all the luxuries we have that are no longer recognized as luxuries and thought of as commonplace to be taken for granted. When the luxuries are gone or no longer affordable, when people can't drive vehicles anymore or have access to the other luxuries and foodstuffs provided through our use of oil there will be a societal breakdown and mass panic. The production of food will take priority over all the other luxuries and the vast majority of our society won't know how to do that or to otherwise help themselves. 

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But that's the stupid thing about how we first world people "see" Africa, we think it is a barren land *full of starving(stupid, ignorant) people*. It's actually got a tremendous amount of resources and potential, and *plenty of resourceful people who can make things work given a little peace and stability*.


Most of the starving people in the world *are* in Africa

No one "GAVE"* us *peace and stability.
We fought for it and made it happen.



> It's that there are too many people who CONSUME way too much resources. *IE it's US that is the problem*.


I'm not going to feel bad because I have all I want to eat, and I have never taken anything from anyone in Africa, so I'm not "consuming" THEIR resources.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

To assume that ethanol and the government hasn't had a hand in the cost of food - especially grain is not thinking.

Perhaps the same kind of corn grown for ethanol isn't grown for food - but land that could be growing food is being used to grow ethanol corn.

This is second hand to me, but I believe it is true. A man of Mexican descent is from a family in Mexico with extensive land holdings. It is quite a large family he says. He is third generation. He says every year, he has to return to Mexico and sign an agreement that no grain will be grown on the family farm. It could also be any food crop, but I seem to remember it was just grain. In exchange for that, the American government pays the family. His part, as a grandson (one of many) is $40K a year.

As for Africa not accepting food, there were other things involved in that. Once I remember, it was because the despotic head of government would not allow the grain to be transported to the people, except by certain trucks. For some reason, it sat on the docks and rotted. 

Another time, it was that African farmers did not want GMO grains to be brought into Africa. They grow grain for export to Europe and if their grain got crossed with GMO, they would have no market for their grain.

It looks like Bill Gates is going to make that a moot point.

Once again, here in Texas, acres and acres of land good for growing food is being dug up for coal. There is some that has been 'reclaimed' - close to 40 years ago and for years it was fit for nothing. They graze no cattle on it and have only recently begun to cut hay. I'm not sure if that hay is fed to anything or just cut and baled.

This is land that needs no irrigation most years. In fact, I don't know that I've ever seen anything irrigated around here - more than a small garden area. It is being lost - for at least a generation - maybe longer as food producing land.

As for Africa, left alone, they may or may not be able to fix their problems, but other countries have been using their countries and their resources, for centuries. With the discovery of oil there, it is going to continue, I'm thinking.

As for peace and stability here - I'm not sure I see that. We are at war now, and stability may just be an illusion.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> but land that could be growing food is being used to grow ethanol corn.


false
it is a matter of grade and how the corn looks after it is harvested. It all starts out the same.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

sammyd said:


> false
> it is a matter of grade and how the corn looks after it is harvested. It all starts out the same.


False.
A few years ago, many farmers cut back on growing cotton and soybeans to grow more corn for the specific purpose of ethanol.

One crop farmer I know cut his cotton crop back by 40% to grow corn for the ethanol market. That was in 2007.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> A variety of reasons yes but large farms in America are not one of them.
> Bad weather, civil unrest, and poor harvests maybe, but to lay it all on cheap American grain is bs of the highest order.


This is an excellent, well written report that proves exactly what I said:

http://www.fpif.org/reports/us_foreign_agricultural_policy



> Problems with Current U.S. Policy
> 
> *Key Problems*
> 
> ...


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

All of what you guys are saying is true. But it seems like we are bad if we do and bad if we don't.
But no matter how bad we are are we still try to help, don't we?


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

SquashNut said:


> All of what you guys are saying is true. But it seems like we are bad if we do and bad if we don't.
> But no matter how bad we are are we still try to help, don't we?


Helping is fine but directly competing with third world farmers is just evil in my opinion.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

a fourteen year old report? From a site with a slant like that?
Let's get serious......




> to grow more corn for the specific purpose of ethanol


That may be but cotton isn't food is it? And DDGs can be used in the beef industry just as cotton seed 

As to the rest of it, if the ethanol plant is paying a nickel premium that's where the corn will go but most of it may well be able to pass grade and go to the oil plant....


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

People are always asking for links and when someone posts a link to anything, the content is seldom discussed, it always put off with - 'that conservative rag' or that 'liberal rag'. 

No point in posting links.

To believe that only bad corn, that could not be used for human or animal food is used for ethanol is asking a little too much. To believe the ethanol plants are paying more for corn is very believable - and didn't some company get some pretty good government help to start that plant. At the time it was stated, admitted, even warned, that it would cause the price of food to increase as so very many things contain corn products?

Also, other countries maybe backward, according to some people's thinking, but they are not so stupid they don't realize our government is subsidizing, making trade agreements, etc., in order to get American grains into their country. Mexico is/was well aware of it. The small farmers tried to fight it - but lost of course.

We can help other countries when they need it - but our government seems never to give anything unless it's attached to strings with hooks. That is true when talking about people in other countries as well as our own.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patt said:


> Helping is fine but directly competing with third world farmers is just evil in my opinion.


I read somewhere was refusing foreign aid because it was severely harming the local markets.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

watcher said:


> I read somewhere was refusing foreign aid because it was severely harming the local markets.


I guess I should say certain kinds of help are Ok.  Donating things that help people get on their feed vs. just handing out free food. I don't blame them for refusing our aid though.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

watcher said:


> I read somewhere was refusing foreign aid because it was severely harming the local markets.



There's foreign aid and then there's foreign 'aid'.

Yes, I read the Africans were refusing GMO grain because they didn't want their crops contaminated because their customers for grain, when they sold it, was Europe and Europe wouldn't buy GMO grain.

I can understand that. 

Maybe if we truly wanted to help, we would have found some non-GMO grain and send to them to keep them from starving - rather than insisting on doing something that would decimate their livelihood.

Again, there's aid and then there's 'aid'.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> a fourteen year old report? From a site with a slant like that?
> Let's get serious......


Ok what's your motivation in this discussion? Do you sell cheap commodities subsidised by our government and are you dependent on those foreign markets to get a good price on your grain? If so I think it is safe to assume you will shoot down any link I post.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

there are no cheap commodities anymore...
compare the prices paid in the last 3 years to those at the time of your out dated report...


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Wasn't there a problem in Mexico, they claimed our using corn for ethonol, was making their tortilla corn to expensive?
So if we use our own products that we produce here it is bad, if we send them to other countries we are bad.
Since this sounds weird, I guess I should ask, were we buying up mexican corn for ethanol?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

SquashNut said:


> Wasn't there a problem in Mexico, they claimed our using corn for ethonol, was making their tortilla corn to expensive?
> So if we use our own products that we produce here it is bad, if we send them to other countries we are bad.
> Since this sounds weird, I guess I should ask, were we buying up mexican corn for ethanol?


The price of corn has risen due to the fact so much is being used in ethanol - just can't understand how it could be otherwise. If we don't need the ethanol, and that is debatable, then it is a bad thing. 

The fact the grain we want to send to other countries would contaminate their own grain, and destroy their ability to make a living in the future, that clearly is a bad thing.

Since I believe the story that our government pays some Mexican farmers not to grow crops, not sure they have much to sell us.

When the US began dumping government subsidized corn onto the Mexican market, it put many small farmers out of business. Now that they are out of business, and the big ones can make money without raising corn, they can raise the price of corn.

The corn growers have plenty of markets for their corn which is making more money. Some large Mexican farmers are making money 'not farming' The small farmers have come across the border and are here in the US, doing really well, working (no taxes) and plenty of freebies.

Taxpayers are paying for the upkeep of the small Mexican farmer, and paying the big ones not to farm, while paying more for corn and anything containing corn products - that's a tremendous number of products. The government thinks everything is just fine.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

That's enough to make your head spin, isn't it.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

SquashNut said:


> That's enough to make your head spin, isn't it.


Yes, it is, isn't it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This is an excellent, well written report that proves exactly what I said:


It's also from *1996*

Get some current data


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MAny things have changed since 1996. Political change for one, import, export treaties change in that length of time among many others things that change over time.
So there has to be new data out besides one that old, so it makes it more viable as to what is truly happening now not that long ago.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's also from *1996*
> 
> *Get some current data*





arabian knight said:


> MAny things have changed since 1996. Political change for one, import, export treaties change in that length of time among many others things that change over time.
> So *there has to be new data out besides one that old*, so it makes it more viable as to what is truly happening now not that long ago.


Can you find it?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Can you find it?


I don't belive it's true and it's not my claim to back


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

wyld thang said:


> But that's the stupid thing about how we first world people "see" Africa, we think it is a barren land full of starving(stupid, ignorant) people. It's actually got a tremendous amount of resources and potential, and plenty of resourceful people who can make things work given a little peace and stability.
> 
> If anything I give the starving unwashed in places like Africa MORE of a chance than us here in a land we ridiculously fat consumptors *think* flows with milk and honey, but that milk and honey has been outsourced to China, and the people who used to grow milk and honey are gone.
> 
> Laying the blame on the "rabbit reproduction" of the third world is misdirected--it's cruel to say but they do still live close to the natural order of things, life is very hard, and they die like rabbits too(we forget...). It's that there are too many people who CONSUME way too much resources. IE it's US that is the problem.


As long as there are governments who ACTIVELY prevent food from reaching certain segments of the population (usually because of religious and or tribal ties) there will be hunger.

You cite Mozambique, which has done a fine job pulling it self out of the quagmire.

To counter, I present Zimbabwe. Once the "Bread Basket of Africa". Now a land chock full of corruption, political crime and death that CANNOT feed itself.

I have a friend who lives there. He (and he is white, an ex-pat American, to boot, and the author of my sig line) has written stories of things that have happened to him. It would make you hair go white.

There are more Zimbabwe's in Africa than Mozambique's.

Back to the UN and food.

How can all the people in the world be fed without using fossil fuels (and creating CO2). The UN targeted the US for our CO2 "production", but will bring pressure (or attempt to) to get us to produce MOREfood, and give MORE of it away).


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Just random thoughts long after I should be in bed...


Why is it our responsibility to feed the world anyways? I don't think it is, though we tend to do so anyways, if not by directly sharing food, then by helping with the Green Revolution.

The screaming about food prices is more about jockeying for positions within the world market place and less about people actually starving.

Our government will always have a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda. It's a government. That's kind of what they do....try to exert their influence on others for their own best interests. I think it's pretty much inherent. Just like the governments who squawk about how everyone is going to starve because of our subsidies also have a hidden agenda. 

You can't put a subsistence farmer "out of business".

Larger farms produce more for less. Smaller farms are not as cost effective simply from economies of scale, if nothing else.

Rice paddies are huge producers of methane, a gas with a greenhouse effect far greater than the effect of CO2.

The US government does not pay farmers to "not farm". They pay farmers to enroll their land in conservation programs. 

If you want to limit population, increase women's education and access to birth control. No mother wants to see her child starve. Women have children they can't feed because they do not have the means to NOT have those children. Give them the means and the power to use them.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> That's enough to make your head spin, isn't it


it's a spin for sure


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Can you find it?


Here is almost all you would ever want to know...interesting information about our exports to Canada too. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/AES//2010s/2010/AES-11-30-2010.pdf


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

This combined with a spermacide could be the magic bullet that many developing nations need to get ahead of their crushing birth rate. It would put women in charge of pregnancies and reduce their risk of aids and the possibility of infecting their children.

I just hope the vatican keeps it's big nose out of it.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/06/aids-gel-prevents-infection-monkeys/?test=latestnews


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

salmonslayer said:


> Here is almost all you would ever want to know...interesting information about our exports to Canada too. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/AES//2010s/2010/AES-11-30-2010.pdf


Thanks for posting that SS, a very comprehensive report indeed. :thumb:

.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

*The US government does not pay farmers to "not farm". They pay farmers to enroll their land in conservation programs. *

First off, I'm not sure I see the difference.

Now I'm also not sure that is true. I do know some years ago, they paid dairy farmers to not milk. They 'bought out' their milk production for 5 years and the farmers were supposed to sell their herds for meat. 

Of course, that didn't work out exactly - many dairies never missed a day of milking, just put in in relatives names. Then, for some strange reason, farmers from Holland showed up to go in business in those dairies that were supposed to be shut down. But they did pay the original farmers not to farm/milk.

Also, I do believe they pay Mexican land holders not to grow.

Small farms may not be as economical - I'm not sure about that either - but are we going to decide that only 'large, more economical' enterprises are going to be able to exist? That could have far reaching consequences. 

The concern about food prices is a real concern at least for me. I have seen the price of food rise drastically in the last year. I see the price of healthy food getting out of the reach of many people. 

But yes, I do agree the corporations will use the rise in the price of food to push their technology on the rest of the world and more and more of it on us.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

fishhead said:


> This combined with a spermacide could be the magic bullet that many developing nations need to get ahead of their crushing birth rate. It would put women in charge of pregnancies and reduce their risk of aids and the possibility of infecting their children.
> 
> I just hope the vatican keeps it's big nose out of it.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/06/aids-gel-prevents-infection-monkeys/?test=latestnews


Wow that would be an excellent combo that's for sure!


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> but are we going to decide that only 'large, more economical' enterprises are going to be able to exist?


That is decided every day when folks arrive at the store to purchase the lowest price products they can.


Buy outs, set asides from the 80's were all designed to make crops more expensive, to do the opposite of what Patt claims is going on........
CRP was designed to placate the greenies and other bleeding hearts about all the damage that big ag is doing to the country, yet somehow even when big ag does something to help they are still the bad guys......

Also very typical of Patt that once her sources are found to be wanting she turns on anyone who disagrees with her position..if you oppose her view you must be one of "them". 
What I do has little bearing on the fact that your data was outdated and slanted.
Whether I pull a planter over 1000 acres or live in a 2 room flat with a hamster it wouldn't change that fact.....


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> That is decided every day when folks arrive at the store to purchase the lowest price products they can.
> 
> 
> Buy outs, set asides from the 80's were all designed to make crops more expensive, to do the opposite of what Patt claims is going on........
> ...


There was nothing at all wrong with my source except the fact you didn't like it. Their research was thorough and backed up. I do think your motives are important to the conversation though just as mine are and everyone else's. I think everyone here knows I am a small organic farmer who lives 100% off my farm income. So everyone knows my slant and where I am coming from. You won't reveal yours which I find interesting.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

sammyd said:


> That is decided every day when folks arrive at the store to purchase the lowest price products they can.


Not really. Our government has decided much of that for us.

Now, when we get all those 'large, economical' companies controlling our food, we just know that we are going to get 'economical' food - don't we? And safe, healthy food as well?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> And the amount of and the kind of corn going into Ethanol is not that much nor is it the same kind of corn that goes into food.


30% of the U.S. corn crop, went into ethanol production in 2010. 
That is a lot of corn, that did not go to food, when it surely can do so.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Trixie said:


> Not really. Our government has decided much of that for us.
> 
> Now, when we get all those 'large, economical' companies controlling our food, we just know that we are going to get 'economical' food - don't we? And safe, healthy food as well?


This thread is about world food prices and the fear that people will starve. If people are starving and you need more food, large, technically advanced farms are going to feed more of them than small farms with no technology.

I wasn't trying to imply a moral decision on that and quite frankly, I don't feel qualified to decide if large, technically advanced farms are evil since I have never gone hungry a day in my life, nor had to watch my children do without.

Why do people continually vilify those who learned how to feed the world???? It's just so...arrogant, out of touch and.....wrong on so many levels.


----------



## barber lady (Mar 31, 2010)

From what my produce man has told me 1 thing I should stock up on is potatoes. Evidently Russia has had a total lose of there potato crops so there will be a shortage this winter because we will be sending ours over there. I had heard about this on another site so I ask him. He was surprised I knew such a thing. What potatoes they will have will be more expensive.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There was *nothing at all wrong with my source except *the fact you didn't like it


Except it's 15 years out of date, and doesn't prove people in Africa are starving because of American exports , which is what you were trying to claim


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Like I said many things change over that period of time, so an article that old has no merit to this discussion.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Jena said:


> This thread is about world food prices and the fear that people will starve. If people are starving and you need more food, large, technically advanced farms are going to feed more of them than small farms with no technology.
> 
> I wasn't trying to imply a moral decision on that and quite frankly, I don't feel qualified to decide if large, technically advanced farms are evil since I have never gone hungry a day in my life, nor had to watch my children do without.
> 
> Why do people continually vilify those who learned how to feed the world???? It's just so...arrogant, out of touch and.....wrong on so many levels.



I don't need to 'vilify' anyone to suggest that 3 or 4 corporations controlling the world's supply of food is perhaps not a good thing. That just seems like common sense. That concern is so right on so many levels. 

I am not 'vilifying' Monsanto when I tell about their actions in their attempt and all too often success at patenting indigenous plants around the world. That means people who have been growing, saving seeds, or harvesting some wild plants for centuries are no longer able to do that. Somehow, I don't think I am 'vilifying' them - they did that themselves.

If our government is paying large land owners in Mexico to not plant, then dumping subsidized corn into Mexico, putting little farmers out of business - I don't need to vilify them - they did it - I didn't.

Of course, the small farmer did OK, he stole into America, with his family and went to work. More than likely, he took a job one done by an American. Now that American might have been some teen working, maybe some person who is challenged in some way, elderly supplementing their SS - you know just menial work - not important. That Mexican farmer is now heavily subsidized.

All courtesy of the American taxpayer - you know the ones who paid the subsidies for the corn so it could be dumped in Mexico in the first place.

Do we think corporations weren't 'encouraging' our government to do those things? I don't think I need to 'vilify' them.

Why, if they are the savior of the world - can't we get our food labeled to let us know if they contain GMO products - what pesticides were used, etc.

We don't know that technology is needed to feed the world - we don't know if it is capable of feeding the world. We aren't even sure it is safe for the world to consume the products.

Thank God, neither I nor my children have ever been hungry - I would like to be sure that my children and grandchildren will continue to be able to have access to good healthy, clean food and they will be able to grow their own if necessary. I want that for the rest of the world, where it is possible. 

I don't want their right to have access to good, healthy food to be denied because a few corporations control the food. I don't want their right to grow their own food, if necessary to be denied because a few corporations control all the seeds, through government manipulation or contamination.

I don't want that for the rest of the world, either.

I'm wondering, though, why a hundred small farmers couldn't grow as much food as one huge corporation?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm wondering, though, why a hundred small farmers couldn't grow as much food as one huge corporation?


Possibly they could, but it would require more resources


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Why, if they are the savior of the world - can't we get our food labeled to let us know if they contain GMO products - what pesticides were used, etc.


impossible, how are the processors going to know that? Do you know how many different pesticides are available? A mill in Iowa receives truck after truck of corn from farms in 4 or 5 counties each with a different microecology some may even still run a plain hybrid instead of roundup ready corn. When the corn is shipped to Kellogs to be made into Corn Flakes how are they to know how that corn was produced?
We can't even get folks to get on board with having animals tracked and now you are basically calling for tracking of each individual kernel of corn.......



> I'm wondering, though, why a hundred small farmers couldn't grow as much food as one huge corporation?


Years ago all there was were small farms but you know what? They became bigger to allow for more efficiencies and a better lifestyle for the farmer.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Like I said many things change over that period of time, so an article that old has no merit to this discussion.


ow wow...are you a big grain producer too?


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

plowjockey said:


> 30% of the U.S. corn crop, went into ethanol production in 2010.
> That is a lot of corn, that did not go to food, when it surely can do so.


sure it could and if it was needed it would go there but it wasn't needed there and became fuel


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Trixie said:


> Not really. Our government has decided much of that for us.
> 
> Now, when we get all those 'large, economical' companies controlling our food, we just know that we are going to get 'economical' food - don't we? And safe, healthy food as well?


