Farming a welfare scheme or viable business?

astrofool

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

My apologies it was atrofool.

Still on the same point. 15 acres isn't a farm, it's a lawn.

Where did I say that?

We have ~1500 acres in Scotland, is that big?

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

Glad to hear it

How?

Following a pure economic point of view, the cost of pollution is taken into account by reducing the output of the land for future generations.

It is generally governments that have a short term view on things, not economists. A good economist plans for 50 years ahead, minimum.

Most of the pollution will come from the people tending the smaller farms, their houses, their waste, their need for services in rural areas.

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

Indeed. But brianthebard still proved the point that asfaik he was trying to refute earlier: that large farms are more efficient economically than small farms in their use of inputs.

No you used a weak strawman to try and prove something you know nothing about.

brianthebard

astrofool wrote: »

Following a pure economic point of view, the cost of pollution is taken into account by reducing the output of the land for future generations.

It is generally governments that have a short term view on things, not economists. A good economist plans for 50 years ahead, minimum.

Most of the pollution will come from the people tending the smaller farms, their houses, their waste, their need for services in rural areas.

Are bigger farms based in urban areas? That's where we've been going wrong! *facepalm*

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

Following a pure economic point of view, the cost of pollution is taken into account by reducing the output of the land for future generations.

What? Sorry that doesn't make sense. By making more money now (ie by being more economically efficient in your words), all you're doing is increasing the rate of extraction of resources. How exactly are you reducing the output of land for future generations?? Er...unless you're arguing that you're going to deplete the natural resources to such an extent that future agricultural yields are seriously curtailed - in that case, I would agree. Not exactly ideal though, eh?

You totally ignored my last point that the market does not include the cost of pollution because it doesn't have to. Why do you think organic food is more expensive? Because it internalises some of the environmental costs of producing food.

astrofool wrote: »

Most of the pollution will come from the people tending the smaller farms, their houses, their waste, their need for services in rural areas.

Sorry but that is just TOTALLY false. I don't usually wave my qualifications around but as someone with a masters in the field of sustainability and a 1.1 grade thesis on the topic of sustainable agriculture, I can officially certify that you are just picking facts out of the air that suit your argument.

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

No you used a weak strawman to try and prove something you know nothing about.

Yes, but it wouldnt be remotely as fun if I wasnt as thick as a brick.

brianthebard wrote: »

Are bigger farms based in urban areas?

Nope, but bigger farms = less people living in countryside = less services in countryside. Thats his argument I think. It would certainly reduce the number of cars traveling long distances.

Macha

turgon wrote: »

Nope, but bigger farms = less people living in countryside = less services in countryside. Thats his argument I think. It would certainly reduce the number of cars traveling long distances.

Let's get something STRAIGHT before you all run away with yourselves.

The amount of pollution (CO2 and otherwise) produced by having a few thousand extra people living in the countryside is NOTHING compared to the embodied energy and massive inputs that are required in larger farms.

This is just totally false and I advise both you and astrofool to stop throwing out arguments that are totally false in this area.

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

Yes, but it wouldnt be remotely as fun if I wasnt as thick as a brick.

Well you've got it half right.

Nope, but bigger farms = less people living in countryside = less services in countryside. Thats his argument I think. It would certainly reduce the number of cars traveling long distances.

I look forward to the person who made the post actually making it intelligible. You're still wrong of course, as per tac's post.

turgon

taconnol wrote: »

The amount of pollution (CO2 and otherwise) produced by having a few thousand extra people living in the countryside is NOTHING compared to the embodied energy and massive inputs that are required in larger farms.

I realize. But as regards inputs, surely the inputs of a large farm are not greater the sum total of those needed on an equivalent number of small farms? You have mentioned fertilizer etc, but surely any increases here are balanced by decreases in other inputs and an increase in outputs?

itsallaboutheL

turgon wrote: »

I realize. But as regards inputs, surely the inputs of a large farm are not greater the sum total of those needed on an equivalent number of small farms? You have mentioned fertilizer etc, but surely any increases here are balanced by decreases in other inputs and an increase in outputs?

In horribly general terms, larger farms tend to be much less efficient.

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

I realize. But as regards inputs, surely the inputs of a large farm are not greater the sum total of those needed on an equivalent number of small farms? You have mentioned fertilizer etc, but surely any increases here are balanced by decreases in other inputs and an increase in outputs?

NO. You've been told that consistently by just about everyone yet you still persist in that fallacy. No, no, no.

Macha

turgon wrote: »

I realize. But as regards inputs, surely the inputs of a large farm are not greater the sum total of those needed on an equivalent number of small farms? You have mentioned fertilizer etc, but surely any increases here are balanced by decreases in other inputs and an increase in outputs?

No

Sorry I haz 2 sleep. Will talk to you tomorrow if you need further details.

turgon

taconnol wrote: »

a significant quality of bigger farms is that they are less efficient than smaller farms, for reasons I and others have given above: they may require less labour input but labour has simply been shifted elsewhere to produce the many other inputs now needed in farming.

This is what I fail to understand. In terms of the whole economy the labour to produce inputs will increase if the number of inputs increases.

I just fail to see the number of inputs being larger per output on a large farm. And even if they are, I cant see transport costs going up proportionally. Its quicker and cheaper to deliver a truck load of feed to one farm than a truck load of feed to 3 different farms.

Fundamentally, if the inputs were to go up then surely the cost per unit produced would also go up too. So having a large farm wouldnt be value for money. Which would negate this whole argument.

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

This is what I fail to understand. In terms of the whole economy the labour to produce inputs will increase if the number of inputs increases.

I just fail to see the number of inputs being larger per output on a large farm. And even if they are, I cant see transport costs going up proportionally. Its quicker and cheaper to deliver a truck load of feed to one farm than a truck load of feed to 3 different farms.

Fundamentally, if the inputs were to go up then surely the cost per unit produced would also go up too. So having a large farm wouldnt be value for money. Which would negate this whole argument.

Well you're the one who's claimed larger farms would be value for money, guess you've seen the errors of your ways.

RedPlanet

In fairness i've read articles that claim that smaller farms are more "efficient" than larger ones, but it's very subjective.
Most of those articles are purely looking at output per sq acre (lots of US terminology out there); as in: smaller farmer can produce more yield than larger ones using the same growing area.
But that seems a little convenient as the point made above is sound.
A Dairy truck must drive many more kilometers to collect milk from a ten small farms than it does if it collects milk from 1 big farm.
And i suspect those efficiencies stack up very well for large farms vs small ones in the grand scheme of things.

Also i would like to point out, that insofar as rural living goes (one off houses) it's terribly inefficient for a services point of view. It's far more efficient to have high density populations. Which is something that replacing our patch-work of small farms, with large ones could assist.

Macha

RedPlanet wrote: »

In fairness i've read articles that claim that smaller farms are more "efficient" than larger ones, but it's very subjective.
Most of those articles are purely looking at output per sq acre (lots of US terminology out there); as in: smaller farmer can produce more yield than larger ones using the same growing area.
But that seems a little convenient as the point made above is sound.
A Dairy truck must drive many more kilometers to collect milk from a ten small farms than it does if it collects milk from 1 big farm.
And i suspect those efficiencies stack up very well for large farms vs small ones in the grand scheme of things.

More nonsense and selective acceptance of facts in order to support a false hypothesis.

Your argument really comes down to "that seems a little convenient"?

RedPlanet wrote: »

Also i would like to point out, that insofar as rural living goes (one off houses) it's terribly inefficient for a services point of view. It's far more efficient to have high density populations. Which is something that replacing our patch-work of small farms, with large ones could assist.

Am I really going to have to pull out the stats on this one to make it go away? Consider the following:

Larger farms use more relative to yield:
-large machinery (manufacture of machines, assembly, transportation to farm, use on farm, maintenance, storage)
-water
-industrial chemicals (extraction, processing, packaging, transportation to farm, spreading on farm, damage to soil, natural processes and biodiversity)
-pesticides, herbicides, insecticides.
-imported fertility (extraction, processing, packaging, transportation to farm, spreading on farm, damage to soil, natural processes and biodiversity)

Larger farms produce more relative to yield:
-packaging waste
-pesticides, fertilisers and other chemicals that accumulate and are discharged into the environment, water table, soil etc.)
- CO2, CH4 and N2O that is released into the atmosphere through embodied energy in machinery and fuel use.