No the consumer has decided. The govt has gone to great lengths to provide you with alternatives like organic if they didn't want it it wouldn't be there.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Windy in Kansas said:


> They? They who? How did this "they" put farms out of business anyway?


By industrializing the food chain, and also subsidizing it, you come up with this optical illusion of cheap food. Well, it's only cheap if one observes the price tag on the shelf and nothing else. By producing such large amounts of such few crops, and being able to manipulate so few foods into just about every "food" item in the middle of the supermarket, the market started to revolve around factory farms. These factory farms, it seemed, were just what people wanted... The customers were effectively blinded by false advertising, advertisements of green pastures and pastoral buildings. A veil was thrown over the food, and people began to lose touch with their food, including the farmers. The customers couldn't see the pollution, of their water, their air, their farmers, and their food. The couldn't see the political control they were handing to the corporations. And the farmers couldn't compete with the prices. So, they either Got Big or Got Out, or became mere factory workers, doing the same thing, over and over and over again, or quit. It wasn't until later that everyone discovered just how badly they'd injured themselves, their environment, and their farmers by doing this. But, after all, why should we change? We're helping business quite nicely: while food costs have been cut in half, spending on health care has *tripled*. 
(The advent of nutritionism also contributed a helping hand: corporations could now slap health claims on just about anything; a box of twinkies, a box of Stove-top stuffing, or white bread. The advent of nutritionism had many convinced that the scientists knew what they were doing when margarine was touted so hard as being good for you. Oops.)


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sammyd said:


> No the consumer has decided. The govt has gone to great lengths to provide you with alternatives like organic if they didn't want it it wouldn't be there.


It's called apathy. After all, how many people still smoke and chew, knowing full well how bad it is for them?


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Jena said:


> This thread is about world food prices and the fear that people will starve. If people are starving and you need more food, large, technically advanced farms are going to feed more of them than small farms with no technology.
> 
> I wasn't trying to imply a moral decision on that and quite frankly, I don't feel qualified to decide if large, technically advanced farms are evil since I have never gone hungry a day in my life, nor had to watch my children do without.
> 
> Why do people continually vilify those who learned how to feed the world???? It's just so...arrogant, out of touch and.....wrong on so many levels.


Because they are not feeding the world contrary to the propaganda these companies continue to spew forth. I highly recommend expanding your reading on the subject.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

barber lady said:


> From what my produce man has told me 1 thing I should stock up on is potatoes. Evidently Russia has had a total lose of there potato crops so there will be a shortage this winter because we will be sending ours over there. I had heard about this on another site so I ask him. He was surprised I knew such a thing. What potatoes they will have will be more expensive.


Conventional potatoes are going for $2.99 for a 20 lb bag here.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Trixie said:


> I'm wondering, though, why a hundred small farmers couldn't grow as much food as one huge corporation?


They can grow far more actually. It is well documented that small farms grow food more intensively and of more variety than big ones. They also use less resources to do so they create far less waste and they can feed their local communities far more efficiently. That is what third world countries lost when we started pumping our cheap subsidised grains into them. Their farmers were run out of business and now they don't have any local food period.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They also use less resources to do so they create far less waste and they can feed their local communities far more efficiently.
> 
> Their farmers were run out of business and now they don't have any local food period.


If they are "more efficient" then a big farm CAN'T "run them out of business".

You've made these claims before and still offered no proof OR *logic* to back it up


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> They can grow far more actually. It is well documented that small farms grow food more intensively and of more variety than big ones. They also use less resources to do so they create far less waste and they can feed their local communities far more efficiently. That is what third world countries lost when we started pumping our cheap subsidised grains into them. Their farmers were run out of business and now they don't have any local food period.


 As much as I am pro small family owned farms and support the locovor movement your just not correct in any way shape or form. Dont confuse intensive small agriculture that is by design diversified and sustaining for locals with modern agricultural practices that feed millions.

Our sending food to third world countries isnt putting thier farmers out of business and our three biggest agricultural trading partners are Canada (number 1 by the way), China, Mexico and Peru and these are hardly third world countries. Political instability, natural calamities, over population and historical colonialism has far more impact on third world food production than any exports we may send.

You have a very pollyanna view of things and though I absolutely support the return of small fams and local food production and distribution and practice it myself.....your hypothesis is flawed and unsupported by any measure I can find.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

This article is from 2008 and states basically the same things as the older one I posted. Mexico is the most recent farming economy destroyed and so it starts with them. 

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/how...hird_world_agriculture_and_whos_fighting_back


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

salmonslayer said:


> Our sending food to third world countries isnt putting thier farmers out of business and our three biggest agricultural trading partners are Canada (number 1 by the way), China, Mexico and Peru and these are hardly third world countries. Political instability, natural calamities, over population and historical colonialism has far more impact on third world food production than any exports we may send.


I don't understand how you can say that when it is more than amply documented that our heavily subsidised grains have done just that. 

This sums up the process pretty well:



> -The US grower receives a US taxpayer subsidy. The extra padding of this subsidy allows for the US grower to price the product lower than an unsubsidized product grown elsewhere, sometimes even lower than production cost.
> 
> -This US subsidized lower priced product is shipped/dumped in a foreign market of the third world. The foreign local growers find it difficult to compete by selling their locally grown unsubsidized products. Their domestically grown products may or may not have higher productions costs, but these locally grown products in these third world countries donât have the benefit of the US subsidy which allowed the US product to be priced lower than the foreign countryâs market price.
> 
> ...


http://www.thepaleogarden.com/2010/08/16/interests-of-illinois-pufa-growers-trump-kenyans/


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Because they are not feeding the world contrary to the propaganda these companies continue to spew forth.


Yet our cheap subsidized grains are putting farmers all over out of business.........


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> Yet our cheap subsidized grains are putting farmers all over out of business.........


Which causes famines and high food prices when the farmers go out of business and the prices shoot up.....


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> I don't understand how you can say that when it is more than amply documented that our heavily subsidised grains have done just that.
> 
> This sums up the process pretty well:


 The U.S. Government buying subsidized U.S. food stuffs for questionable foreign policy aims and then dumping them in Africa and elsewhere is not the same thing as agricultural trade where we are selling a product or commodity. Your link basically describes what has also happened in the United States to small farmers and yet you persist with the notion that small farms are more efficient and can produce more than large commercial farms; they just cant compete on a large scale. You are mixing your messages there Patt; we subsidize to stabilize commodity prices and without that you would have very unstable global markets and even more famine and problems. Maybe we need to relook at subsidies (and I think we should) but its a bit simplistic to advocate for something like that without considering the consequences.

We donate a lot of food for famine relief of which a great amount is misdirected and ends up being sold which is an internal problem to that country..i.e., political instability I mentioned. We also sell a great amount of grain and other commodities that is indeed cheaper than what can be grown locally in those countries just as we buy cheaper products or products we cant produce ourselves from other countries...its called trade; and most trading nations use subsidies and tariffs to control prices on commodities. 

You state you grow almost all your own food and thats great but the rise in Big Ag and the demise of the small farmer has actually reduced famine in the third world and kept our own domestic food costs very low.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't understand how you can say that when it is more than amply documented that our heavily subsidised grains have done just that.


You still haven't explained how cheap grain from us causes people to starve, which is the claim you started out with, but have not so subtley changed


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> You state you grow almost all your own food and thats great but the rise in Big Ag and the demise of the small farmer has actually reduced famine in the third world and kept our own domestic food costs very low.


This seems to imply that small farming is not viable. Why is it that healthcare has tripled while the food costs have been cut in half? Why is it that almost all farmers have to supplement their income with outside sources? Why do we have millions of people on food stamps? Et cetera...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Until you find an UNBIASED study, you have no credibility




> As its stated objective, Polaris is designed to enable citizen movements to re-skill and re-tool themselves *to fight for democratic social change in an age of corporate driven globalization.* Essentially, the Institute works with citizen movements in developing the kinds of strategies and tactics required to unmask and challenge the corporate power that is the driving force behind governments concerning public policy making on economic, social and environmental issues. In so doing, the Institute serves as a catalyst with constituency-based social movements, increasing their capacity to do their own strategic campaign planning on issues of vital concern to their members and allies. The work of Polaris with social movements is also carried out on both a national and an international basis.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why is it that healthcare has tripled while the food costs have been cut in half


More efficient farming on LARGE farms, an aging population, and huge advances in medical treatment.

It's nothing mystical at all

Oh, and CHEAP *imported foods *from all those farms Patt says we've "destroyed" \LOL


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More efficient farming on LARGE farms, an aging population, and huge advances in medical treatment.
> 
> It's nothing mystical at all
> 
> Oh, and CHEAP *imported foods *from all those farms Patt says we've "destroyed" \LOL


Did you not read that at all? Because I think that's the only way you could so blatantly misunderstand that. I wrote: "healthcare has tripled while the food costs have been cut in half" That means that while one went down 50% the other went up 150%.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

laying the over all increase in health care spending on the doorstep of cheap food is disingenuous. The cost of health care has tripled which means that spending would do the same without any cheap food.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

For sure it has as I posted. That alone has raised prices higher then any amount of growing Ethanol ever will be, or the large farms. Seems like one poster is stating large farms help drive the prices up, then on the other hand from a biased report, says they have put low prices out there so the smaller guy can't keep up. You can't have it both ways It is one way or the other but not both.
And as fuel prices keep going up prices for any grains will be going up as well. I just heard a report today that next year 10 million more acres will have to be added to keep up with things. The small guy sure can't up their production to make up that amount on the World Market, and yes it is and will continue to be a World Market. Like it or not Selling out of this country will continue at a ever higher pace, to help the countries that can't grow enough there own, or have bad crop years due to a number of things, weather being the biggest.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

salmonslayer said:


> The U.S. Government buying subsidized U.S. food stuffs for questionable foreign policy aims and then dumping them in Africa and elsewhere is not the same thing as agricultural trade where we are selling a product or commodity. Your link basically describes what has also happened in the United States to small farmers and yet you persist with the notion that small farms are more efficient and can produce more than large commercial farms; they just cant compete on a large scale. You are mixing your messages there Patt; we subsidize to stabilize commodity prices and without that you would have very unstable global markets and even more famine and problems. Maybe we need to relook at subsidies (and I think we should) but its a bit simplistic to advocate for something like that without considering the consequences.
> 
> We donate a lot of food for famine relief of which a great amount is misdirected and ends up being sold which is an internal problem to that country..i.e., political instability I mentioned. We also sell a great amount of grain and other commodities that is indeed cheaper than what can be grown locally in those countries just as we buy cheaper products or products we cant produce ourselves from other countries...its called trade; and most trading nations use subsidies and tariffs to control prices on commodities.
> 
> You state you grow almost all your own food and thats great but the rise in Big Ag and the demise of the small farmer has actually reduced famine in the third world and kept our own domestic food costs very low.


I think the problem is that you are misunderstanding my point here: I am talking about the small farm loss in third world countries here not in America. That has lead to famine and starvation in areas where there is no longer a local food supply and where transportation is spotty at best. Trucking in even one years worth of cheap subsidised grain can send the local farmers out of business and off to the cities to try to find work. The next year there is no cheap grain trucked in due to say a war and those roads being closed and now you have a village that is starving.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> laying the over all increase in health care spending on the doorstep of cheap food is disingenuous. The cost of health care has tripled which means that spending would do the same without any cheap food.


Not if people were not developing chronic illnesses that are almost 100% created by that cheap food. If we didn't have an insane rise in diabetes, heart disease and cancer we would not be spending so much by a long shot!


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Of course our dumping subsidized grain into Mexico put little farmers out of business. Those are just the facts. The Mexican farmers were very irate over this, until they came to the US, and got all the benefits of an illegal in his country. 

It is one thing to believe huge corporations are more efficient and better, it's another to not be willing to look at truths.

Still why couldn't a hundred small (smaller) farmers produce as much as one big mega corporation? Let's say they certainly should.

Now I can see how it could be. The mega corporations own the chemical companies that produce the fertilizer and chemicals used, the also control the seed distribution, seed cleaning or preparations, own the processors who do whatever they do with grain - mill it or mix it for feed, etc. If they own the storage facilities. Does anyone believe in the possibility of their being able to make sure small farmers can't farm as economically as they can? They also own the politicians who make rules and regulations, who decide how much subsidies will be and who gets what, who gets what contract for foreign aid, what rules and regulations actually get enforced. 

Big agribusiness corporations don't just grow one crop, or just grow crops. They control the situation from beginning to, if not the end, near the end. So, yes, I can see how a smaller farmer couldn't grow it as economically - or even stay in business, if the big guys are controlling everything but the growing. 

If the third world countries are starving or underproducing, how do they manage to pay the prices we pay for our products? Actually, I'm assuming with the added cost of transportation, their prices should be higher. The answer is, they don't - they couldn't. Our government is either purchasing it to give them, or is subsidizing agribusiness so they can dump it cheaper.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Doesn't anyone think it is maybe a little frightening to allow 3 or 4 big corporations to control the food production of the world - and to control the means to produce food for ourselves? These are already unanswerable to anyone - really. Is that what we want for the world?

Think about our energy problems now. There are so many things that could have been done decades ago to have a diversified energy system in this country. If we had done that, we wouldn't have the prices we do, the pollution we do, the earth being destroyed getting it out of the ground. 

We put all our eggs in one basket as far as transportation - and some electrical production. So when the oil companies want more money, suddenly we have a 'shortage' and Wall Street begins trading oil back and forth, adding a little each trade and we are stuck. 

Do we want to be held hostage to big corporations for our food?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Which causes famines and high food prices when the farmers go out of business and the prices shoot up...


LOL 

There you go again claiming they are* starving and yet they STOP growing food*

If people were truly starvng they would pay anything for whatever they could find to eat, and even "cheap" imports wouldn't be cheap.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> healthcare has tripled while the food costs have been cut in half" That means that while one went down 50% the other went up 150%.


Do you not understand that *advances* in medical technology *cost money*, but food can be obtained more cheaply?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> That has lead to famine and starvation in areas where there is no longer a local food supply and where transportation is spotty at best. Trucking in even one years worth of cheap subsidised grain can send the local farmers out of business and off to the cities to try to find work. The next year there is no cheap grain trucked in due to say a war and those roads being closed and now you have a village that is starving.


 So what your saying is...lack of critical infrastructure, political instability, the odd drought here and there, economy of scale and fuel prices are causing them to not be able to compete with our cheaper grain. Got it...we are saying the same thing. But your assertion that we are causing famine is absurd and belies history. We cant compete with third world labor prices either which is why most of your clothes are made in Malaysia, Bangladesh, Mexico, etc. and with US cotton. Ever buy something made in China and wonder why its sold by a US Company?



> This seems to imply that small farming is not viable. Why is it that healthcare has tripled while the food costs have been cut in half? Why is it that almost all farmers have to supplement their income with outside sources? Why do we have millions of people on food stamps? Et cetera...


 Small farming is indeed viable and has its place but you cant seriously be suggesting that small farmers can satisfy the millions worldwide who rely on our food production? I mean even the most basic of economics principles understand economy of scale. Maybe if you really think about it, health care costs are so high precisely because its so de-centralized and operated principally on the local level. It wouldnt be practical but if you consolidated medical care facilities to a few large sites around the country and exported our medical care to other countries I'm betting the costs would go down significantly. And food stamps? How does that relate to our agricultural policies? Are you saying if we had more small farms people could work in the fields and thus be employed? Seriously?

World populations count on imported grain because their economy, politics or geography cant support their needs; its really a simple concept. Stopping the export of grain to these countries wont magically turn desert or jungle into prime crop land able to support their ever growing populations. If you even read about these countries even going back 30 years you will find that there was much more famine and starvation than there is today.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

There are lots of things involved in the 'price' of merchandise - cheap labor is just part of it. Quality has more to do with the price of merchandise than does labor. 

We aren't talking about 2 farmers replacing a mega corporations, we are talking about 100's or 1000's. That's a pretty big scale. Does it matter if Jones and Smith and 100's of others - or mega corporations? That isn't going to happen because corporations own the land and it is expensive to start up, and the government certainly isn't going to help them - no matter how much they fool the public talking about 'helping the family farm'.

I'm also talking about maybe working at helping other countries produce their own food and thus we won't have to provide for the entire world. We are not the only country with soil. I'm thinking there is lots of soil all over the world, lots of good growing conditions. I believe mega corporations have to use a lot of fertilizer, water and pesticides to grow food - 

Healthcare is expensive because of the waste, fraud and because the corporations in that field have more money than God and own politicians. It is high because we have millions of illegals and their offsprings on the free healthcare roles.

Again, we did put many small farmers in Mexico out of business with our subsidized corn. They aren't starving because they are over here taking American jobs, getting welfare. If Mexico hadn't had the option of sending them to us to support, there would have been big problems down there - more than the drug wars. 

For our children and grandchildren, do we want 3 or 4 corporations to be in charge of the entire world's food production and to control the ability to produce our own food?

That's the question.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patt, you lost me with the first sentence:
_-The US grower receives a US taxpayer subsidy. The extra padding of this subsidy allows for the *US grower to price the product lower *than an unsubsidized product grown elsewhere, sometimes even lower than production cost._

This is false. The farmers who grow the grain do not set the price at all! While often they can store their product and sell it when the price goes up, they are still at the mercy of the markets.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Patt said:


> This article is from 2008 and states basically the same things as the older one I posted. Mexico is the most recent farming economy destroyed and so it starts with them.
> 
> http://www.polarisinstitute.org/how...hird_world_agriculture_and_whos_fighting_back


Well this one is from 2010 and says that Mexico is going gangbusters with their own corn production. Fourth largest corn producer in the world. Not too shabby since apparently no one can farm there, eh?

This article says they import US corn to feed animals, which is a rapidly growing export for them.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> By industrializing the food chain, and also subsidizing it, you come up with this optical illusion of cheap food. Well, it's only cheap if one observes the price tag on the shelf and nothing else. By producing such large amounts of such few crops, and being able to manipulate so few foods into just about every "food" item in the middle of the supermarket, the market started to revolve around factory farms. These factory farms, it seemed, were just what people wanted... The customers were effectively blinded by false advertising, advertisements of green pastures and pastoral buildings. A veil was thrown over the food, and people began to lose touch with their food, including the farmers. The customers couldn't see the pollution, of their water, their air, their farmers, and their food. The couldn't see the political control they were handing to the corporations. And the farmers couldn't compete with the prices. So, they either Got Big or Got Out, or became mere factory workers, doing the same thing, over and over and over again, or quit. It wasn't until later that everyone discovered just how badly they'd injured themselves, their environment, and their farmers by doing this. But, after all, why should we change? We're helping business quite nicely: while food costs have been cut in half, spending on health care has *tripled*.
> (The advent of nutritionism also contributed a helping hand: corporations could now slap health claims on just about anything; a box of twinkies, a box of Stove-top stuffing, or white bread. The advent of nutritionism had many convinced that the scientists knew what they were doing when margarine was touted so hard as being good for you. Oops.)


Factory farming is a derogatory term coined by those who choose to believe that modern agriculture is involved in some giant dark conspiracy to kill off the consumers, or customers. Not much of a business plan, is it? News flash-there is no such thing as a factory farm. It's either a factory or it's a farm. A factory builds things, a farm grows things. Look it up.

When you go to the doctor, do you want them to put leaches on you or treat you with modern knowledge and medicine? Agriculture has evolved, same as medicine. People would be starving if all the farmers were still going at it with 40 acres and a mule. And we'd all be crammed into cities because so much more land would be needed for production. 

Is there room for improvement? Heck, yes. But don't demonize the modern farmer!