The bottom line is that today's industrialised farms are not sustainable as they are incredibly dependent on the importation of NON-RENEWABLE resources. They import more fertility (fertilisers), pest control (pesticides), labour (in the form of machinery and fuel), water (from aquivers, not surface water supplies). Not only that, they also discharge more pollution into the environment in packaging, greenhouse gases, pollutants that reduce the quality of our water (especially ground water), degrade soil, reduce biodiversity, and more.

We have moved from closed-circle processes on farms to linear processes, resulting in the need for more inputs and more outputs (that previously would have been turned back into inputs, thus closing the circle).

And this is just the production side of things. If you want me to go into the distribution and transportation implications of larger farms, I can do so.

SkepticOne

I think the issue of whether larger or smaller farms are more efficient is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. What I think most people can agree on is that if subsidies are removed, then the less efficient farms (whether they are large or small) will tend to be eliminated and their resources freed up.

The remaining more efficient will take up some of the business of the farms that have gone.

RedPlanet

taconnol wrote: »

Larger farms use more
Larger farms produce more

Trimming it down to that, and yes i certainly agree.
However a lot of what you describe is probably down to poor farming practices rather than any rule of economics.

De-populating rural areas and resettling those persons into urban areas, will see environmental benefits in the long term.

brianthebard

RedPlanet wrote: »

De-populating rural areas and resettling those persons into urban areas, will see environmental benefits in the long term.

Proof? Its been happening for 200 years at least but there's been no environmental gains as a result. The level of ignorant conjecture from some people on this thread is astounding.

RedPlanet

Because by having a rural population, we end up with lots of KM of road that we wouldn't have if we planned more efficiently, like if we maintained high density urban centres.

There was a thread on the Commuter Transport board that compared Ireland's km of road with Norway. Norway has more land area then we, but a similiar population. Anyway it turns out that Ireland has nearly twice as many KM of road than Norway does.
Roads cost money and energy. They cost a lot to build and they keep costing to maintain.
If we had fewer rural places to service with roads, then we'd save energy by not having to build and maintain those roads.
Same with stretchnig electicity poles, water pipes, telephone, broadband, schools, hospitals, garda stations, fire birgades, postal service, etc etc.

Think of the postal service in Dublin, how many homes get serviced by 1 postman, and how much energy that route consumes.
Now, think of rural ireland, how much energy gets consumed by servicing the same number of homes?
It's ridiculous.

Macha

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think the issue of whether larger or smaller farms are more efficient is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. What I think most people can agree on is that if subsidies are removed, then the less efficient farms (whether they are large or small) will tend to be eliminated and their resources freed up.

The point I'm trying to make is that currently, many costs in agriculture are externalised, particularly the environmental ones. Unless these costs are internalised before subsidies are removed, we will end up with more efficient, but ultimately more unsustainable and environmentally damaging farms.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Trimming it down to that, and yes i certainly agree.
However a lot of what you describe is probably down to poor farming practices rather than any rule of economics.

De-populating rural areas and resettling those persons into urban areas, will see environmental benefits in the long term.

Sorry RedPlanet but it isn't poor farming practice, it is 'standard' 'conventional' farming practice. You are doing the Boards equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'lalalalalala'.

I'll say it again: markets like to externalise all possible costs and many environmental ones are externalised in industrialised farming. Why you keep arguing that this can't possibly be down to economics reveals your poor understanding of the fundamental concepts of the market!

brianthebard wrote: »

Proof? Its been happening for 200 years at least but there's been no environmental gains as a result. The level of ignorant conjecture from some people on this thread is astounding.

This thread is quite depressing Not only in terms of ignorance but more worryingly, in terms of a lack of willingness to change opinion.

roosterman71

RedPlanet wrote: »

De-populating rural areas and resettling those persons into urban areas, will see environmental benefits in the long term.