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

salmonslayer said:


> So what your saying is...lack of critical infrastructure, political instability, the odd drought here and there, economy of scale and fuel prices are causing them to not be able to compete with our cheaper grain. Got it...we are saying the same thing. But your assertion that we are causing famine is absurd and belies history. We cant compete with third world labor prices either which is why most of your clothes are made in Malaysia, Bangladesh, Mexico, etc. and with US cotton. Ever buy something made in China and wonder why its sold by a US Company?


No we destroy their food infrastructure with our cheap grain which then forces them to be dependent on us. We should never be selling subsidised grain anywhere outside of the US. The US government purposely did this in order to create a market for our over produced taxpayer subsidised grain:



> [Supporting industrialization] would certainly be very good for US agricultural exports, because as you help develop them [underdeveloped countries] industrially, you will shift their economy to an industrial economy, so that in the end you would create more markets for your agricultural products.
> 
> Former US Assistant Secretary of State W.L. Clayton
> 
> ...


http://www.globalissues.org/article/748/food-aid


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Patt said:


> Which causes famines and high food prices when the farmers go out of business and the prices shoot up.....


If the prices shoot up, then why don't the farmers farm more? You say they go out of business because imports cause the price to decrease, but then it goes up? Which is it?


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> Patt, you lost me with the first sentence:
> _-The US grower receives a US taxpayer subsidy. The extra padding of this subsidy allows for the *US grower to price the product lower *than an unsubsidized product grown elsewhere, sometimes even lower than production cost._
> 
> This is false. The farmers who grow the grain do not set the price at all! While often they can store their product and sell it when the price goes up, they are still at the mercy of the markets.


That would be semantics. And I didn't say that the article did. Us farmers sell their grain for less than it actually costs them to produce it. The only reason they do not go out of business like all the rest of us who don't get tax money to subsidise our products is because the our tax dollars go to make up the shortfall.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Jena said:


> If the prices shoot up, then why don't the farmers farm more? You say they go out of business because imports cause the price to decrease, but then it goes up? Which is it?


Please at least read all the posts in the thread because it gets tiresome repeating myself. The farmers are already gone because they lost their land and they have moved away so they can't just magically get their land back and start farming again. The information is out there and easily available do some reading.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Jena said:


> Well this one is from 2010 and says that Mexico is going gangbusters with their own corn production. Fourth largest corn producer in the world. Not too shabby since apparently no one can farm there, eh?
> 
> This article says they import US corn to feed animals, which is a rapidly growing export for them.


What's from 2010?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Trixie said:


> There are lots of things involved in the 'price' of merchandise - cheap labor is just part of it. Quality has more to do with the price of merchandise than does labor.
> 
> We aren't talking about 2 farmers replacing a mega corporations, we are talking about 100's or 1000's. That's a pretty big scale. Does it matter if Jones and Smith and 100's of others - or mega corporations? That isn't going to happen because corporations own the land and it is expensive to start up, and the government certainly isn't going to help them - no matter how much they fool the public talking about 'helping the family farm'.
> 
> I'm also talking about maybe working at helping other countries produce their own food and thus we won't have to provide for the entire world. We are not the only country with soil. I'm thinking there is lots of soil all over the world, lots of good growing conditions. I believe mega corporations have to use a lot of fertilizer, water and pesticides to grow food -


I am pretty sure that starving people could care less about quality, just quantity.

Family farms gets subsidies too. I have a friend who's family farms. 20,000 acres of prime Indiana ground. Is that a small farm? Cargill doesn't own it, a family does.

In fact, I live right here in the corn belt and I don't know of any ground that Cargill owns, or any other corporation. Everyone I know that is a farmer owns and rents some combination of acres...from a couple hundred to tens of thousands. They are just men and women, with families....family farmers. The big guys can grow their crops more efficiently than the little guys, but the little ones still survive.

I always hear this...about these big corporate farms, but honestly I've never seen one, never actually heard of anyone working on one. Where are they????

All farmers I know use water, fertilizers and whatever chemicals they need to grow their crops. A crop does not magically need more water because it is grown by a particular person.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Patt said:


> Not if people were not developing chronic illnesses that are almost 100% created by that cheap food. If we didn't have an insane rise in diabetes, heart disease and cancer we would not be spending so much by a long shot!


Fat people get diabetes. Fat people are more prone to heart disease. No one is sure about what all causes cancer, but cheap food sure doesn't.

Cheap food might make it easier for people to get fat, but it sure is not the cause. A lack of self-control and over-eating causes fat people and thus has contributed a lot to the increase in these diseases.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If we didn't have an insane rise in diabetes, heart disease and cancer we would not be spending so much by a long shot!


If we didn't have CAT scans , MRI's ,robotic heart surgery, and many of the newest drugs, things would be cheaper too.

No one is forcing you to spend money for the BEST treatments.

Take a couple of organic Aspirins and tell us how much better it is than a drug from an "evil corporation"


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patt said:


> That would be semantics. *And I didn't say that the article did*. Us farmers sell their grain for less than it actually costs them to produce it. The only reason they do not go out of business like all the rest of us who don't get tax money to subsidise our products is because the our tax dollars go to make up the shortfall.


So you knew it wasn't true but copied and posted it anyway?? And who says farmers don't go out of business?? That isn't true either, they do it all the time. Ever hear of a little thing called Farm Aid? It was started in response to all the farms going on the auction blocks because the operators couldn't make a profit and went broke. Just about every farmer "bets the farm" every year. 

The subsidies started as a matter of national security, to ensure a steady food supply. Like just about any government program ever conceived, it has ballooned up to be unrecognizable from where it started. But almost every industry has breaks in the tax code or some other form of "subsidy". It's just that us little nickel and dime producers don't have very good lobbyists.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Small farming is indeed viable and has its place but you cant seriously be suggesting that small farmers can satisfy the millions worldwide who rely on our food production?Are you saying if we had more small farms people could work in the fields and thus be employed? Seriously?


I am indeed saying that. It's an ambitious dream.



salmonslayer said:


> If you even read about these countries even going back 30 years you will find that there was much more famine and starvation than there is today.


There are lots of methods to avoid famine on a small scale. If it needs be, import some food to them. I'm not saying we should starve anyone, no, quite the opposite. This system would provide everyone with not only food, but highly nutritious food.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> Fat people get diabetes. Fat people are more prone to heart disease. No one is sure about what all causes cancer, but cheap food sure doesn't.
> 
> Cheap food might make it easier for people to get fat, but it sure is not the cause. A lack of self-control and over-eating causes fat people and thus has contributed a lot to the increase in these diseases.


It's hard to tell if being poor causes one to eat bad... Or if eating bad and becoming fat causes one to become poor... Or if eating poor causes one to eat fat and become bad?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Patt said:


> What's from 2010?


Ooops forgot the link.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...in-mexico-reaches-record-25-million-tons.html


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Some recent testing of the sewage showed that certain poor parts of the city have a much higher amount of fat in the sewage. I'm guessing those residents frequent fast food (not cheap) places and are significantly more obese than the rest of the city residents.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jena said:


> Family farms gets subsidies too. I have a friend who's family farms. 20,000 acres of prime Indiana ground. Is that a small farm? Cargill doesn't own it, a family does.
> 
> In fact, I live right here in the corn belt and I don't know of any ground that Cargill owns, or any other corporation. Everyone I know that is a farmer owns and rents some combination of acres...from a couple hundred to tens of thousands. They are just men and women, with families....family farmers. The big guys can grow their crops more efficiently than the little guys, but the little ones still survive.
> 
> ...



You just expained perfectly, on the "EVIL CORPORATE FARMS", that the spin lover's constantly harp on, without any real facts.

The majority of farmland in the U.S..is owned by families - *FAMILIES WHOSE FARMS ARE INCORPORATED*. If their family farm operations are not incorporated, no matter how small, they probably should be.

Hence, corporate farms rule the agriculture scene. I'ts just a lot more fun to think that Cargill or Archer Daniels, owns all of the land and therefore, control everything agriculture.

For sure, some of these "family farms", may be worth million$, but they are owned by families, none the less. There are many small one's incorporated too.

"Evil Corporate Farms" is just retoric to blame someone else.

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb93_10.pdf


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Many do a INC file to do a LLC at the same. Many small businesses sure want to have that LLC on file, and at the same time if a partnership is involved they do a INC. at the same time. So that is why many small farmers are INC. and that should not be looked on as a bad thing, nor is the LLC part, they both are good things.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> For sure, some of these "family farms", may be worth million$


 I know a few relatively small family farms that have over $1 million invested in just equipment.

A combine, a cotton harvester, and a few big tractors can tie up a million even before you fill them with several hundred gallons of diesel fuel


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Many do a INC file to do a LLC at the same. Many small businesses sure want to have that LLC on file, and at the same time if a partnership is involved they do a INC. at the same time. So that is why many small farmers are INC. and that should not be looked on as a bad thing, nor is the LLC part, they both are good things.


Of course. The problem arises when a select couple corporations control the majority of agricultural dealings. Consider Cargill, which has smoothly vertically integrated many things to control the market more effectively: Cattle minerals, feedlots, grain elevators, grain factories, slaughterhouses, etc. And for what? So they can buy grain from the farmers at prices lower than it costs to produce it, requiring the farmers to need subsidies, and also needing hundreds of acres to make a living AND/OR requiring an off-farm job to make enough money to pay the bills.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

First off, starving people will eat anything - that's not the point. The point is if it isn't good for them, it's not good for them. It keeps them alive, yes, but I understand their concern.

Also, the concern wasn't simply about eating the food for one year - but in the fact the GMO would contaminate their own corn and they would no longer be able to sell their products to their customers. That's not hard to understand.

Whether these corporations own the land or not, they control the production. We can always find exceptions and we can find loopholes, but we are being dishonest with our selves if we say that agribusiness corporations do not control much of the food production and are increasing their reach all the time. There's no point in arguing something like that.

Please understand what I am saying about small farmers. If corporations introduce, either through some 'benevolent, compassionate' gifts, GMO seeds that will contaminate and cross with these people's indigenous corn, then these people have GMO corn. These people for the most part are not equipped to grow corn that needs irrigation, pesticides, etc. So what are they going to do when their corn species are gone, and they can't afford irrigation wells, expensive chemicals, etc.?

Now as for Mexico now producing a lot of corn, do we know Mexicans are doing that - or are American corporations growing corn in Mexico?

That wasn't made clear by that statement. 

None the less, small farmers were put out of business by the dumping of subsidized American corn. Many of those small farmers are now here in America and enjoying some great benefits thanks to the American taxpayer.
That's just the truth - no need to argue that. It was a really big issue when it was happening.

I know Smithfield has pig farms and factories in Oaxaca, Mexico. I know Pilgrim's did/does have chicken facilities in Mexico. Just because it comes from Mexico doesn't mean it is owned by Mexicans.

Actually a Brazilian company now own's Pilgrim's, but it still is a foreign corporation.

To say the majority of farmland is owned by families - leaves questions. Are you saying that is farmland that is actually being farmed? Are you saying that farming is being done by the families who own it? Is this based on number of acres or number of 'farm's? 

Fat and starch are cheap. Fresh veggies and good meat are expensive. That's the long and short of it.

Of course, fat people get diabetes - but so do thin people - lots of them.

My husband's doctor had a blood test run on him, they tested everything from a to z. His blood sugar showed high - the lab wrote on the test 'borderline diabetic'. It wasn't extremely high - but based on one test, they decided to call it borderline diabetic. They didn't know what time of day the blood was drawn, what he had eaten before, how long it had been before he ate, etc.- just made that diagnosis. Think of an elderly person who is frightened - they might let a doctor put them on medication based on that and there are doctors who would be willing to do it.

There is nothing good about being fat - but thin people get diseases and die as well. It is easier to point the the finger at fat people, than to admit something may be wrong. After all, who has any sympathy for a fat person.
If the media, food producers, government, etc., can continue to attempt to put it in the public's mind that only fat people have diabetes, heart trouble, etc., no one demands they look at any other cause. They have been pretty successful, it seems.

Since the Mexicans have been here, eating American food, there has been a rise in diabetes in them. In fact, Mexico complained about that because those returning to live in Mexico had such a high rate of diabetes.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Please understand what I am saying about small farmers. If corporations introduce, either through some 'benevolent, compassionate' gifts, GMO seeds that will contaminate and cross with these people's indigenous corn, then these people have GMO corn. These people for the most part are not equipped to grow corn that needs irrigation, pesticides, etc. So what are they going to do when their corn species are gone, and they can't afford irrigation wells, expensive chemicals, etc.?


 Do you think that irrigation and herbicides were nonexistent until GMO seeds showed up?
Do you honestly think that GMO seeds "need" chemicals and irrigation to grow?
You have no idea what you are talking about and it is painfully clear every time you post.....


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

sammyd said:


> Do you think that irrigation and herbicides were nonexistent until GMO seeds showed up?
> Do you honestly think that GMO seeds "need" chemicals and irrigation to grow?
> You have no idea what you are talking about and it is painfully clear every time you post.....


Rather than being insulting or personal, why not point out just where, when and how. 

Are you saying GMO crops are grown without irrigation and chemicals?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Trixie said:


> Rather than being insulting or personal, why not point out just where, when and how.
> 
> Are you saying GMO crops are grown without irrigation and chemicals?


Considering the fact that GMOs are often made expressly for industrial farms (i.e., Roundup Ready crops), it is highly unlikely that GMOs will be grown without their help.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Are you saying GMO crops are grown without irrigation and chemicals?


No, a lot of corn in this country is irrigated and most is sprayed.
But to say that the GMO corn can't be grown without either is false
Even conventional OP corn will make a better harvest if you spray and irrigate if it's needed....
GMO corn was made for a couple of different reasons.
the big one was to be resistant to roundup herbicide. The fact that it is roundup resistant does not mean that it needs roundup to grow.
the second big one is BT. Which means that it makes its own pesticide to combat the corn borer. This does not mean that it requires pesticide to grow.
Neither trait ups the amount of water the plant needs so if you can grow decent conventional corn without irrigation you can grow GMO corn as well.
For people that are totally dead set against something your are remarkably uninformed.

as a matter of fact this GMO corn was grown without irrigation and should average around 150 bu/acre.
Not on an industrial farm just 3 acres out back that needed some weed control.....
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150253493535311&set=a.10150231422985311.461785.886635310


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> Considering the fact that GMOs are often made expressly for industrial farms (i.e., Roundup Ready crops), it is highly unlikely that GMOs will be grown without their help.



GMOs are made for anyone that wants to use them they are made expressly to sell on the open market......


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

sammyd said:


> For people that are totally dead set against something your are remarkably uninformed.


Again, why the need for that statement.

Giving information will suffice.

I do know that irrigation, if needed and herbicides produce more food. Really, I do know that.

What I want to know is what percentage of GMO corn or grain is irrigated? And does it, as I have read, require more water? And what percentage has to have herbicides to grow?

It could be I am uninformed. I would like to know a lot more about GMO produce - how it was developed, how it is grown, what special care it does/does not need? What effect it is having on the soil? What effect it is having on the animals that eat it? What effect it is having on the people who consume it? Does it really produce more?

What are my chances of getting the true facts about this??? Not facts from the corporations, from the agri business growing it, not the farmers who are defending it, not the politicians defending it, and not the people who are just against it because it's different. I want facts - real facts - not opinions - not spin - not carefully constructed reports designed to sound very forthcoming, but hiding a lot - from both sides. What are my chances - and where is the information to be found?

It could be I'm wrong thinking that our developed strains could fare well in poor countries with no irrigation, less access to chemical fertilizers, and insecticides - but I don't think so.

Also, if it is introduced into those countries, and it contaminates their species, they loose theirs and would be at the mercy of the corporations owning the patents on the GMO seeds.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sammyd said:


> GMOs are made for anyone that wants to use them they are made expressly to sell on the open market......


Wrong: GMOs are patented. Farmers sign an agreement with the company before using their seeds.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Trixie said:


> What are my chances - and where is the information to be found?


Testing on GMOs are conducted by the companies themselves. There are no independent labs conducting tests. The chance of you finding that sort of information is, currently, non-existent.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Wrong: GMOs are patented. *Farmers* sign an agreement with the company before using their seeds.


And just how does that prove they are "made expressly for industrial farms"? 

Also, why has the topic changed from people starving to crops planted?
Is it because that one couldn't be proven either?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There are no independent labs conducting tests


Then evidently no one is worried enough to fork out the funds


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And just how does that prove they are "made expressly for industrial farms"?


Do you know any backyard farmers using GMOs?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Do you know any backyard farmers using GMOs?


It's your claim to prove, not mine.

But since you asked nicely, yes I do know some with less than 3 acres who use it.

Its far easier and cheaper for them to spray a couple of times than to cultivate between the rows, and spraying allows the rows to be closer together

Why don't you define for us "industrial farm" and I may know a lot more examples


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then evidently no one is worried enough to fork out the funds


Is stuff just allowed on the market with no testing until 'someone is worried enough to fork out the funds?"

So if people can't come up with enough to do the research, they don't get it?


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

3 acres isn't an industrial farm.
I happen to be a backyard farmer at the homestead and grew 3 acres of a roundup ready corn last season.
if you want to get a GMO seed you can freely go to the feed mill or any seed dealer and get it, that is the open market. Signing an agreement doesn't change that.
everything you buy is patented why should that be different for rr corn?

Why do you need to know how many acres are irrigated? GMO crops grow in nonirrigated soil that's the plain facts.
They do not _require_ irrigation or spraying as you have said they do.
they were designed to cut down on the amount of rally nasty sprays required to help conventional varieties grow, like atrazine.
GMO corn has had a couple of genes messed with but at the heart it is usually a very sturdy and high yielding hybrid. There is more than one variety of GMO corn.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Is stuff just allowed on the market with no testing until 'someone is worried enough to fork out the funds?"


What hasn't been tested?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What hasn't been tested?


Have GMO products been tested and researched for any adverse effects - long/short term on humans, animals, environments?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Considering the fact that GMOs are often made expressly for industrial farms (i.e., Roundup Ready crops), it is highly unlikely that GMOs will be grown without their help.


Industrial farm??? What is that? Where are they?

Do you seriously believe that round up ready corn REQUIRES round up to grow??? :rotfl:


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Trixie said:


> Again, why the need for that statement.
> 
> Giving information will suffice.


It needs to be said because you are obviously ignorant about the things you are ranting about.

There's plenty of information given, but rather than use that as a spring board to go find more, or even asking questions, you rant against something about which you know nothing. You continue to rant when people try to tell you something.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Saying you don't think something is worth arguing about doesn't make your version the truthful or correct one. You are very misguided and incorrect on a number of issues, but also unwilling to listen so I am done. 

You do not know what you are talking about.

a


Trixie said:


> First off, starving people will eat anything - that's not the point. The point is if it isn't good for them, it's not good for them. It keeps them alive, yes, but I understand their concern.
> 
> Also, the concern wasn't simply about eating the food for one year - but in the fact the GMO would contaminate their own corn and they would no longer be able to sell their products to their customers. That's not hard to understand.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Trixie said:


> Have GMO products been tested and researched for any adverse effects - long/short term on humans, animals, environments?


I would imagine that the USDA and FDA had to approve them, and probably the EPA and who knows whatever other initials. Go do your research, don't expect others to do it for you.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> It needs to be said because you are obviously ignorant about the things you are ranting about.


Really? Insults and sarcasm are actually needed? Interesting position. Now I know what happened to my climate change topics. :flame:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> I would imagine that the USDA and FDA had to approve them, and probably the EPA and who knows whatever other initials. Go do your research, don't expect others to do it for you.


Roundup is not as toxic as other herbicides, but is still not harmless and certainly not beneficial. It has been shown to prevent certain micronutrient uptake (resulted in poor plant function) and increased risks of Fusarium.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Jena said:


> I would imagine that the USDA and FDA had to approve them, and probably the EPA and who knows whatever other initials. Go do your research, don't expect others to do it for you.


And we all know how well they do, right? Every day we see lawyers telling people if they have used such and such product to contact them because of all the lawsuits from products being released too soon without knowing what the long term affect will be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Have GMO products been tested and researched for any adverse effects - long/short term on humans, animals, environments?


Don't you know? 

You made the claim they hadn't

[ame]http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&source=hp&q=Have+GMO+products+been+tested+and+researched+for+any+adverse+effects+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Roundup is not as toxic as other herbicides, but is still not harmless and certainly not beneficial. It has been shown to prevent certain micronutrient uptake (resulted in poor plant function) and increased risks of Fusarium.


Your first claim is false, and the claim about Fusarium is irrelevant since Fusraium doesn't affect the crops on which Roundup is normally used



> Now I know what happened to my climate change topics.


Yes, they were the same as this topic; filled with false claims and half truths while ignoring anything you don't already agree with.

I see a pattern

Still waiting for your definition of "industrial farm"


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> Have GMO products been tested and researched for any adverse effects - long/short term on humans, animals, environments?


You can find some answers to that here:

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/index.htm

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 4. Are genetically modified plant foods safe to eat?
> 
> 4.1 Foodstuffs made of genetically modified crops that are currently available (mainly maize, soybean, and oilseed rape) *have been judged safe to eat*, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the International Council for Science (ICSU) and are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO).


There's the answer


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Aha! But then there is this, which doesn't sound good at all:

http://www.psrast.org/

Oh, what to do, what to do? Who to believe? :shrug:

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Oh, what to do, what to do? Who to believe?


Yeah, the well known international agencies, or some group no one has ever heard of

I'd say the second one has an agenda



> Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of
> Science and Technology (PSRAST)


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I don't know that greenfacts.org is a well known agency either though. I just picked both websites out of the hat. That's part of the problem with internet, there's so much conflicting information out there in cyberspace it's hard to tell who's telling the truth based on hard, cold facts and who's stretching the truth because of an agenda. So many people suspect the so-called experts of having an agenda ..... way too many conspiracy theories out there and too many people willing to believe the conspiracy theories.

I'm not afraid to eat GMO foods. I'll eat pretty much whatever is put on my plate but mainly stick to a Mediterranean style of diet. 

Bit of thread drift here - When my autistic son was very young, however, (this is like 40 years ago) I DID put him on a nutritional plan that eliminated all salycilates from his diet and the difference and improvement in his behaviour and responses after 6 months was phenomenal. But salicylates doesn't have anything to do with GMO foods.

.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

fishhead said:


> A food crisis is only a matter of time. We're still breeding like locusts and our food production is teetering on the brink.


That is why farming development in this direction is gaining speed in this century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming

The article liks in the reference section about the Canadian projects are especially interesting.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your first claim is false, and the claim about Fusarium is irrelevant since FusaRium doesn't affect the crops on which Roundup is normally used.
> 
> Still waiting for your definition of "industrial farm".


I've removed the needless, harassing rhetoric and answered the pertinent info:
1. What's your source for rejecting my claim? 
http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/pbrazil.nsf/1c678d0ba742019483256e19004af5b8/66b18e2a70f87a180325738c0050a0b2/$FILE/Anais%20Robert%20Kremer.pdf


> Very few Fusarium cultures demonstrated biological control toward SCN. However, Fusarium colonization was always higher on RR soybean treated with glyphosate. Colonization of roots by Fusarium spp. was generally two to five times higher with glyphosate compared to no herbicide or with a conventional herbicide.


2. Any farm that is large and sells to the industrial food complex, or any farm that sells to the industrial food complex.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

so basically any farm


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Really? Insults and sarcasm are actually needed? Interesting position. Now I know what happened to my climate change topics. :flame:


I was not being sarcastic in any way, nor was I insulting. I was being direct and truthful. If someone doesn't know what they are talking about, they are ignorant. That's not an insult, just a state of being. 

I am ignorant about...oh say bridge building. If I chose to learn, I could, but I don't want too, so I don't. I also don't run around ranting at bridge builders to say they are doing it wrong because I don't know what I am talking about in that regard. Ignorant ranting is nothing more than trolling.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> 2. Any farm that is large and sells to the industrial food complex, or any farm that sells to the industrial food complex.


So every farm is an industrial farm? Even mine was? Hahahaha. That is funny.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> So every farm is an industrial farm? Even mine was? Hahahaha. That is funny.


Where you buying herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, large amounts of machinery, and selling to corporations? (no I am not against chemical fertilizers; misuse of them is what I am against)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't know that greenfacts.org is a well known agency either though


They weren't the ones who did the testing though.

It's in your source AND in my post:



> These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the *International Council for Science* (ICSU) and are consistent with the views of the *World Health Organization *


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 1. What's your source for rejecting my claim?


A simple Google search will tell you it's the GMO gene that gives it the micronutrient problem, not the Roundup



> Very few Fusarium cultures demonstrated biological control toward SCN. However, *Fusarium colonization was always higher on RR soybean *treated with glyphosate. Colonization of roots by Fusarium spp. was generally two to five times higher with glyphosate compared to no herbicide or with a conventional herbicide


It's still irrelevant, since soybeans aren't a "cereal crop":



> *Fusarium* is a large genus of filamentous fungi widely distributed in soil and in association with plants. *Most species are harmless *saprobes and are relatively abundant members of the soil microbial community. *Some species produce mycotoxins in cereal crops *that can affect human and animal health if they enter the food chain. The main toxins produced by these Fusarium species are fumonisins and trichothecenes.





> Any farm that is large and sells to the industrial food complex, or any farm that sells to the industrial food complex


So you mean ALL farms that sell crops

LOL


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Any farm that is large and sells to the industrial food complex, or any farm that sells to the industrial food complex.


This would mean any place that sold just about anything, even a guy with a couple of goats that sells his extra billies at the sales barn and has them bought by the meat buyer.
Or the guy with a family milk cow that sells a bull calf down at the sales barn.
A ridiculous definition any way you look at it.

but wait...there's qualifications


> Where you buying herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, large amounts of machinery, and selling to corporations?


would buying one thing on that list make you industrial or would it be like 2 or more?
Anybody that makes more than you at farming? Or is there an income cap that all of a sudden make you "industrial" as well?
And that cool "corporation" tag....what if you have 6 chickens and sell the occasional dozen eggs to the farm family down the road that milks 40 cows but is incorporated?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sammyd said:


> This would mean any place that sold just about anything, even a guy with a couple of goats that sells his extra billies at the sales barn and has them bought by the meat buyer.
> Or the guy with a family milk cow that sells a bull calf down at the sales barn.
> A ridiculous definition any way you look at it.
> 
> ...


Your argument was self-refuting, on the grounds that I said "large". Or, I could just leave the term to mean a CAFO.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Shrek said:


> That is why farming development in this direction is gaining speed in this century
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
> 
> The article liks in the reference section about the Canadian projects are especially interesting.


That was interesting.

.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

Trixie, I live and have a small farm here in Nebraska. As stated by others in their areas, here virtually all the farmland is owned and/or operated by family farmers. some incorporated some not. I do not know of any coorperation that you would have heard of ie cargill, monsanto, dupont, ect owning farmland. There is a lot of absentee ownership, usually someone inherited grandad's farm and lives in a city and rents it out to a local farmer or investment property bought by wealthy doctors, lawyer ect also rented out. 

Last year on my farm 60 acres of GMO round up ready ,Bt was raised without irrigation. I can see no difference in most physical characteristics other than those particular modified genes. No corn has to be sprayed with a herbicide to grow, but weed pressure in any crop can reduce yeild to zero.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Your argument was self-refuting, on the grounds that I said "large". Or, I could just leave the term to mean a CAFO.


"Large" is not ALL you said:



> Any farm that is large and sells to the industrial food complex, *or *any farm that sells to the industrial food complex


You can't reword your answer when the original is still there to see

Well, you can, ( since you tried) but it's pretty silly

But on the OP topic, no one has yet *shown proof *that growing MORE food is causing a "food crisis"


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Where you buying herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, large amounts of machinery, and selling to corporations?


Only large in there is large amounts of machinery......

the global food crisis is predicated on the shortage of certain grain crops such as corn and wheat, how do you propose to fill the needs with your small subsistence farms?


----------



## silverbackMP (Dec 4, 2005)

Folks--the subsidies are not all that huge.

Off of my 46 acres that were in beans last year (around 36 bu per acre I BELIEVE) the total income was $11500. The subsidy was around $300. I have no idea what the inputs were (I rent it out on 1/3 2/3) but I suspect in the neighborhood of $3000-$4000.

Also, I second the statement that "Coorporate" farms do not much exists; FAMILY farmers incorporate as business structure for the best tax treatment and limited liability. Also, they may want to pass on their estate to lots of people and the best way to do this is through dividend distribution.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sammyd said:


> Only large in there is large amounts of machinery......
> 
> the global food crisis is predicated on the shortage of certain grain crops such as corn and wheat, how do you propose to fill the needs with your small subsistence farms?


Subsistence farms? You are very insulting.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Subsistence farms? You are very insulting.


So you're an "industrial farm" also?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Where you buying herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, large amounts of machinery, and selling to corporations? (no I am not against chemical fertilizers; misuse of them is what I am against)


What does buying machinery have to do with it?

What is a large amount of machinery?

We used fertilizer and herbicides. Only time we used pesticides was when there were army worms in the pastures.

Sold the grain at the elevator and I am pretty sure they are incorporated. 

So????


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> What does buying machinery have to do with it?
> 
> What is a large amount of machinery?
> 
> ...


Unless you had several hundred acres, the amount you grew was largely insignificant compared to the multi-hundred to multi-thousand acres farms. Also, the food you sold to the grain elevator is going to be processed, or sold as animal feed etc. to the industrial food supply. The "industrial farm" is not actually a real term, I was, however, using it to refer to farms that were very large, or very concentrated, growing monocultures. (and don't try to say monocultures don't exist. The entire cornbelt is one big monoculture, or perhaps biculture?) Whatever, too few crops are being grown.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Unless you had several hundred acres, the amount you grew was largely insignificant compared to the multi-hundred to multi-thousand acres farms. Also, the food you sold to the grain elevator is going to be processed, or sold as animal feed etc. to the industrial food supply. The "industrial farm" is not actually a real term, I was, however, using it to refer to farms that were very large, or very concentrated, growing monocultures. (and don't try to say monocultures don't exist. The entire cornbelt is one big monoculture, or perhaps biculture?) Whatever, too few crops are being grown.


Thank you for admitting that "industrial farms" is a catchy term that means NOTHING because there is no such thing.

We farmed about 1000 acres, some owned, some rented. 

What is wrong with growing corn and beans? "Monoculture" is another catchy phrase people like to throw around like it's a bad word, but it doesn't really mean much either. 

What other crops should be grown? I go to the grocery store and I can buy just about any kind of produce I want, at any time of year. What are we missing?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> Thank you for admitting that "industrial farms" is a catchy term that means NOTHING because there is no such thing.
> 
> We farmed about 1000 acres, some owned, some rented.
> 
> ...


I don't understand why you are this site? The title says:
"*Getting back-to-the-land practising sustainable, agricultural, ecologically sound, energy effecient, self-sufficient lifestyles*"


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't understand why you are this site? The title says:
> "*Getting back-to-the-land practising sustainable, agricultural, ecologically sound, energy effecient, self-sufficient lifestyles*"


Maybe she is here to learn the MANY DIFFERENT ways people can become self-sufficient or partially sustainable. Just because they farm on a large scale to make their living, does not mean she is not interested in learning about possibly market gardening, growing more of their own food, or any of the other thousands of topics discussed on this forum. Like many on here, we have to make a living some way while we work towards our on farm goals, what ever they may be. Like it or not most of the world is being fed by these large farmers and unless a major, major, major event happens, it will always be this way.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I agree large farms are here to stay. Like it or not, they are. Too many food stuffs are grown in the World Market, to stop and go back to a out dated, antiqued way of growing food.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't understand why you are this site? The title says:
> "*Getting back-to-the-land practising sustainable, agricultural, ecologically sound, energy effecient, self-sufficient lifestyles*"


HF, aside from the fact that I don't see that in the HT title, I have to agree with what Treasureacres and Arabian Knight said. That type of farming lifestyle might work for small farmers who are only producing for themselves and a small market but at this time it's not practical for farmers who are producing on a large scale big enough to feed massive numbers of consumers. It just wouldn't be financially feasible or practical, there would be far too many losses both economically and production-wise to make it worth their while. It would also require the use of more land.

Perhaps one day in the future vertical farming may be the only way to grow food in an ecologically sound, energy efficient way for mass production but it would still never be economical, and it certainly wouldn't be economical or feasible for small farmers who's only goal is self sufficiency.

.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

The world is changing, everything from agriculture to industry, and people are going have to find their niche, and be happy with it and accept others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Whatever, *too few *crops are being grown.


There are?

The whole time you've been saying we "over produce"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't understand why you are this site? The title says:
> "Getting back-to-the-land practising sustainable, agricultural, ecologically sound, *energy effecient,* self-sufficient lifestyles"


GMO crops save energy


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't understand why you are this site? The title says:
> "*Getting back-to-the-land practising sustainable, agricultural, ecologically sound, energy effecient, self-sufficient lifestyles*"


She's been here a lot longer than you, and is a lot less rude. What difference does it make why she's here?

Jena's raised, sold, and homesteaded more than you likely will in 2 life-times.

If you asked around, you might find out she knows more about pastured poultry business and raising beef than most folks on this site.

You're awful smug on your derision of everything you don't like... There's a difference between arguing ideas passionately and questioning why someone is here.


Learn it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> What is wrong with growing corn and beans? "Monoculture" is another catchy phrase people like to throw around like it's a bad word, but it doesn't really mean much either.


Monoculture is not a catchy phrase, it is a term. In a polyculture, plants (and often animals) act in symbiosis to prevent diseases, weeds, and pests. A monoculture cannot accomplish these things because there is only one plant. 
One must also take into account soil microbes. Herbicides disrupt soil microbes. If the microbes are operating at sub-par levels, plants will operate at sub-par levels. Microbes operate in symbiosis with plants: in exchange for some nutrients from the plant, the microbes give the plants some nutrients. A healthy microbial soil also prevents antagonistic microbes from moving in, pathogens, etc. Microbes are extremely, vitally important to plants and their importance cannot be overstated enough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Monoculture is not a catchy phrase, it is a term. In a polyculture, plants (and often animals) act in symbiosis to prevent diseases, weeds, and pests. A monoculture cannot accomplish these things because there is only one plant.
> One must also take into account soil microbes. Herbicides disrupt soil microbes. If the microbes are operating at sub-par levels, plants will operate at sub-par levels. Microbes operate in symbiosis with plants: in exchange for some nutrients from the plant, the microbes give the plants some nutrients. A healthy microbial soil also prevents antagonistic microbes from moving in, pathogens, etc. Microbes are extremely, vitally important to plants and their importance *cannot be overstated enough*.


Actually you do quite well at overstating things


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

treasureacres said:


> The world is changing, everything from agriculture to industry, and people are going have to find their niche, and be happy with it and accept others.


Exactly!


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't understand why you are this site? The title says:
> "*Getting back-to-the-land practising sustainable, agricultural, ecologically sound, energy effecient, self-sufficient lifestyles*"


I don't need to defend why I am here, but I would like to point out that modern farms fit that definition or parts thereof. Homesteading may evoke an image of a small, individual enterprise but that sure doesn't mean that is the only "right" way to produce food, or live.

There is a lot of hype out there regarding the evils of modern ag, but it comes from people who have never gone hungry a day in their life and who really don't know what is going on with farms. People rant about subsidies, but lack the most basic understanding of what they are. People rant about "industrial" farms, without even knowing if such an animal exists. 

There is room for everyone. From the organic farmer who targets rich customers, to the person who just wants to grow their own food, to the modern farmer who competes in a global market. Why do some feel the need to demonize any of them? Why do people fall for the hysterical hype that can permeate some places and then propagate it when they are obviously ignorant? That bugs me, so I speak up.

You have the right to think that your way (whatever that is) is better, or that your produce is better, but why not stick to talking about how much better your stuff is instead of saying how bad everything else is? When I sold meat, I made the conscious choice to NOT engage in "negative marketing" by tearing down other components of ag in an effort to make my stuff more appealing. My meat was appealing simply because it tasted better! Good enough for me! I would tell people what I didn't use when raising it, but never went off on wild fear mongering tactics of how evil my neighbors were for raising their stuff the way they did. It's unnecessary, divisive and a lot of the stuff spread around is simply untrue.

I figured sticking to truth, fairness and being even-handed was a better way to go and I still think that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Monoculture is not a catchy phrase, it is a term. In a polyculture, plants (and often animals) act in symbiosis to prevent diseases, weeds, and pests. *A monoculture cannot accomplish these things because there is only one plant*.


That's how FARMING is done.

It's been that way forever.

You don't go out and ramdomly mix crops, but rather grow ONE species in ONE area.

To do anything else on a large scale would be idiotic


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Unless you had several hundred acres, the amount you grew was largely insignificant compared to the multi-hundred to multi-thousand acres farms. Also, the food you sold to the grain elevator is going to be processed, or sold as animal feed etc. to the industrial food supply. The "industrial farm" is not actually a real term, I was, however, using it to refer to farms that were very large, or very concentrated, growing monocultures. (and don't try to say monocultures don't exist. The entire cornbelt is one big monoculture, or perhaps biculture?) Whatever, too few crops are being grown.


Monoculture is also intended to be a derogatory term and is therefore insulting, too. In addition to being bogus. Sorry if this is too personal, but do you plant your green beans in a row, or do you put one seed here, one seed there, scattered all over the place? I'm betting it is in a row. Therefore, you are *gasp* practicing monoculture! Just on a smaller scale than the Kansas farmer with 1,000 acres of wheat. See how silly that is????

ETA: The corn belt is NOT a contiguous mass of corn plants like you make it out to be. Trust me, lived here all my life. There are tree lines and shelter belts between fields. Streams and waterways and their floodplains. Rollings hills that are unsuitable for planting. Lots of habitat and lots of wildlife. Fly over it, it looks like a patchwork quilt. Depending on the weather and markets, one field may grow corn for a few years, then conditions are right to put in a crop of winter wheat, followed by soybeans (because it's too late to plant corn when the wheat gets harvested). Our property is surrounded by farmland and it's a healthy place to live, not some tortured industrialized landscape.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Jena said:


> I don't need to defend why I am here, but I would like to point out that modern farms fit that definition or parts thereof. Homesteading may evoke an image of a small, individual enterprise but that sure doesn't mean that is the only "right" way to produce food, or live.
> 
> There is a lot of hype out there regarding the evils of modern ag, but it comes from people who have never gone hungry a day in their life and who really don't know what is going on with farms. People rant about subsidies, but lack the most basic understanding of what they are. People rant about "industrial" farms, without even knowing if such an animal exists.
> 
> ...


The voice of reason! Good post.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> Monoculture is also intended to be a derogatory term and is therefore insulting, too. In addition to being bogus. Sorry if this is too personal, but do you plant your green beans in a row, or do you put one seed here, one seed there, scattered all over the place? I'm betting it is in a row. Therefore, you are *gasp* practicing monoculture! Just on a smaller scale than the Kansas farmer with 1,000 acres of wheat. See how silly that is????


Indeed I'm planting a monoculture, but on a much smaller scale. It is still small enough for multi-species interaction.
Back on the corn belt, why do the corn belt dwellers have to use water filters?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Indeed I'm planting a monoculture, but on a much smaller scale. *It is still small enough for multi-species interaction*
> Back on the corn belt, why do the corn belt dwellers have to use water filters?


Size makes no difference.