Do you think there's no environmental damage done by having people all grouped together? Have a look at built up area -full of vandalism, crime, etc, etc.

People have a right to live where they want. And if they want to live in a rural location, then they should be allowed (within planning laws of course), and as taxpayers to the government, they should receive the same benefits and services as those living in an urban area.

Also, what do you think will happen to the rural areas of the country if everyone is moved to a big city? It would be overrun. Who'd own and maintain it? Do you think tourists would want to visit a derelict island with all sites and people stuck in a city?

The above is a bullsh!t comment of the highest order.

RedPlanet

roosterman71 wrote: »

Do you think there's no environmental damage done by having people all grouped together? Have a look at built up area -full of vandalism, crime, etc, etc.

People have a right to live where they want. And if they want to live in a rural location, then they should be allowed (within planning laws of course), and as taxpayers to the government, they should receive the same benefits and services as those living in an urban area.

Also, what do you think will happen to the rural areas of the country if everyone is moved to a big city? It would be overrun. Who'd own and maintain it? Do you think tourists would want to visit a derelict island with all sites and people stuck in a city?

The above is a bullsh!t comment of the highest order.

It's the bare faced truth roosterman.
What would the rural countryside be overun with exactly? Nature??
Golfcourses?
Hiking Trails?
Mountain biking trails?
Large sustainable farms?
Wind farms?

You want to live in the sticks but have the same amenenties found in urban areas, well just be glad those city folks are subsidising it for you!

roosterman71

And how exactly am I being subsidised? By paying tax? By spending my earnings in my local area? If I choose to live in a rural area, am I not entitled to electricity? For water? Or sewage systems? Maybe someone might want to open a shop to sell goods to me. Is that not allowed. Cop onto yourself will ya.

If you've a garden, leave it unattended for a few years. Just see what happens. Grass and weeds will take over. Animals will move in to live. It will become a generally unpleasant place.

And ya want people to live in urban centres, but have golf courses, etc in the country. OK. Who maintains it? How do they get there to work? Is that not environmentally damaging?

The more i read this thread the more stupid comments are getting. Perhaps ye should get back to the topic at hand and not be producing stupid statements that rile up other posters and generally ruin their day by producing utter bile

RedPlanet

roosterman71 wrote: »

And how exactly am I being subsidised?

You are being subsidized because by building that one-off house that requires stretching 6 electricty poles to service you with electricity, you are not having to pay for the number of poles, the meters of cable, the labour done and the energy costs involved.
How many meters of cable are being used to service those many one-off homes throughout rural ireland? How comparitively short those cables are servicing a far greater number of homes in Dublin?

If you've a garden, leave it unattended for a few years. Just see what happens. Grass and weeds will take over. Animals will move in to live. It will become a generally unpleasant place.

Unpleasant to you maybe, but blessing for indigenous species.

And ya want people to live in urban centres, but have golf courses, etc in the country. OK. Who maintains it? How do they get there to work? Is that not environmentally damaging?

Sure, but there would be fewer of everything. Fewer people to and froing, fewer roads to maintain, fewer electrity poles and cabling etc.

The more i read this thread the more stupid comments are getting. Perhaps ye should get back to the topic at hand and not be producing stupid statements that rile up other posters and generally ruin their day by producing utter bile

:rolleyes: classic

roosterman71

You are being subsidized because by building that one-off house that requires stretching 6 electricty poles to service you with electricity, you are not having to pay for the number of poles, the meters of cable, the labour done and the energy costs involved.
How many meters of cable are being used to service those many one-off homes throughout rural ireland? How comparitively short those cables are servicing a far greater number of homes in Dublin?

ESB will charge for connecting to the network. And there are thousands of powerlines criss-crossing the country that can be tapped into. Also, the majority of ESB cables are underground now, so no need for poles in alot of cases. One more thing, the power that is supplied to Dublin is generated in rural areas, so there's plenty of poles and cables delivering that power to the capital.

Unpleasant to you maybe, but blessing for indigenous species.