One acre of crops properly rotated has the same "multi-species interactions" as 10,000 acres properly rotated.

The plants can't tell any difference.

Why not just accept that your way is no better?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> Back on the corn belt, why do the corn belt dwellers have to use water filters?


Who told you they do? Our city water comes from an underground aquifer and the wells are sitting in the middle of thousands of acres of farmland used for corn soybeans, and potatoes. It is regularly tested and sent to a lab. It is very high quality and the test results are in our local paper. I also know the superintendent of the water dept and he is a straight shooter.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Indeed I'm planting a monoculture, but on a much smaller scale. It is still small enough for multi-species interaction.
> Back on the corn belt, why do the corn belt dwellers have to use water filters?


They don't! We don't filter our water. It comes from a nearby municipal well and is very good quality, according to the annual report and my taste buds. The widow lady we bought this place from, and who had the house built in 1939, had used a sand point "wellhead" until the year before she sold it to us. So she drank water her whole adult life that was basically filtered thru the surrounding farmland. She was up in her 90's when she died. 

There is a wetlands area up the road from us a mile. Being the lower ground, it catches a lot of runoff from the farmed fields. It is a mecca for migrating ducks and geese, so much so that there is a hunting lodge on the property. Blue herons have nested there for the 25 years we have lived here. I see them all the time wading in the ditches along the cornfields, hunting. Bald eagles have returned here in the Missouri river bottoms, which is 90% farmland and has been for generations. The water is safe; the fields are not a solid mass of corn that goes on for days; there is a lot of variety of wildlife, etc. Modern farming is NOT the toxic operation you have been led to believe it is. 

Most farmers today are using the land more wisely than their ancestors did. They grow more crops on less land and less tillage or cultivation passes, saving fuel and emissions. Technology such as GPS maps of their fields lets them micro manage application of fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide. They don't apply any more than is needed because of the expense. That said, there is always room for improvement. And farmers of the future will continue to improve their practices and efficiency both.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> They don't! We don't filter our water. It comes from a nearby municipal well and is very good quality, according to the annual report and my taste buds. The widow lady we bought this place from, and who had the house built in 1939, had used a sand point "wellhead" until the year before she sold it to us. So she drank water her whole adult life that was basically filtered thru the surrounding farmland. She was up in her 90's when she died.
> 
> There is a wetlands area up the road from us a mile. Being the lower ground, it catches a lot of runoff from the farmed fields. It is a mecca for migrating ducks and geese, so much so that there is a hunting lodge on the property. Blue herons have nested there for the 25 years we have lived here. I see them all the time wading in the ditches along the cornfields, hunting. Bald eagles have returned here in the Missouri river bottoms, which is 90% farmland and has been for generations. The water is safe; the fields are not a solid mass of corn that goes on for days; there is a lot of variety of wildlife, etc. Modern farming is NOT the toxic operation you have been led to believe it is.
> 
> Most farmers today are using the land more wisely than their ancestors did. They grow more crops on less land and less tillage or cultivation passes, saving fuel and emissions. Technology such as GPS maps of their fields lets them micro manage application of fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide. They don't apply any more than is needed because of the expense. That said, there is always room for improvement. And farmers of the future will continue to improve their practices and efficiency both.


+1,000 Post of the night. I live right along a corn field, never had to have a filter put in, nor is my water bad, as it has been tested at different times also.
And yes I have seen the GPS equipped fertilizer trucks apply, and even asked the guy that went around in a 4 wheeler, taking soil samples throughout the acreage. And with the price of fertilizers going up nearly daily, No farmer wants to ad any more then absolutely possible. and that is a fact.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Indeed I'm planting a monoculture, but on a much smaller scale. It is still small enough for multi-species interaction.
> Back on the corn belt, why do the corn belt dwellers have to use water filters?


Another issue with so much of the same crops is loss of biodiversity. The use of GMOs is causing heirloom varieties to become scarce, especially in large quantities. And yes, I'm sure there are some small gardens in the corn belt. But that does not counter the fact that almost everything else is either corn or soy. It also means that people are eating a lot of the same thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Another issue with so much of the same crops is loss of biodiversity.
> 
> The use of GMOs is causing heirloom varieties to become scarce, especially in large quantities.


So you're just going to pretend you didn't see your "water filter" claim ( as well as most of the others) was instantly disproven, and will now just spout some more unsubstantiated "facts"?

It's not even mildly entertaining any more


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Another issue with so much of the same crops is loss of biodiversity. The use of GMOs is causing heirloom varieties to become scarce, especially in large quantities. And yes, I'm sure there are some small gardens in the corn belt. But that does not counter the fact that almost everything else is either corn or soy. It also means that people are eating a lot of the same thing.


The performance of modern seed varieties has rendered the heirloom varieties obsolete for the typical farm. Just like the popularity of tractors caused mules broke to plow to become much scarcer. If seeds of heirloom varieties are in demand in large quantities, but there is no supply, then somebody out there is missing a heckuva business opportunity.

Biodiversity is a good thing, we sure can agree on that. But think about this - ya know who probably has one of the best stashes in the world of heirloom seeds? Those "evil" seed companies, that is who. It is in their best interest to have a variety of genetics to draw from. They probably have a whole lot of biodiversity in their stash to meet new challenges as they arise. And if they think an heirloom variety is promising, they would want to capture the supply and keep their competition from getting it, right? It isn't all some dark evil conspiracy, just business. Big business.

People are eating the same thing, and that is bad?? Somebody call and tell China and the other Asian countries whose diets are based in rice.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

Heirloom varieties were scarce long before GMOs. But why let the truth get in the way of a good fantasy?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> people are eating a lot of the same thing.


Actually people can find a *bigger variety *of fruits and vegetables in most stores now than ever before.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> It also means that people are eating a lot of the same thing.


Actually, in a sustainable system like yours most try to grow and eat only what is in season which I would think would give you a limited diet for the majority of the year . The idea is not to have produce or products brought to you. However with global agriculture, you can go to most any large grocery store chain and get varieties from all over the world any time you want so you would not eat the same thing all of the time. When I first read this post I was trying to envision what you are thinking. Do think people in Iowa just sit around eating bowls of corn and soy beans?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

treasureacres said:


> Actually, in a sustainable system like yours most try to grow and eat only what is in season which I would think would give you a limited diet for the majority of the year . The idea is not to have produce or products brought to you. However with global agriculture, you can go to most any large grocery store chain and get varieties from all over the world any time you want so you would not eat the same thing all of the time. When I first read this post I was trying to envision what you are thinking. Do think people in Iowa just sit around eating bowls of corn and soy beans?


No. Not exactly. This is probably the only generation of farmers that did not feed itself. Of course, the transportation helps eleminate starvation, which is good. But, we've also got to look at the health of the consumer. A large amount of corn is turned into corn syrup (HFCS). And because the corn and soy is so cheap, consumers end up eating a lot of the same thing, whether they know it or not. 
There is also the issue of money. Farmers in the cornbelt are the most productive farmers in history. (although, quite soon it will not be, if the "soil mining" continues) And yet they get paid the least! Several _tons_ of corn per acre, and all they get is a couple hundred profit. A recent article in the Stockman Grass Farmer found that cornbelt farmers would make more money grazing cattle than growing corn. 

Perhaps in a sustainable system we only eat what's in season --- but no, we don't. There are root cellars, which appear to be almost forgotten in history. There is also canning, and freezing. No, being sustainable does not mean you have to eat salted pork all year round.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> No. Not exactly. This is probably the only generation of farmers that did not feed itself. Of course, the transportation helps eleminate starvation, which is good. But, we've also got to look at the health of the consumer. A large amount of corn is turned into corn syrup (HFCS). And because the corn and soy is so cheap, consumers end up eating a lot of the same thing, whether they know it or not.
> There is also the issue of money. Farmers in the cornbelt are the most productive farmers in history. (although, quite soon it will not be, if the "soil mining" continues) And yet they get paid the least! Several _tons_ of corn per acre, and all they get is a couple hundred profit. A recent article in the Stockman Grass Farmer found that cornbelt farmers would make more money grazing cattle than growing corn.
> 
> Perhaps in a sustainable system we only eat what's in season --- but no, we don't. There are root cellars, which appear to be almost forgotten in history. There is also canning, and freezing. No, being sustainable does not mean you have to eat salted pork all year round.


Whether or not a piece of ground is more profitable in crops or as pasture depends on many,many factors and you can't make a blanket statement about which is more profitable. 

Soil mining? Yet another meaningless, yet hysterically catchy phrase. 

Why must you validate your own methods by attacking others? Do you need farms to be evil in order to feel like what you do is ok? Or do you need to feel superior in some way so you try to demonize others? Good lord, just do what you do and leave others to do what they do and quit with all the factless, baseless attacks.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Patt said:


> I guess I should say certain kinds of help are Ok.  Donating things that help people get on their feed vs. just handing out free food. I don't blame them for refusing our aid though.


we better not be concerned about africa let them starve for all I care....we need to be concerned about america.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> A recent article in the *Stockman* Grass Farmer found that cornbelt farmers would make more money grazing cattle than growing corn


What do you expect a LIVESTOCK magazine to say?

It's just *opinion*


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> No. Not exactly. This is probably the only generation of farmers that did not feed itself. Of course, the transportation helps eleminate starvation, which is good. But, we've also got to look at the health of the consumer. A large amount of corn is turned into corn syrup (HFCS). And because the corn and soy is so cheap, consumers end up eating a lot of the same thing, whether they know it or not.
> There is also the issue of money. Farmers in the cornbelt are the most productive farmers in history. (although, quite soon it will not be, if the "soil mining" continues) And yet they get paid the least! Several _tons_ of corn per acre, and all they get is a couple hundred profit. A recent article in the Stockman Grass Farmer found that cornbelt farmers would make more money grazing cattle than growing corn.
> 
> Perhaps in a sustainable system we only eat what's in season --- but no, we don't. There are root cellars, which appear to be almost forgotten in history. There is also canning, and freezing. No, being sustainable does not mean you have to eat salted pork all year round.


You seem to have missed the point of my response. You said we must eat a lot of the same thing, and I pointed out that with global agriculture I can eat almost anything I want right here in the middle of our corn field. Last time I checked the cattle industry was based on the market. If grain farmers switched all of their land to cattle, wouldn't that not hurt the market price? I am no economist, but common sense would say that would not be a successful venture due to the fact that many cattle producers teeter on the verge of bankruptcy when the market is down now, let alone when hundreds of thousands of new producers add to the surplus.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

Heritagefarm, I am curious as to why you continue this on going debate in so many threads. I have to ask if you really believe that the United States, the rest of the world, will step back in time and farm the way you do? Many people are farming your way for their own benefit, whether it be to feed their own family or maybe sell to small market. I think it is great and I help support two farmers markets buy purchasing a lot of produce and other goods. I also grow a lot of our own and sell some at these markets when I have extra. But with that being said, I also know that the world needs big ag to feed the other 99% of the world that can't grow their own or afford farmers market prices. I think most of the posters on this thread and numerous other threads, respect your style of farming. If you were not constantly bashing their farming methods I feel they would probably engage in meaningful dialog about the many different ways to farm. But you can only see one way.....your way. You read an article about big ag and believe it whole heartily, no matter who wrote the article. I really hate to say this but it makes you look ignorant. If you honestly can not see the need for commercial farming in todays world, how can we even take you serious in any discussion. You have a great niche in the farming community ,but I feel you can not even enjoy that because of your hate towards how the rest of the world operates their farms. I know this will not change anything with you, but I just had say this because I just I can not imagine you are not intelligent enough to understand todays world, and I can not tell if you are just a troll getting everyone worked up, or if you are really this close minded.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Factory farming, monoculture, and soil mining. Any more meaningless derogatory catch-phrases left besides Franken-food??


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> No. Not exactly. This is probably the only generation of farmers that did not feed itself. Of course, the transportation helps eleminate starvation, which is good. But, we've also got to look at the health of the consumer. A large amount of corn is turned into corn syrup (HFCS). And because the corn and soy is so cheap, consumers end up eating a lot of the same thing, whether they know it or not.
> There is also the issue of money. Farmers in the cornbelt are the most productive farmers in history. (although, quite soon it will not be, if the "soil mining" continues) And yet they get paid the least! Several _tons_ of corn per acre, and all they get is a couple hundred profit. A recent article in the Stockman Grass Farmer found that cornbelt farmers would make more money grazing cattle than growing corn.
> 
> Perhaps in a sustainable system we only eat what's in season --- but no, we don't. There are root cellars, which appear to be almost forgotten in history. There is also canning, and freezing. No, being sustainable does not mean you have to eat salted pork all year round.


 Gotta love how people laugh off the term 'soil mining'. The term is absolutely correct. Our national treasure is our topsoil and most of it has ended up in the rivers. Only small percentage of farmers out there are doing anything OTHER than SOIL MINING. When you TAKE more out of a system than you put in, that is MINING.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Our national treasure is our topsoil and most of it has ended up in the rivers. Only small percentage of farmers out there are doing anything OTHER than SOIL MINING. *When you TAKE more out of a system than you put in, that is MINING*.


And when they put it in a CRP program, you whine about "subsidies"

When you put it BACK IN, thats farming.

The truth is, no one in the world is starving *from a lack of food*


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

And when they switch from multiple passes with a plow, disks and cultivators to one minimally invasive pass with a no-til planter and 1 or 2 totally non invasive passes with a sprayer they're accused of washing all the topsoil into the river.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Stephen in SOKY said:


> And when they switch from multiple passes with a plow, disks and cultivators to one minimally invasive pass with a no-til planter and 1 or 2 totally non invasive passes with a sprayer they're accused of washing all the topsoil into the river.


That's not really the problem. The problem is growing plants that remove literally tons of matter from the soil and only fertilizing with a ton or two of fertilizer, i.e., taking out more than putting in.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Gotta love how people laugh off the term 'soil mining'. The term is absolutely correct. Our national treasure is our topsoil and most of it has ended up in the rivers. Only small percentage of farmers out there are doing anything OTHER than SOIL MINING. When you TAKE more out of a system than you put in, that is MINING.


More misinformation. _Mining - the act of extracting ores, coal, etc. from the earth._ 

Farmers have taken a lot of land that is suceptible to erosion out of production, also terraced it/contoured it to capture runoff. Haven't you ever seen one of those fields with curvy rows that looks like it was plowed by a drunk? They are following the contours of the land to prevent runoff. Todays disc and drill planting doesn't loosen up nearly as much soil as yesterday's deep plowing and frequent cultivation passes. This prevents both wind and water erosion. Corn is a heavy user of nitrogen, that's why cornfields get treated with anhydrous ammonia. They are putting it IN before the corn takes it out. And I will try to find a link to the university study I read once which found continuous corn planting to be SUSTAINABLE. The crop residue actually adds organic matter to the soil and supports the good microbes. Our land was in crop production from the time it was homesteaded in the 1800's until we planted grass on it in the 1980's. The town was founded in 1860 so I assume that's when it started. Don't know whatall was grown there since day one, but we do know the last few years of production it was always planted to soybeans. Our soil tests came out good. Over 100 years of continuous farming, and the soil was healthy.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

treasureacres said:


> You seem to have missed the point of my response. You said we must eat a lot of the same thing, and I pointed out that with global agriculture I can eat almost anything I want right here in the middle of our corn field. Last time I checked the cattle industry was based on the market. If grain farmers switched all of their land to cattle, wouldn't that not hurt the market price? I am no economist, but common sense would say that would not be a successful venture due to the fact that many cattle producers teeter on the verge of bankruptcy when the market is down now, let alone when hundreds of thousands of new producers add to the surplus.


Mm, no, what I actually said was we eat too much of the same thing, which might not actually be bad if it wasn't in processed food. Also, yes, I'm sure that if the whole corn belt switched to cattle, the market would be flooded. It was an example, to illustrate the low profit margin of corn belt farmers. It's a viscous circle, designed to keep production high. (of course, it's also possible to make almost nothing on cattle, too.)


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> More misinformation. _Mining - the act of extracting ores, coal, etc. from the earth._
> 
> Farmers have taken a lot of land that is suceptible to erosion out of production, also terraced it/contoured it to capture runoff. Haven't you ever seen one of those fields with curvy rows that looks like it was plowed by a drunk? They are following the contours of the land to prevent runoff. Todays disc and drill planting doesn't loosen up nearly as much soil as yesterday's deep plowing and frequent cultivation passes. This prevents both wind and water erosion. Corn is a heavy user of nitrogen, that's why cornfields get treated with anhydrous ammonia. They are putting it IN before the corn takes it out. And I will try to find a link to the university study I read once which found continuous corn planting to be SUSTAINABLE. The crop residue actually adds organic matter to the soil and supports the good microbes. Our land was in crop production from the time it was homesteaded in the 1800's until we planted grass on it in the 1980's. The town was founded in 1860 so I assume that's when it started. Don't know whatall was grown there since day one, but we do know the last few years of production it was always planted to soybeans. Our soil tests came out good. Over 100 years of continuous farming, and the soil was healthy.


Anhydrous ammonia is extremely bad for soil microbes. If something cannot be put on your skin, it really shouldn't go in the soil. According to Acres U.S.A., it also encourages weed proliferation.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

treasureacres said:


> Heritagefarm, I am curious as to why you continue this on going debate in so many threads. I have to ask if you really believe that the United States, the rest of the world, will step back in time and farm the way you do? Many people are farming your way for their own benefit, whether it be to feed their own family or maybe sell to small market. I think it is great and I help support two farmers markets buy purchasing a lot of produce and other goods. I also grow a lot of our own and sell some at these markets when I have extra. But with that being said, I also know that the world needs big ag to feed the other 99% of the world that can't grow their own or afford farmers market prices. I think most of the posters on this thread and numerous other threads, respect your style of farming. If you were not constantly bashing their farming methods I feel they would probably engage in meaningful dialog about the many different ways to farm. But you can only see one way.....your way. You read an article about big ag and believe it whole heartily, no matter who wrote the article. I really hate to say this but it makes you look ignorant. If you honestly can not see the need for commercial farming in todays world, how can we even take you serious in any discussion. You have a great niche in the farming community ,but I feel you can not even enjoy that because of your hate towards how the rest of the world operates their farms. I know this will not change anything with you, but I just had say this because I just I can not imagine you are not intelligent enough to understand todays world, and I can not tell if you are just a troll getting everyone worked up, or if you are really this close minded.


Why is it going backward? It's not primitive, you know... We've still got the CEC, pH, EC, TDS, and soil instruments, refractometers, organic herbicides, and we don't need pesticides. And yes, commercial agriculture is definitely necessary - we've still got poor people to feed. But it doesn't have to be this way.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Anhydrous ammonia is extremely bad for soil microbes. If something cannot be put on your skin, it really shouldn't go in the soil. According to Acres U.S.A., it also encourages weed proliferation.


I bet some of the lotions and potions I use on my skin wouldn't be good additions to my garden soil, either! I don't want manure on my skin either, but that's good for the soil. Human skin and a body of soil are not comparable. 

The anhydrous gets applied shallowly, once a year, shortly before planting corn. I am sure microbes that get a direct hit of it are damaged, but that is not *all* of the microbes and the soil has not been sterilized. The microbes then have a year to recover. Longer than that if a different crop is planted next. Do you think it would be better not to apply the anhydrous ammonia and just let all the nitrogen be depleted from the soil??


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> I bet some of the lotions and potions I use on my skin wouldn't be good additions to my garden soil, either! I don't want manure on my skin either, but that's good for the soil. Human skin and a body of soil are not comparable.
> 
> The anhydrous gets applied shallowly, once a year, shortly before planting corn. I am sure microbes that get a direct hit of it are damaged, but that is not *all* of the microbes and the soil has not been sterilized. The microbes then have a year to recover. Longer than that if a different crop is planted next. Do you think it would be better not to apply the anhydrous ammonia and just let all the nitrogen be depleted from the soil??


There are other sources of nitrogen. There is a book (_Science in Agriculture_, Arden Anderson) chock-full of the hazards of NH3 and it's deleterious impact on soil. If one uses NH3, the best solution is to combine it with water.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Mm, no, what I actually said was we eat too much of the same thing, which might not actually be bad if it wasn't in processed food. Also, yes, I'm sure that if the whole corn belt switched to cattle, the market would be flooded. It was an example, to illustrate the low profit margin of corn belt farmers. It's a viscous circle, designed to keep production high. (of course, it's also possible to make almost nothing on cattle, too.)


Post #206 is the post I was responding to. "It also means that people are eating a lot of the same thing." You were talking about lack of diversity which I understand, but I am just saying in today's world, we can have "other" products almost anytime we want if we are willing to pay for them. If one only uses prepackaged products to cook with yes they will be eating a lot of corn and soy biproduct.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Why is it going backward? It's not primitive, you know... We've still got the CEC, pH, EC, TDS, and soil instruments, refractometers, organic herbicides, and we don't need pesticides. And yes, commercial agriculture is definitely necessary - we've still got poor people to feed. But it doesn't have to be this way.


By stepping back I mean it is not as productive. Commercial farming practices are more efficient and can produce more crop.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And when they put it in a CRP program, you whine about "subsidies"
> 
> When you put it BACK IN, thats farming.
> 
> The truth is, no one in the world is starving *from a lack of food*





MO_cows said:


> More misinformation. _Mining - the act of extracting ores, coal, etc. from the earth._
> 
> Farmers have taken a lot of land that is suceptible to erosion out of production, also terraced it/contoured it to capture runoff. Haven't you ever seen one of those fields with curvy rows that looks like it was plowed by a drunk? They are following the contours of the land to prevent runoff. Todays disc and drill planting doesn't loosen up nearly as much soil as yesterday's deep plowing and frequent cultivation passes. This prevents both wind and water erosion. Corn is a heavy user of nitrogen, that's why cornfields get treated with anhydrous ammonia. They are putting it IN before the corn takes it out. And I will try to find a link to the university study I read once which found continuous corn planting to be SUSTAINABLE. The crop residue actually adds organic matter to the soil and supports the good microbes. Our land was in crop production from the time it was homesteaded in the 1800's until we planted grass on it in the 1980's. The town was founded in 1860 so I assume that's when it started. Don't know whatall was grown there since day one, but we do know the last few years of production it was always planted to soybeans. Our soil tests came out good. Over 100 years of continuous farming, and the soil was healthy.


 Thanks for the info, but I'm well aware of contour farming, and the use of anhydrous, and the supposed benefits of 'no till farming'. You come check out the runoff from my neighbors 'conventional' grain farm, and then tell me,as a nation, if we can afford to lose and lose topsoil every year, in large part to feed cattle who shouldnt be eating that goverment subsidised corn to begin with. 
You eat what you want. If you want corn-fed, antibiotic laced, chicken-manure eating beef then bon-appetit! Hey, the USDA inspectors say its ok so why not?? But there are other models of production out there that DONT require the massive inputs of chemicals to thrive. 

And your 'definition' of mining is rather narrow, dont you think?? 

As far as the OP, the problem of worldwide hunger has more to do with inequalities in wealth, more than any lack of food.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> More misinformation. _Mining - the act of extracting ores, coal, etc. from the earth._
> 
> Farmers have taken a lot of land that is suceptible to erosion out of production, also terraced it/contoured it to capture runoff. Haven't you ever seen one of those fields with curvy rows that looks like it was plowed by a drunk? They are following the contours of the land to prevent runoff. Todays disc and drill planting doesn't loosen up nearly as much soil as yesterday's deep plowing and frequent cultivation passes. This prevents both wind and water erosion. Corn is a heavy user of nitrogen, that's why cornfields get treated with anhydrous ammonia. They are putting it IN before the corn takes it out. And I will try to find a link to the university study I read once which found continuous corn planting to be SUSTAINABLE. The crop residue actually adds organic matter to the soil and supports the good microbes. Our land was in crop production from the time it was homesteaded in the 1800's until we planted grass on it in the 1980's. The town was founded in 1860 so I assume that's when it started. Don't know whatall was grown there since day one, but we do know the last few years of production it was always planted to soybeans. Our soil tests came out good. Over 100 years of continuous farming, and the soil was healthy.


:goodjob:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

treasureacres said:


> By stepping back I mean it is not as productive. Commercial farming practices are more efficient and can produce more crop.


Organic farming has just as much potential; it is just harder to exploit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You come check out the runoff from my neighbors 'conventional'* grain farm*


Whine to your neighbor then instead of saying it's all farmers


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Organic farming has just as much potential; it is just harder to exploit


You cannot feed the world with organic farming.

It ends up costing more in money AND resources



> But there are other models of production out there that DONT require the massive inputs of chemicals to thrive.


No one is trying to tell you NOT to do things that way if that's what YOU want.

But don't expect *everyone* to do it your way


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> "It also means that people are eating a lot of the same thing."


It also means that people *are eating*, period


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> There are other sources of nitrogen. There is a book (_Science in Agriculture_, Arden Anderson) chock-full of the hazards of NH3 and it's deleterious impact on soil. If one uses NH3, the best solution is to combine it with water.


I'm sure you can understand that I choose to believe what I see with my own eyes instead of what you read in some obscure book. We have lived here in farmland central for over 20 years, the primary crop is corn, the farmers use anhydrous in the spring because it is relatively cheap and readily available. After all these years of this so-called "abuse" of the soil, guess what happens when we have an extra wet spring and they can't get into their fields on time? The fields still turn green with a variety of weeds and grasses sprouting up. So, if that soil is so "abused", why is it constantly growing something??? It isn't sick and anemic and sterile like the claims against modern practices say it should be, instead it is virile and full of life. All the "anti" propaganda seems to imply that old mother earth is like a hothouse flower, delicate and weak and if we don't pamper her just so, she will die. The old saying, if it sounds too good to be true, it is? Well maybe it should be, if it sounds too BAD to be true, it is.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You come check out the runoff from my neighbors 'conventional'* grain farm*
> 
> Whine to your neighbor then instead of saying it's all farmers


 If you are going to quote me, can you at least have the decency to use the entire sentence? Thank you.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> I'm sure you can understand that I choose to believe what I see with my own eyes instead of what you read in some obscure book. We have lived here in farmland central for over 20 years, the primary crop is corn, the farmers use anhydrous in the spring because it is relatively cheap and readily available. After all these years of this so-called "abuse" of the soil, guess what happens when we have an extra wet spring and they can't get into their fields on time? The fields still turn green with a variety of weeds and grasses sprouting up. So, if that soil is so "abused", why is it constantly growing something??? It isn't sick and anemic and sterile like the claims against modern practices say it should be, instead it is virile and full of life. All the "anti" propaganda seems to imply that old mother earth is like a hothouse flower, delicate and weak and if we don't pamper her just so, she will die. The old saying, if it sounds too good to be true, it is? Well maybe it should be, if it sounds too BAD to be true, it is.


Weeds are often indicators. Some are simply there because they are there, but some are indicators. For example, broomsedge signifies an acid soil, with low calcium.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Thanks for the info, but I'm well aware of contour farming, and the use of anhydrous, and the supposed benefits of 'no till farming'. You come check out the runoff from my neighbors 'conventional' grain farm, and then tell me,as a nation, if we can afford to lose and lose topsoil every year, in large part to feed cattle who shouldnt be eating that goverment subsidised corn to begin with.
> You eat what you want. If you want corn-fed, antibiotic laced, chicken-manure eating beef then bon-appetit! Hey, the USDA inspectors say its ok so why not?? But there are other models of production out there that DONT require the massive inputs of chemicals to thrive.
> 
> And your 'definition' of mining is rather narrow, dont you think??
> ...


Not my definition, it's google's. Take it up with their corporate office.

Thank you for granting your permission to eat what I want. My first choice is beef that we raised, on pasture, with a modest amount of grain offered free choice for finishing. And I will be happy to sell any excess we raise, but my sales pitch does NOT involve throwing another producer, or their methods, under the bus.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If you are going to quote me, can you at least have the decency to *use the entire sentence*? Thank you


I used the part that mattered.

Modern methods cause LESS erosion, so I left out the part that wasn't factual


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> For example, broomsedge signifies an acid soil, with low calcium


I don't know any farmers who don't test the Ph and add LIME (Calcium) when needed.

Weeds don't grow in soil that has no nutrients, as you try to imply with your "soil mining" rhetoric.

When all you have is misinformation, you aren't going to convince anyone of anything


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> Gotta love how people laugh off the term 'soil mining'. The term is absolutely correct. Our national treasure is our topsoil and most of it has ended up in the rivers. Only small percentage of farmers out there are doing anything OTHER than SOIL MINING. When you TAKE more out of a system than you put in, that is MINING.


Farmers do a lot to minimize erosion, but that would seem to be a different issue than "soil mining". 

What is the system you are referring too? Top soil? What is it that they are taking out and not putting back?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's not really the problem. The problem is growing plants that remove literally tons of matter from the soil and only fertilizing with a ton or two of fertilizer, i.e., taking out more than putting in.


Really? What plants take out tons of matter from soil?


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

the soil is being mined....Oh no...
farmers are taking out more than they put in Oh no...

Yeah right....
that's why yields are almost continually on the increase.....


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> Farmers do a lot to minimize erosion, but that would seem to be a different issue than "soil mining".
> 
> What is the system you are referring too? Top soil? What is it that they are taking out and not putting back?


Primarily micronutrients.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What is it that they are *taking out and not putting back*?





> Primarily *micronutrients*.


Once again you prove you will *say *anything to push your agenda, even if it's *not true*
Just why do you think farmers do soil testing, and what do you think is in the fertilizers they apply?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I used the part that mattered.
> 
> Modern methods cause LESS erosion, so I left out the part that wasn't factual


 Topsoil erosion is 'not factual'??? LOL What sort of farming are YOU familiar with?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once again you prove you will *say *anything to push your agenda, even if it's *not true*
> Just why do you think farmers do soil testing, and what do you think is in the fertilizers they apply?


Oh? So how many farmers do you know who add micronutrients to their fertilizer mix? If you had even a basic understanding of soil science, you would know what I say is true.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Oh? So how many farmers do you know who add micronutrients to their fertilizer mix? If you had even a basic understanding of soil science, you would know what I say is true.


Um...no. You are incorrect.

If you had even a basic understanding of farming, you would know what I say is true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Topsoil erosion is 'not factual'??? LOL What sort of farming are YOU familiar with?


It's far less likely with modern methods using Roundup Ready crops, which is what we are talking about here


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Oh? So *how many farmers do you know who add micronutrients *to their fertilizer mix? If you had even a basic understanding of soil science, you would know *what I say is true*.


*All of them*

They do extensive soil tests and *add what is needed *for their particular crop.
They rotate crops and use cover crops to PREVENT "wearing out the soil" and to preven erosion.

Most of what you say is just *biased* rhetoric with little basis in facts, since most of it has been* shown *to be false, such as your claim of no cattle subsidies:

http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=livestock

I have a feeling you don't know any *real *farmers, and get all your info from "green" organizations that happen to agree with your preconcieved notions


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> Um...no. You are incorrect.
> 
> If you had even a basic understanding of farming, you would know what I say is true.


Needless rhetoric. What makes you think I am incorrect? Do you add micronutrients to your crop?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Needless rhetoric*. *What makes you think I am incorrect?* Do you add micronutrients to your crop?


She paraphrased *your *"needless rhetoric"

Reality and past history.

Anyone can. All you have to do is ask for it at any fertilzer dealer:

http://www.southernstates.com/promotions/professionalturfguide/fertilizers.aspx




> SOUTHERN STATES - 25 Pound Bags:
> 
> 10-20-30 with micro-nutrients
> 10-52-8 with micro-nutrients
> ...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *You cannot feed the world with organic farming.
> 
> It ends up costing more in money AND resources*
> 
> ...


 Guess it depends on whose studies you believe. There are some who disagree with your statement.
http://jrjohnsonsupply.blogspot.com/2008/05/organic-vs-conventional-farming.html


From the link...

* "Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does," Pimentel added.*


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Guess it depends on whose studies you believe. There are some who disagree with your statement.
> http://jrjohnsonsupply.blogspot.com/2008/05/organic-vs-conventional-farming.html
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for finding this! I've RILed it.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

How much more labor is involved in Organic vs. Traditional Methods used today? I ask both sides of this arguement because I am curious what everyone thinks. Personally, I would think it would would drastically increase the amount of "manual" labor on a farm to grow organic, but I may be wrong.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And then try to feed the world market, which can not be done. Large farms are here to stay, no sense in trying to mandate something that will only work with a handful of folks. And then only in a handful of areas.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

treasureacres said:


> How much more labor is involved in Organic vs. Traditional Methods used today? I ask both sides of this arguement because I am curious what everyone thinks. Personally, I would think it would would drastically increase the amount of "manual" labor on a farm to grow organic, but I may be wrong.


 Definitely more labor to go organic.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> And then try to feed the world market, which can not be done. Large farms are here to stay, no sense in trying to mandate something that will only work with a handful of folks. And then only in a handful of areas.


 Whos trying to 'madate' anything?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

treasureacres said:


> How much more labor is involved in Organic vs. Traditional Methods used today? I ask both sides of this arguement because I am curious what everyone thinks. Personally, I would think it would would drastically increase the amount of "manual" labor on a farm to grow organic, but I may be wrong.


What's wrong with more manual labor? We've got plenty of people who could lose a couple hundred pounds.:lookout:
But I see what you mean. That may just have to be worked out on an individual level. Maybe I'll invent a weed-plucker, who knows? With all the brain power put into weed killers couldn't we have just made a weed-plucker? It could also dump them back onto the ground to mulch - now wouldn't that be kinda like a between-rows mower...
You see, we're not dumb. We can figure things out, on our own.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Guess it depends on whose studies you believe. There are some who disagree with your statement.
> http://jrjohnsonsupply.blogspot.com/...l-farming.html





> Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes.



He seems to contradict hmself.

How is more expensive, more labor intensive, and less efficient somehow "better"?




> Pimentel noted that although *cash crops cannot be grown as frequently over time on organic farms *because of the dependence on cultural practices to supply nutrients and control pests and because *labor costs average about 15 percent higher in organic farming systems*, the higher prices that organic foods command in the marketplace still make the net economic return per acre either equal to or higher than that of conventionally produced crops.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What's wrong with more manual labor?


It's expensive and inefficient.

I notice you've abandoned the micro nutrient tangent now that it's been proven wrong too



> Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy


Are they counting the fossil energy used to harvest the crops fed to the animals that produced the manure?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> With all the brain power put into weed killers couldn't we have just made a weed-plucker?


We have those already and they are called "cultivators" 

The fact you didn't know that confirms once more you don't know much about most farming methods


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Needless rhetoric. What makes you think I am incorrect? Do you add micronutrients to your crop?


I don't have crops anymore.

Most deficiencies are not solved by adding the elements to the soil. The elements are there, just unavailable. But you know that, right?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

treasureacres said:


> How much more labor is involved in Organic vs. Traditional Methods used today? I ask both sides of this arguement because I am curious what everyone thinks. Personally, I would think it would would drastically increase the amount of "manual" labor on a farm to grow organic, but I may be wrong.


I have a friend who grows organic and traditional crops. He hates the organic. He says the fields are a mess of weeds and bugs, with half the yield. I am not sure about the amount of labor, but I know he doesn't feel it's worth it to grow. His dad believes in keeping diversity in the crops, so the organic stays for now.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

My guess is they would have to open up our whole southern border in order to provide enough labor if we were ever forced to make switch to organic grown crops. Even with unemployment at the rate it is most of our citizens will not do that kind of work.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> My guess is they would have to open up our whole southern border in order to provide enough labor if we were ever forced to make switch to organic grown crops


Yep, and I'm guessing none of the energy used to get that labor back and forth to work was included in the calculations

So according to *their *source, organic costs a MINIMUM of 15% more to raise LESS product overall, while requiring more intensive labor


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He seems to contradict hmself.
> 
> How is more expensive, more labor intensive, and less efficient somehow "better"?


 Depends on which you value more, 'efficiency', or producing healthier crops while leaving healthier soils and more diverse ecosystems. You noted that "cash crops cannot be grown as frequently over time on organic farms because of the dependence on cultural practices to supply nutrients and control pests"... That applies to CONVENTIONAL farming as well, although to a slightly lesser degree. Actually that is one of the benefits of organic, or more accurately, SUSTAINABLE farming. Its not as if those fields go fallow, they get planted to a variety of crops, often for the express purpose of concentrating fertility back into the ground WITHOUT the use of expensive chemicals.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

treasureacres said:


> My guess is they would have to open up our whole southern border in order to provide enough labor if we were ever forced to make switch to organic grown crops. Even with unemployment at the rate it is most of our citizens will not do that kind of work.


 Wait till those unemployment benefits run out and we'll see who would 'do that kind of work'.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jena said:


> I have a friend who grows organic and traditional crops. He hates the organic. He says the fields are a mess of weeds and bugs, with half the yield. I am not sure about the amount of labor, but I know he doesn't feel it's worth it to grow. His dad believes in keeping diversity in the crops, so the organic stays for now.


 It definitely takes more knowledge to grow organically. Its not just a plant, spray, harvest operation. Its much more complicated when that chemical crutch is not there. 
To balance that out somewhat, farmers receive a premium price for organic products, and consumers in this country have shown a willingness to pay those premiums.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jena said:


> I don't have crops anymore.
> 
> Most deficiencies are not solved by adding the elements to the soil. The elements are there, just unavailable. But you know that, right?


 I agree about the 'micronutrients being there, but unavailable. One of the best substances for making micronutriets available to plants is humic acid, formed from carbon in the soil. And minimal-tillage organic practices put MORE carbon into the soil than conventional NO-TILL practices do.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul07/soil0707.htm

From the link...
 From 1994 to 2002, Teasdale compared minimal-tillage organic corn, soybean, and wheat with the same crops grown conventionally with no-till.

Many agriculturalists believe that no-till builds soil better than organic farming, which uses tillage to incorporate manure and control weeds. Tillage is known to destroy soil organic matter. But Teasdale&#8217;s study showed that organic farming built up soil better than conventional no-till because use of manure and cover crops more than offsets losses from tillage.

In a 3-year study following the 9-year system comparison, Teasdale grew corn with conventional no-till practices on all plots to see which ones had the most productive soils.

Those turned out to be the organic plots. They had more carbon and nitrogen and yielded 18 percent more corn than the other plots did.

&#8220;It takes time for organic matter to build up, so we wouldn&#8217;t have seen these surprising results had we only looked after a few years,&#8221; Teasdale says.

They did note yields for corn and soybeans were indeed lower, but yields of wheat stayed the same. What this study did not address is nutrient value of those crops. Everything I've read so far indicates organic soils grown healthier, more nutrient dense crops.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

greg273 said:


> I agree about the 'micronutrients being there, but unavailable. One of the best substances for making micronutriets available to plants is humic acid, formed from carbon in the soil. And minimal-tillage organic practices put MORE carbon into the soil than conventional NO-TILL practices do.
> 
> http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul07/soil0707.htm
> 
> ...


??? Contradictory statements.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> It definitely takes more knowledge to grow organically


LOL
More knowledge?
More labor is more like it.
Plants require the same stuff no matter how you grow them.
Organic uses labor instead of sprays, it doesn't take knowledge to run a hoe or cultivator.....
N is N, P is P, K is K, no matter how you grow plants. It's just a matter of how you get it, there is no big mystery in organics just plenty of elbow grease.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

sammyd said:


> LOL
> More knowledge?
> More labor is more like it.
> Plants require the same stuff no matter how you grow them.
> ...