Leave whatever piece of land you have unattended so and see how ya like it.

Sure, but there would be fewer of everything. Fewer people to and froing, fewer roads to maintain, fewer electrity poles and cabling etc.

But many many more people sitting in traffic as they try get to their place of work. 3 million people trying to get to work/school/job centre/shopping everyday in a built up area would be no picnic.

And to conclude, and leave this stupid thread that has veered off topic so much its untrue (its now a battle of opinions between city and country people), Ireland has always been based around rural communities. Its only in the last 50 or so years that big urban centres are popping up. You see more and more country people working in cities, but the majority try get out of the place at weekends. Just look at the population movement on Friday and Sunday evenings. Ireland has a good rural infrastructure now, so hoping that at some point in the future that everyone will live in a city is just a pipe dream.

Macha

Found an interesting interview with Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm fame. I think he articulates the problems nicely:

MG: In your opinion, what's the biggest problem with the food industry in the U.S.?

JS: Wow, where do I start? Number one is that it destroys soil. Absolutely and completely. The soil is the only thread upon which civilization can exist, and it's such a narrow strip around the globe if a person could ever realize that our existence depends on literally inches of active aerobic microbial life on terra firma, we might begin to appreciate the ecological umbilical to which we are all still attached. The food industry, I'm convinced, actually believes we don't need soil to live. That we are more clever than that.

And that brings me to the second major problem: hubris. The food industry views everything through the skewed paradigm of faith in human cleverness rather than dependence on nature's design. the difference is expressed in many ways, from parts to wholes, from manipulative dominion to nurturing, from worshiping techno-glitzy to honoring wise traditions and indigenous knowledge. But this hubris seems to relish the fact that we can irradiate food to sterilize poop, rather than slowing the processing down enough that we can wash the poop off before it gets in the food.

Which opens up the next big problem: safe food. And this runs the gamut from nutrition to outright danger. The food industry actually believes that feeding your children Twinkies, Cocoa Puffs and Mountain Dew is safe, but drinking raw milk and eating compost-grown tomatoes is dangerous. The industrial food system depends on dredging up horror stories from the early 1900s as food was just industrializing and rural electrification, stainless steel, and sanitation understanding were not available to continue demonizing, marginalizing, and criminalizing back-to-heritage foods in the modern day. Using its political clout, industrial food is waging war on local, nutrient dense foods as surely as the U.S. Cavalry hunted down native Americans earlier in our culture's history. A people, who by the way, only wanted to be left alone and who were routinely labeled barbarians and worse from the earliest days of our country.

Which brings me to the final point: disrespect of the inherent uniqueness of the living world. Industrial food never asks whether the pig is happy. the pig-ness of the pig never enters the conversation. It's all about fatter, faster, bigger, cheaper. And a culture that views its life from such an arrogant, manipulative, disrespectful hubris, will view its own citizenry the same way--and other cultures. We cannot return to traditional nutrient density until we respect soil microflora and pigs for what they are and do in the system. Bringing this level of respect to the table is the foundation for a moral and ethical society. The industrial food system perhaps more fully than any other aspect of our culture expresses unabashed greedy pride.

The US is much worse than Ireland but if you want to see what Big Farming does, just look over there. BTW, y'all should go see Food Inc when it comes out. That will explain a lot.

Edit: RedPlanet, are you going to respond to my posts?

RedPlanet

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: RedPlanet, are you going to respond to my posts?

I don't remember you asking me a question

andrewdcs

Skimmed the thread, didn't catch reference to a book I'd strongly recommend to anyone interested in food production / farming / etc.
Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System by Raj Patel.
'pologies if its been posted. It's very good.

Macha

RedPlanet wrote: »

I don't remember you asking me a question

I didn't ask you a question, I provided evidence that counteracted your claims. If you don't want to respond, I can take it that you have no further evidence to back up your point of views.

There really is no need to be so smart-arsed.

andrewdcs, yes it's very good. Other recomendations:

Not on the Label: Felicity Lawrence
In Defence of Food - Michael Pollan
The Omnivore's Dilemma - Michael Pollan