 Its definitely a more complicated situation when organically farming. Cover crops, natural fertilizers, timing of pest control,timing of tillage, are all greatly complicated by the fact that there is no simple, quick fix, short term chemical remedy to the farmers problems. 
And although you are repeating the line of the chemical farmer, there is indeed great differences in fertilizers. Chemical salts feed the plant, doing nothing to help the soil. In fact they are PROVEN to be detrimental to soil dwelling microbes, as well as detrimental to soil structure. Organic fertilizers feed the entire soil-based food web, which results in better soils, healthier and more nutrient dense plants. Less toxic runoff is another plus of organic agriculture that MUST be factored in when making any sort of comparison between the two systems. 
Seems I just live a little closer to this situation than you do, my land is downslope from a large, conventionally-farmed field. I would like to put in a pond for both stock and crop watering in the dry season, but am extremely hesitant considering the silt, nitrogen, pesticide and herbicide runoff from the neighbors operation. Whatever he puts on that field will end up in my pond. I can also tell you that many of the shallow wells around here are unfit for drinking due to nitrate contamination.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> ??? Contradictory statements.


 Guess you didnt read the entire link...

But in another long-term experiment begun in 1996, Teasdale learned that adding more kinds of crops to the organic rotation helped control weeds.

&#8220;Weeds tend to adapt to crops whose growth timetable creates conditions favorable to weed growth,&#8221; Teasdale says.

Planting the same summer annual crop year after year allows weeds suited to that growth cycle to keep maturing and adding their seeds to the soil. In organic systems, Teasdale showed that rotating diverse crops markedly lowers the numbers of weed seeds lying dormant in soil.

In an ongoing experiment called the &#8220;Farming Systems Project,&#8221; Teasdale and ARS soil scientist Michel Cavigelli showed that *after 10 years, corn yields were higher in diverse organic rotations that included a perennial legume.*

&#8220;This is one of a few studies that consider the effects of rotation length and crop complexity on organic grain yields,&#8221; Teasdale says.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> I don't have crops anymore.
> 
> Most deficiencies are not solved by adding the elements to the soil. The elements are there, just unavailable. But you know that, right?


Aside from the thousands of acres of corn...?
Sometimes the nutrient is tied up, either by an antagonist element, wrong pH for assimilation, lack of microbial activity, etc... Or it can simply be absent.



Jena said:


> I have a friend who grows organic and traditional crops. He hates the organic. He says the fields are a mess of weeds and bugs, with half the yield. I am not sure about the amount of labor, but I know he doesn't feel it's worth it to grow. His dad believes in keeping diversity in the crops, so the organic stays for now.


I will not quote bookloads of information to you. Check out this book if you really actually want to learn:
http://www.acresusa.com/books/closeup.asp?prodid=6&catid=10&pcid=2




treasureacres said:


> My guess is they would have to open up our whole southern border in order to provide enough labor if we were ever forced to make switch to organic grown crops. Even with unemployment at the rate it is most of our citizens will not do that kind of work.


It'll teach 'em some lessons about hard work; maybe it'll kick "Farmville" out of business. 
Anyways, there are solutions to manual weed-an-insect plucking.



sammyd said:


> LOL
> More knowledge?
> More labor is more like it.
> Plants require the same stuff no matter how you grow them.
> ...


Right... And wrong. Chemical fertilizers often over-simplify soil chemistry. Strong chemicals can damage soil integrity and microbial activity. NH3 is a good example of something to be avoided but is used extensively by conventional farming; it is akin to dumping race care fuel in a gas car: Works great for awhile, then burns out. Muriate of Potash should also be avoided; it assists in clogging clay pores, reducing CEC levels and compacting and aging the soil.
Now, there really is nothing wrong with chemical fertilizers, except that they don't build soil. Farmers should, however, stop applying more fertilizer than is needed. For large crops, soil testing several times per year is recommended, which might not be possible due to low profit margins. The low profit margin will also keep farmers using NH3 and KCl as fertilizers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They did note* yields for corn and soybeans were indeed lower*, but yields of wheat stayed the same. What this study did not address is nutrient value of those crops. Everything I've read so far indicates organic soils grown *healthier, more nutrient dense crops*.


The statement in red is simply more *false *hype from the "Greenies"


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The statement in red is simply more *false *hype from the "Greenies"


 Not false at all. Study after study PROVES my statement to be TRUE. 

http://www.aes.ucdavis.edu/NewsEven...nal-farming-practices-impact-crop-nutrients-1


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The statement in red is simply more *false *hype from the "Greenies"


Greenies? That sure makes you sound reliable.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

greg273 said:


> Its definitely a more complicated situation when organically farming. Cover crops, natural fertilizers, timing of pest control,timing of tillage, are all greatly complicated by the fact that there is no simple, quick fix, short term chemical remedy to the farmers problems.
> And although you are repeating the line of the chemical farmer, there is indeed great differences in fertilizers. Chemical salts feed the plant, doing nothing to help the soil. In fact they are PROVEN to be detrimental to soil dwelling microbes, as well as detrimental to soil structure. Organic fertilizers feed the entire soil-based food web, which results in better soils, healthier and more nutrient dense plants. Less toxic runoff is another plus of organic agriculture that MUST be factored in when making any sort of comparison between the two systems.
> Seems I just live a little closer to this situation than you do, my land is downslope from a large, conventionally-farmed field. I would like to put in a pond for both stock and crop watering in the dry season, but am extremely hesitant considering the silt, nitrogen, pesticide and herbicide runoff from the neighbors operation. Whatever he puts on that field will end up in my pond. I can also tell you that many of the shallow wells around here are unfit for drinking due to nitrate contamination.


natural fertilizers can and do ruin ecosystems as well as any other if overused.
Ask the folks along the big muddy that are overrun with chicken manure problems.
Figure why there are protocols in place for manure spreading during certain times of the year......
natural is not as perfect or as non toxic as you may think. 


> Cover crops, natural fertilizers, timing of pest control,timing of tillage,


Again no big mystery, just a question of more labor or more inputs. Even on my non organic land I follow certain procedures and timings for things. And natural fertilizers are a big part of that operation.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I'm gonna throw out one more thing, then I am DONE here. Personally, I fully support smaller, local producers and the organic, natural, whatever you want to call them, methods. Anything that is "hand crafted" and not mass produced is generally better, is it not? And every dollar that stays in your own county lessens your own tax burden.

I think what turns people off about it is, a) much higher prices, or b) the overly melodramatic claims that the mainstream way of producing food is sooooo terrible and gonna kill us all. If you listen to enough of this rhetoric, you might come to believe that Farmer Joe from Ohio is really an evil mastermind who is out to destroy the world - with corn! (And I think a couple of you might really believe this) It's the b part that makes me grit my teeth and walk away from a booth at the market if they are using fear and hocus-pocus science hype to do their selling. And I know I am not alone. 

If the organic folk would simply focus on the quality of their own products and the practicalities of local production and consumption, instead of a smear campaign against the salt-of-the-earth, hardworking people who actually grow most of the grain in this country, we would all be better off. Both production models could likely learn something from each other, but how can that happen while the "anti" rhetoric is so shrill and extreme?

Bye y'all. Have fun.


----------



## HeritagePigs (Aug 11, 2009)

"I think what turns people off about it is, a) much higher prices"

OK, here's an idea. Assuming that you don't have the space to grow your own food, how about if you volunteer as an intern at a small farm, perhaps for only a few hours each week instead of going to the movies. Help plant the seed, help pull the weeds, help feed the livestock, help harvest the vegetables, help butcher the livestock, help package the produce for market, help disseminate the CSA shares, all the while doing this in the heat and rain and cold without the benefit of huge tractors and implements and the ability to get crop insurance, subsidies, guaranteed contracts and cost reductions based on buying feed and seed in bulk as the large producers can.

Then tell me again that higher prices for small farm products turns you off. I'm not even asking you to do a taste test between apples picked when ripe from a local small farm versus apples from a large farm, far away from the grocer, that were picked before they were ripe so they could survive the time it takes to get to your local Walmart's aisles.

Americans are, by and large, spoiled. We are used to cheap food and constantly ***** about it when we are asked to pay what it actually costs to produce all the while throwing 25% or more of it in the trash. If we were all to just buy one live chicken and butcher it in our kitchens we would possibly begin to understand the real value of food. And if we would spend just a little time with the "salt of the earth" people who try to keep their small farms viable then we might begin to understand the intrinsic value of small farms in our communities versus factory farms run by faceless corporations or farmers trapped into working for corporations instead of themselves because local consumers won't pay them what their products are worth.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> without the benefit of huge tractors and implements and the ability to get crop insurance, subsidies, guaranteed contracts and cost reductions based on buying feed and seed in bulk as the large producers can


What a load of malarkey.
I know an organic dairy farm that milks less than 20 and they have bigger stuff than I ever did on a non organic farm milking 40.
Isn't a CSA basically a guaranteed contract? And who says you can't get contracts other ways?
Who says smaller or organic guys can't get crop insurance? 
Lots of local guys buy through the co-op which means guess what..cost reductions due to large purchases.

You personally may not have big stuff or bother to find insurance or contracts but that doesn't mean all small places are run that way.....
And how running your place in such a fashion makes it better I have no idea...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Greenies? That sure makes you sound *reliable*.


I've shown enough of your "facts" to be incorrect that it doesn't much matter if *you think *I don't "sound " reliable


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not false at all.* Study after study *PROVES my statement to be TRUE.


Study after study contradicts those also

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/f...al-health-benefits-reveals-food-watchdog.html



> In the most comprehensive analysis of its kind, they trawled through more than 50,000 studies on the nutritional value of foods published since 1958.
> Fifty-five met the researchers' criteria and were used in the comparison.
> 
> The work clearly showed *organically and conventionally-produced foods to be comparable in their nutritional intake, including in vitamin C, calcium, iron and fatty acids*.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If the organic folk would simply focus on the quality of their own products and the practicalities of local production and consumption, instead of a smear campaign against the salt-of-the-earth, hardworking people who actually grow most of the grain in this country, we would all be better off.


Amen!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> I'm gonna throw out one more thing, then I am DONE here. Personally, I fully support smaller, local producers and the organic, natural, whatever you want to call them, methods. Anything that is "hand crafted" and not mass produced is generally better, is it not? And every dollar that stays in your own county lessens your own tax burden.
> 
> I think what turns people off about it is, a) much higher prices, or b) the overly melodramatic claims that the mainstream way of producing food is sooooo terrible and gonna kill us all. If you listen to enough of this rhetoric, you might come to believe that Farmer Joe from Ohio is really an evil mastermind who is out to destroy the world - with corn! (And I think a couple of you might really believe this) It's the b part that makes me grit my teeth and walk away from a booth at the market if they are using fear and hocus-pocus science hype to do their selling. And I know I am not alone.
> 
> ...


Thanks MO Cows!

There is middle ground between the extremes of organic production and hard core chemical mono-cropping .... I am thinking here of mixed crop or mixed crop/livestock operations using more sustainable methods which are not always quite organic such as integrated pest management and integrated crop management.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> Aside from the thousands of acres of corn...?
> Sometimes the nutrient is tied up, either by an antagonist element, wrong pH for assimilation, lack of microbial activity, etc... Or it can simply be absent.
> 
> 
> ...


I am all for organic farming BUT ....

I am not so sure that strong chemicals damage soil integrity to the extent organic farmers like to claim... I would rather blame row cropping, moldboard plowed ground, and soil compaction due to heavy equipment. A well chemically fertilized crop giving bumper yields is contributing a lot of organic root mass to the soil.

Microbes have a huge capacity to adjust to changing environments and whether organic farmers like it or not their crops get a very natural nitrate-dissolved-in rain-water fertilization with every thunder storm !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

one of the biggest drawbacks to row cropping was the practice of removing everything from the field.
With new practices the ability to leave the "trash" on the field has allowed the organic matter to increase.
No tilling has been a big booster of organic matter.
Modern practices such as drying and using manure for bedding, or using sawdust, or sand has reduced the amount of bedding required by some farms letting them leave the straw on the field to break down and provide organic matter.
Manure which is a most wonderful natural fertilizer has been a staple for non organic farmers forever, it's just not enough usually to support modern high production and is supplemented with that "horrible" stuff you can buy at the mill.

Organic people are not the only people who understand how soil works or how plants grow.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Wait till those unemployment benefits run out and we'll see who would 'do that kind of work'.


That may encourage a small % ....but we still have welfare system ! It is hard to find anyone that wants to do manual labor, and even harder to find ones that can actually do a good job. What I am experiencing is many people "think" they are working hard, but not much is getting done.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Mo Cows... Who is conducting a 'smear campaign?' against conventional farming? 

BearfootFarm, you may choose to believe what ever study you want. Even if organic/conventional foods are IDENTICAL in nutrition quality, (even though the links I posted clearly showed organic to be superior), can you argue that food sprayed with fungicides, herbicides, and pesticides is somehow HEALTHIER?? For the consumer, for the producer, for the land?? Dont think so.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> Everything I've read so far indicates organic soils grown healthier, more nutrient dense crops.


That is not true. The nutrient value of organic foods is the same as any other. We just had a thread about this not too long ago.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

greg273 said:


> I agree about the 'micronutrients being there, but unavailable. One of the best substances for making micronutriets available to plants is humic acid, formed from carbon in the soil. And minimal-tillage organic practices put MORE carbon into the soil than conventional NO-TILL practices do.
> 
> http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul07/soil0707.htm
> 
> ...


It looks like this thread got interesting. I'll read more when my eyes recover from actually seeing the sun today.

Just wanted to say this though--tilling doesn't "destroy" organic matter, it just mixes it in down into the soil. Though this may just be a mis-definition of organic matter. IE, I understand organic matter to be stuff like cover crops tilled in, rotted organic matter(compost) tilled in, etc. What tillage DOES destroy is the fungal "roots" that are in untilled soil. These fungal roots(mycchorizae, please don't kill me if that is misspelled) connect different species of plants and help them share nutrients, and sometimes those nutrients are "processed" so another plants can absorb it better.

I believe this was first discovered when here in the PNW they found out fir seedlings thrived better in a pot full of native soil--NOT sterilized potting soil. IE like they went out in the woods and got a shovel of soil. The trees had better survival because of the fungal roots in the soil(I'm just using "roots" because it's easy, k). Now this idea is in the permaculture thing of forest gardening/companion planting/no till (Fukuoka). No till means you're not exposing these fungal roots to drying, killing sun and wind and chopping them up. Not to mention there's all sorts of other good soil bugs and stuff that thrive in undisturbed soil.

I'm not dissing mono crops with cover crops tilled in etc. Just saying this thing about no-till and the fungus. We are only just discovering the importance of and what fungus actually does. 

If anyone is remotely interested in this fungus thing THIS is THE book to get!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Mycelium-Running-Mushrooms-Help-World/dp/1580085792
It's a fascinating book--really!!!

I was on my second year last year of no till, and have been bringing in forest soil and rotten wood to encourage the fungus, and last year my stuff thrived the best so far--my raspberries were unbelievable, same with the grapes. The sun loving things were so so on setting fruit(tomatoes, squash, not enough sun), but the plants were really vigorous. I can't wait to see how it goes this year, hopefully we'll have some sun this summer!

Another cool thing about no till is eventually stuff starts coming up as "weeds"--I've got green lettuce and tomatoes doing that.

I could go on and on, but looks like the thread got interesting ha.

It sure is a connundrum though to produce a LOT of food for a LOT of people. I'm lucky to live in a place that had the foresight to preserve farmland and the diversity of ag.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> Its definitely a more complicated situation when organically farming. Cover crops, natural fertilizers, timing of pest control,timing of tillage, are all greatly complicated by the fact that there is no simple, quick fix, short term chemical remedy to the farmers problems.
> And although you are repeating the line of the chemical farmer, there is indeed great differences in fertilizers. Chemical salts feed the plant, doing nothing to help the soil. In fact they are PROVEN to be detrimental to soil dwelling microbes, as well as detrimental to soil structure. Organic fertilizers feed the entire soil-based food web, which results in better soils, healthier and more nutrient dense plants. Less toxic runoff is another plus of organic agriculture that MUST be factored in when making any sort of comparison between the two systems.
> Seems I just live a little closer to this situation than you do, my land is downslope from a large, conventionally-farmed field. I would like to put in a pond for both stock and crop watering in the dry season, but am extremely hesitant considering the silt, nitrogen, pesticide and herbicide runoff from the neighbors operation. Whatever he puts on that field will end up in my pond. I can also tell you that many of the shallow wells around here are unfit for drinking due to nitrate contamination.


Plants utilize nutrients by taking up ions. An ion of N is an ion of N. It matters not to the plant how that N became available, it's just an ion it needs and can take.

I'm not sold on what you claim is proven...and I'm too tired to go looking.

Organic matter might improve soil, or it might not. Depends on the soil. It also may increase it's water retention, or it might not. Depends on the soil.

Organically grown products are identical to any other in terms of nutrition. They have no more nutrients than a "normal" plant.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> I agree about the 'micronutrients being there, but unavailable. One of the best substances for making micronutriets available to plants is humic acid, formed from carbon in the soil. And minimal-tillage organic practices put MORE carbon into the soil than conventional NO-TILL practices do.


Carbon doesn't have anything to do with nutrient availability. Plants need plenty of carbon, but they get it from the atmosphere, not the soil.

The importance of less tillage is the addition of organic matter, not carbon.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Aside from the thousands of acres of corn...?
> Sometimes the nutrient is tied up, either by an antagonist element, wrong pH for assimilation, lack of microbial activity, etc... Or it can simply be absent.
> 
> Right... And wrong. Chemical fertilizers often over-simplify soil chemistry. Strong chemicals can damage soil integrity and microbial activity. NH3 is a good example of something to be avoided but is used extensively by conventional farming; it is akin to dumping race care fuel in a gas car: Works great for awhile, then burns out. Muriate of Potash should also be avoided; it assists in clogging clay pores, reducing CEC levels and compacting and aging the soil.
> Now, there really is nothing wrong with chemical fertilizers, except that they don't build soil. Farmers should, however, stop applying more fertilizer than is needed. For large crops, soil testing several times per year is recommended, which might not be possible due to low profit margins. The low profit margin will also keep farmers using NH3 and KCl as fertilizers.


Fertilizer is a major expense and farmers avoid over-application. 

If you were so aware of the various reasons for micronutrient deficiencies, why would you ask if I added them to fertilizer? I think you just say something, then when you get called out, you go look it up and post something else that you don't understand.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> Not false at all. Study after study PROVES my statement to be TRUE.
> 
> http://www.aes.ucdavis.edu/NewsEven...nal-farming-practices-impact-crop-nutrients-1


That link is hardly "study after study". 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...tion&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,15&as_ylo=&as_vis=0


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> BearfootFarm, you may choose to believe what ever study you want. Even if organic/conventional foods are IDENTICAL in nutrition quality, (even though the links I posted clearly showed organic to be superior), *can you argue that food sprayed with fungicides, herbicides, and pesticides is somehow HEALTHIER*??


None of those things are sprayed just before harvest and allowable levels are controlled.

Wash your food an it's not a problem


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of those things are sprayed just before harvest and allowable levels are controlled.
> 
> Wash your food an it's not a problem


 Food is indeed sprayed just before AND after harvest. And your 'allowable levels' do not convince me that eating poisonous chemicals is a good thing. It bad enough they drift on to my property, and flow through the stream that cuts through my land. 
I've been witnessing the annual poisoning of the land for 34 years now, all in the name of 'bigger better commodity farming'.
Seriously, what sort of farming is done in your area? I'm not sure where at in NC youre at. 

The OP of this thread was about a 'food crisis', and I've already agreed with you that food isnt the real issue when it comes to that. I am an advocate of organic/sustainable farming, what can I say. It seems, based on your posts, that you consider the 'organic movement' some sort of far out, left wing ideology... Perhaps there is a lot of 'hype' associated with it that many find irritating, I can see that... but that doesnt negate the FACT that sustainable organic farming is BETTER for the land, for the crops, and for the people and animals that consume said crops.
There is more than enough data out there to verify those claims.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I'm a bit more practical I guess. I understand people will starve if "big ag" and "commodity farming" were to stop today.

I don't use any pesticides or even chemical fertilizers in my Garden, don't own any roundup, because I don't like Monsanto, etc., but I realize that there is probably a middle ground-responsible use of herbicides/pesticides, etc.

I wish I had the answer to it all, but I think that EVERYONE raising SOME food is a step in the right direction, but EVERYONE will not become organic consumers/gardeners, because it DOES cost more.

When you can buy twinkies for a 1.29 a box, or one organic red pepper for $3.50, where do you think the poor are going to spend their money? That's not commenting on where it "should go"... but just reality.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jena said:


> Carbon doesn't have anything to do with nutrient availability. Plants need plenty of carbon, but they get it from the atmosphere, not the soil.
> 
> The importance of less tillage is the addition of organic matter, not carbon.


 Sorry Jena that is FALSE. I suggest you do some more research into this. Soil carbon plays a HUGE role in soil integrity, nutrient uptake and nutrient availability. Carbonic and HUMIC acids are VERY integral parts of soil. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humic_acid

http://www.thesoilguy.com/SG/HumicSubstances1-Overview


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> Fertilizer is a major expense and farmers avoid over-application.


Really? Then explain the Gulf Dead Zone!





Jena said:


> If you were so aware of the various reasons for micronutrient deficiencies, why would you ask if I added them to fertilizer? I think you just say something, then when you get called out, you go look it up and post something else that you don't understand.


Why are you beating around the bush like this instead of actually addressing the issue? I think, simply because you don't actually know. Did your annual soil test include micronutrients measurements?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> Plants utilize nutrients by taking up ions. An ion of N is an ion of N. It matters not to the plant how that N became available, it's just an ion it needs and can take.
> 
> I'm not sold on what you claim is proven...and I'm too tired to go looking.
> 
> ...


Try finding high-brix Roundup Ready corn.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

So if there are going to be global food shortages, does this mean I can finally send the brussels sprouts and sweet potatoes that my children refuse to eat to the starving people in China?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Really? Then explain the Gulf Dead Zone!


The Gulf Dead Zone is a* media buzz term *used to make foolish people think there IS a "dead zone"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why are you beating around the bush like this instead of actually addressing the issue?


Like you did when you were shown that fertilizers with micronutrients were readily available?



> Did your annual soil test include micronutrients measurements?


If they didn't they would be a waste of time, much like this discussion


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> ...... a waste of time, much like this discussion


Tsk.

Not! 

I think this has been an interesting topic and there's been some good information posted here. Don't trash the whole topic just because you're disagreeing with someone. Nobody's forcing you to read it or post in it you know.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> think this has been an interesting topic


It wandered so far from the OP that most don't KNOW what the OP was about any more



> Don't trash the whole topic


The original topic was a* food crisis*, which isn't likely to happen as long as modern farming takes place.

Anyone starving on the planet is due to politics and economics rather than a "shortage of food"



> there's been *some *good information posted here


Along with quite a bit of misinformation


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Gulf Dead Zone is a* media buzz term *used to make foolish people think there IS a "dead zone"


 The 'Gulf Dead Zone' is a well-known scientific FACT. Do a little research before posting such an obvious falsehood.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/ 

What Causes the Dead Zone?

The dead zone is caused by nutrient enrichment from the Mississippi River, particularly nitrogen and phosphorous. Watersheds within the Mississippi River Basin drain much of the United States, from Montana to Pennsylvania and extending southward along the Mississippi River. Most of the nitrogen input comes from major farming states in the Mississippi River Valley, including Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Nitrogen and phosphorous enter the river through upstream runoff of fertilizers, soil erosion, animal wastes, and sewage. In a natural system, these nutrients aren't significant factors in algae growth because they are depleted in the soil by plants. However, with anthropogenically increased nitrogen and phosphorus input, algae growth is no longer limited. Consequently, algal blooms develop, the food chain is altered, and dissolved oxygen in the area is depleted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Consequently, *algal blooms develop*, the food chain is altered, and dissolved oxygen in the area is depleted.


Algae is alive, therefore NO "dead zone"


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Algae is alive, therefore NO "dead zone"


An alarming level of ignorance... It is called the dead zone because there is nothing BUT algae, and all the fish are dead. If you are fond of algae, perhaps it's OK with you, otherwise it is a serious problem, caused by American ignorance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It is called the dead zone because there is nothing BUT algae, and all the fish are dead


It's called a dead zone because it makes cool headlines

What it REALLY should be called is a *temporary *area of low oxygen


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's called a dead zone because it makes cool headlines
> 
> What it REALLY should be called is a *temporary *area of low oxygen


Temporary? Do you have a source for that, or is that also something made up? Because, last time I checked it was growing.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Hey, did ya hear they want to start producing oil from some types of Algae. Interesting.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> An alarming level of ignorance... It is called the dead zone because there is nothing BUT algae, and all the fish are dead. If you are fond of algae, perhaps it's OK with you, otherwise it is a serious problem, caused by American ignorance.


I keep hearing that algae is our future food, so this" dead zone" would be benificial, no? And, why just American ignorance, people from other countries believe there is no problem with algae?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Temporary? *Do you have a source for that*, or is that also something made up? Because, last time I checked it was growing.


Of course I do.

I don't make up claims as I go along

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)



> Notable dead zones in the United States include the northern Gulf of Mexico region, surrounding the outfall of the Mississippi River, and the coastal regions of the Pacific Northwest, and the Elizabeth River in Virginia Beach, *all of which have been shown to be recurring events over the last several years*.


It can't be a "recurring event" unless it's *temporary*, now can it?




> *Dead zones are reversible*. The Black Sea dead zone, previously the largest dead zone in the world, largely disappeared between 1991 and 2001 after fertilizers became too costly to use following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of centrally planned economies in Eastern and Central Europe. *Fishing has again become a major economic activity in the region*.[12]





> Off the coast of Cape Perpetua, Oregon, there is also a dead zone with a 2006 reported size of 300 square miles (780 kmÂ²).[7] *This dead zone only exists during the summer*, perhaps due to wind patterns


http://www.physorg.com/news167720984.html



> NOAA-supported scientists, led by Nancy Rabalais, Ph.D., from the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON), found *the size of this year's Gulf of Mexico dead zone to be smaller than forecasted,* measuring 3,000 square miles. However the dead zone, which is usually limited to water just above the sea floor, was severe where it did occur, extending closer to the water surface then in most years.





> One of the largest dead zones* forms *in the Gulf of Mexico *every spring*.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

> The dead zone is caused by *nutrient enrichment from the Mississippi River*, particularly *nitrogen and phosphorous*. Watersheds within the Mississippi River Basin drain much of the United States, from Montana to Pennsylvania and extending southward along the Mississippi River. Most of the nitrogen input comes from major farming states in the Mississippi River Valley, including *Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana*. Nitrogen and phosphorous enter the river through upstream runoff of *fertilizers, soil erosion, animal wastes, and sewage*. *In a natural system, these nutrients aren't significant factors in algae growth because they are depleted in the soil by plants.* However, with anthropogenically increased nitrogen and phosphorus input, algae growth is no longer limited. Consequently, algal blooms develop, the food chain is altered, and dissolved oxygen in the area is depleted.


http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/


These blooms are temporary! Isn't algae the next "thing" anyway?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Isn't algae the next "thing" anyway?


Depends on how hungry people are, I guess more people would be willing to eat certain algaes as a last resort when there's not much other food available. Seaweeds are algae and there are several types of seaweeds that people have been using for food supplements for centuries already. Not all algaes are edible though, some are toxic.

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/A-Bi/Algal-Blooms-Harmful.html

This website has some interesting information and links about the different types of algae, some of which are edible or suitable as food supplements, and some which are deadly toxic for human and animal consumption.

http://www.oilgae.com/algae/types/green_algae/green_algae.html

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The dead zone is caused by nutrient enrichment from the Mississippi River, particularly nitrogen and phosphorous. Watersheds within the Mississippi River Basin drain much of the United States, from Montana to Pennsylvania and extending southward along the Mississippi River. Most of the nitrogen input comes from major farming states in the Mississippi River Valley, including Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Nitrogen and phosphorous enter the river through upstream runoff of fertilizers, soil erosion, animal wastes, and sewage. In a natural system, these nutrients aren't significant factors in algae growth because they are depleted in the soil by plants. However, with anthropogenically increased nitrogen and phosphorus input, algae growth is no longer limited. Consequently, algal blooms develop, the food chain is altered, and dissolved oxygen in the area is depleted.


LOL 
Once more you ignore the fact you were proven wrong, and carry on like nothing happened

And you left out part of what they said. which happens to verify my statement as to their temporary nature :



> The *size of the dead zone fluctuates seasonally*, as it is exacerbated by farming practices. It is also affected by weather events such as flooding (more info) and hurricanes.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Depends on how hungry people are, I guess more people would be willing to eat certain algaes as a last resort when there's not much other food available. Seaweeds are algae and there are several types of seaweeds that people have been using for food supplements for centuries already. Not all algaes are edible though, some are toxic.
> 
> http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/A-Bi/Algal-Blooms-Harmful.html
> 
> ...


Yes, i understand not all are edible. We've had blooms along our coast here in California for as long as i can remeber. (I'm 51) Growing up, i was always at the beach surfing or body boarding, sailing, etc... Surfed up and down the coast and Mexico too! (side note - i went out with the daughter of one of the beachboys for 6 years - so i guess i'm a beach type person!) I just keep hearing and seeing gastronimists on the food and cooking channels use it, and they keep saying it's "the next thing". I'm a BIG fan of seaweed though, yummm - ice cream!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And you left out part of what they said. which happens to verify my statement as to their temporary nature :


"The size of the dead zone fluctuates seasonally, as it is exacerbated by farming practices. It is also affected by weather events such as flooding (more info) and hurricanes. "

Explain how this disproves my statement. "flacutuate" does not mean disappear, last time I checked. A migraine can also fluctuate, does that mean it disappears?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> Once more you ignore the fact you were proven wrong, and carry on like nothing happened
> 
> And you left out part of what they said. which happens to verify my statement as to their temporary nature :


 Proven wrong?? Uhh, excuse me?? You did NOTHING to 'prove' anything I said was wrong. You claimed there was no 'dead zone' in the gulf, I corrected you. You want to quibble about the commonly used term, thats your problem not mine. 
I read the link, I only highlighted a PORTION of it. Same thing you and others do all the time. Should I highlight the entire thing?? I really find this amusing, how you post up all these links, half of which contradict your point, then crow about having 'proven' me wrong. I never claimed ANY sort of attributes to the Gulf Dead Zone, only that such a phenomenon DOES exist, in direct contradiction to your earlier post. And its seasonal, wow, does that make it any less real?? Amazing how it peaks with the arrival of the spring fertilizer runoff from the midwest.
Fact is i didnt 'check back' because you didnt offer ANYTHING new.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> Sorry Jena that is FALSE. I suggest you do some more research into this. Soil carbon plays a HUGE role in soil integrity, nutrient uptake and nutrient availability. Carbonic and HUMIC acids are VERY integral parts of soil.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humic_acid
> 
> http://www.thesoilguy.com/SG/HumicSubstances1-Overview


You are confusing organic matter, carbon and acids. 

Carbon is an element, an atom. Plants don't use carbon in the soil. They get it from the air. There are microbes that use carbon, and in fact, they use it to fix nitrogen, but plants do not need carbon in the soil.

Acids are important in the soil because the hydrogen ions facilitate the transport of anions and the availability of cations. Hydrogen ions are the free spirits of the chemical world....they are traded, bonded and basically used by everyone else to facilitate getting what they want. Roots use them to get anions. Cations use them to break free from colloidial bondage. Everyone pawns Aluminum off on them. I think hydrogen is underappreciated.

Organic matter is just stuff that was once alive. It gets different names as it is transformed through decay, burial, etc. Organic matter breaks down to some beneficial acids, but that doesn't make the acids organic matter. Does that make sense? Your body will break a steak down into amino acids, but that doesn't mean amino acids are steaks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Explain* how this disproves my statement*. *"flacutuate"* does not mean disappear, last time I checked. A migraine can also fluctuate, does that mean it disappears?


Because first you didn't believe me when I told you they were temporary, and secondly you stated they were "growing" 

I think Jena pegged you when she said:



> I think you just say something, then when you get called out, you go look it up and post something else that you don't understand.


"flacutuate" doesn't mean anything at all. last time *I *checked 

It's not even a word


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Proven wrong?? Uhh, excuse me?? You did NOTHING to 'prove' anything I said was wrong. You claimed there was no 'dead zone' in the gulf, I corrected you. You want to quibble about the commonly used term, thats your problem not mine.
> I read the link, I only highlighted a PORTION of it. Same thing you and others do all the time. Should I highlight the entire thing?? I really find this amusing, how you post up all these links, half of which contradict your point, then crow about having 'proven' me wrong. I never claimed ANY sort of attributes to the Gulf Dead Zone, only that such a phenomenon DOES exist, in direct contradiction to your earlier post. And its seasonal, wow, does that make it any less real?? Amazing how it peaks with the arrival of the spring fertilizer runoff from the midwest.
> Fact is i didnt 'check back' because you didnt offer ANYTHING new.


Algae grows: Algae is ALIVE, therefore it's not truly a "DEAD zone".
Its a temporary area of lower than normal oxygen

Was that post quoting *YOUR* statement?
Try to pay attention
You wasted all that rant for nothing at all


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Really? Then explain the Gulf Dead Zone!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What issue am I beating around the bush on? 

You claimed that farmers "mine the soil" of micronutrients. You asked if I put micronutrients in fertilizer, presumably because you think that crops are sucking this stuff up and that evil farmers don't put any back.

I pointed out that it is not that simple. Micronutrients react with many things in plants and in soil and those reactions and interactions often have more to do with a deficiency than an actual lack of the element in the soil. Simply dumping Zn,Mn, Fe, etc onto the soil is just....ignorant. 

I no longer have crops. Or a farm. I don't know what was on our soil reports back in the day. I know a lot more about it now than I did then. Most soil reports I have seen have tested for micronutrients. I can't say they all do, but most of them I have seen do.

As for oceanic hypoxic zones...lots of causes. Fertilizer is a huge cost to farmers. They work very hard to apply only what is needed on their crops. Why would they do anything else? What possible motivation could a farmer have to throw money away?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> As for oceanic hypoxic zones...lots of causes. Fertilizer is a huge cost to farmers. They work very hard to apply only what is needed on their crops. Why would they do anything else? What possible motivation could a farmer have to throw money away?


Ignorance.
I've also noticed the fertilizer dealers telling farmers to apply far more than needed.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> The 'Gulf Dead Zone' is a well-known scientific FACT. Do a little research before posting such an obvious falsehood.
> 
> http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/
> 
> ...


There are algae blooms for many reasons. Hypoxia occurs for many different reasons. They can be a natural part of the ecosystem. Low oxygen is usually the result of highly productive water in either the ocean or a lake.

Did you know that some global warming alarmists think that it's a good idea to seed Fe in the oceans to promote growth of coccolithophores (a type of calcareous plankton)? Basically they want to cause blooms because then when all the calcareous plankton die, the carbon will settle to the sea floor and you have a carbon sink. Never mind what the other consequences of messing with the oceans primary food production system might be....hey, they can sell this service in the name of climate change, right? Sheesh...but that's another topic.

I don't know if the Gulf Zone is caused by fertilizer or not and I don't have time to do the research. I do know that concern about nitrates in the water supply is a fairly recent deal. Heck, hypoxic zones have only been known for the last 30 years or so. As the concern has become known and understood, agriculture has responded to mitigate the problem....but that is also another topic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Ignorance.*
> I've also noticed the fertilizer dealers telling farmers to apply far more than needed


I've noticed you do a lot of *name calling* and ignore the fact that farmers use SOIL TESTS to show what is needed, and do not rely on "fertilizer dealers" to tell them what to do

You haven't convinced me you really know much at all, and I see no point in continuing when you *pretend *not to see facts presented

See ya!!


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> I've also noticed the fertilizer dealers telling farmers to apply far more than needed.


That's rich....
They get a commission, of course they will.
Doesn't mean the farmer will buy it though....


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ignorance.
> I've also noticed the fertilizer dealers telling farmers to apply far more than needed.


 Where are you getting that from? Some grennie earth hugging type magazine with a one sided view on what they think is the truth? Sounds like it.
At the prices today, no farmer is going to put on any more then absolutely what is necessary. Period. End of Story.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> At the prices today, no farmer is going to put on any more then absolutely what is necessary. Period. End of Story.


Says who? I know of farmers who over-fertilize, and I know of farmers who go by soil tests 12 years old. The "no more than necessary" stuff is pure hogwash.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> I know of farmers who


I know farmers who still milk in buckets doesn't mean that every farmer does 

saying what may or may not be the way some backwoods farmer does things as industry wide is surely hogwash
farmers who plan on getting ahead, farmers who live on the narrow margin provided by crops will watch every penny, because sometimes that is what you get.
Regardless of any other hooey that you care to throw out there, it costs so much to make a bushel of corn and only anything over that is money to live on, use to buy the next inputs or whatever. Anyone who doesn't realize that will soon end up in trouble and is a big reason why so many smaller guys fall by the wayside.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

There is a law called the law of diminishing returns and it applies to fertilization of crops. For a given increment of fertilizer there is an associated yield increase. The increment of fertilizer will have a cost.....and the associated yield increase will have a value. A farmer is making a good investment when the value of the associated yield is a lot higher than the cost for the additional increment of fertilizer applied. But as you keep increasing the amount of fertilizer applied you reach a point where the the associated yield increase for an increment of fertilizer begins to decline and your return on investment for fertilizer will be proportional to that decline. Farmers are well aware of this and they only have so much money to invest per growing season so if they are good managers they will invest to gain the most return. Back in the days of cheap fertilizer there may have been some tendency to over fertilize but not now with the high price of fertilizers and the razor thin profit margins per acre. 

The problem of nutrients leaching into ground water and rivers is being addressed (and has been for at least 25 years) and progress is slowly being made as government is prompting the industry to solve it. Ag science and engineering are looking for and finding solutions but we can not afford to stop farming in the meantime..... and if organic farming is the answer then we will see a gradual conversion.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

The earth still has the physical ability to feed its population but the population is exploding and yet we continue to lose cropland (by development) or degrade cropland (by allowing erosion) so if things do not change a crisis is inevitable.

The immediate problem is a political one.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sammyd said:


> I know farmers who still milk in buckets doesn't mean that every farmer does
> 
> saying what may or may not be the way some backwoods farmer does things as industry wide is surely hogwash
> farmers who plan on getting ahead, farmers who live on the narrow margin provided by crops will watch every penny, because sometimes that is what you get.
> Regardless of any other hooey that you care to throw out there, it costs so much to make a bushel of corn and only anything over that is money to live on, use to buy the next inputs or whatever. Anyone who doesn't realize that will soon end up in trouble and is a big reason why so many smaller guys fall by the wayside.


Why don't we just start paying the farmer more and be gone with plenty of hassle.


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Says who? I know of farmers who over-fertilize, and I know of farmers who go by soil tests 12 years old. The "no more than necessary" stuff is pure hogwash.


These are farmers that will not be in business long! The profit/loss line is so thin per acre in todays agriculture that if they are spending more than needed on ANY area of farming, they will not have that land for long.


----------

