- Thread starter Keith R
- Start date
Land Degradation: Impact of Farmers
Land Degradation: Impact of Small Farmers vs. Corporate Farms
I was looking at this same material just yesterday and it makes grim reading all across the world. Cutting down vast swaths of forests is leaving us with too little rain in many areas and when the rain comes down, it washes away every piece of topsoil that there is, because this is so hard baked and dry, without having any sustenance to give to anything planted in it. You can see this visibly if you walk into the landscape on the Northern side Keith - that is if you are able to distinguish it. I remember back as a child in Africa all the farmers in an area coming together and specifically filling in erosion gullies and planting trees to help the cycle and soil recover. We've known about this for a long time bu we (humankind) persisted in following policies that consistently impoverished soil quality even more.
Kottke in that underground classic, The Final Empire: The Collapse of Civilization and The Seed of the Future said: "Because civilized people do not know what they are, they talk politics, religion and science and pursue material wealth while the basis of their life on earth, the soil, slips away beneath their feet."
So now we have oil scarcity (peak oil?) and climate change and food sources severely stressed in our quest to keep on motoring and madman as leaders most of the time
. Monbiot was recently asking plaintively: "Peasant farmers offer the best chance of feeding the world. So why do we treat them with contempt?" The premise is that studies show that small farms are consistently way more productive than large comoditized farming conglomerates - different than what we all thought these past years, excepting that our fearless leaders put the kibush on small farms with trade policies and subsidy policies and food control policies and now the chickens are really coming home to roost . (farming pun!)
I was looking at this same material just yesterday and it makes grim reading all across the world. Cutting down vast swaths of forests is leaving us with too little rain in many areas and when the rain comes down, it washes away every piece of topsoil that there is, because this is so hard baked and dry, without having any sustenance to give to anything planted in it. You can see this visibly if you walk into the landscape on the Northern side Keith - that is if you are able to distinguish it. I remember back as a child in Africa all the farmers in an area coming together and specifically filling in erosion gullies and planting trees to help the cycle and soil recover. We've known about this for a long time bu we (humankind) persisted in following policies that consistently impoverished soil quality even more.
Kottke in that underground classic, The Final Empire: The Collapse of Civilization and The Seed of the Future said: "Because civilized people do not know what they are, they talk politics, religion and science and pursue material wealth while the basis of their life on earth, the soil, slips away beneath their feet."
So now we have oil scarcity (peak oil?) and climate change and food sources severely stressed in our quest to keep on motoring and madman as leaders most of the time
. Monbiot was recently asking plaintively: "Peasant farmers offer the best chance of feeding the world. So why do we treat them with contempt?" The premise is that studies show that small farms are consistently way more productive than large comoditized farming conglomerates - different than what we all thought these past years, excepting that our fearless leaders put the kibush on small farms with trade policies and subsidy policies and food control policies and now the chickens are really coming home to roost . (farming pun!)
Last edited:
Land Degradation: Impact of Small Farmers vs. Corporate Farms
How is this so? Statistically, modern farms, the "corporate" farms, are significantly more productive on just about every statictical measure?
Growing up in the 70's and images of of native Americans weeping over the state of our country, I was very conscious about the environment, and for that matter decided to study agricultural engineering.
The above statement seems to present the idea that civilization through advancement will actually be the cause of the failure of the earth to sustain us. However, experiance and history teach us something different altogether.
I have the feeling you feel that somehow there will be a grass roots movement from the bottom up that will somehow transcend national boundaries, languages and politics, but I feel you know that our long and cluttered history would not support that. Also, any first hand experience with people of lesser education means would immediately call into question the veracity of the likelihood of the scenario becoming reality. The fact is ignorance and lack of education are the main causes of that we continue to abuse our environment, ie people simply don't know what they do can hurt them in the end.
It may seem that big business and greedy governements are the root cause, but then again, vist any third world country and view the ground and watershed contamination not to mention the smog caused by millions of poor running hc motors, and it becomes clear that abuse of the environment is not limited to any societal or monetary class of individuals.
Therefore, unfortunate as it may be, change has to come from above by the leaders of the community, and inewvitably this involves politics.
Don't give up hope though. All one has to do is look at the changes in the health of the environment and attitudes that happened in some 35 some odd years in the US to know that it is possible.
Chip. no, not a grassroots movement but certainly I don't expect that our fearless leaders will do anything but feather their own nests however possible. There is kind of a land movement happening though, the one where food is becoming really expensive and farmers are all of a sudden the flavor of the day and we're seeing more types of large scale land fertility studies than the one Keith quoted in this blog entry. The penny is beginning to drop in the main stream consciousness that large scale deforestation leads to large scale poverty of soil.
The link that I gave explains the premise in four paragraphs (easy to read) and in 4 credible sources cited in the footnotes of the article. The main economist, Amartya Sen, is a Nobel winner. Your comment, while widely accepted, seems to be no longer accurate
The link that I gave explains the premise in four paragraphs (easy to read) and in 4 credible sources cited in the footnotes of the article. The main economist, Amartya Sen, is a Nobel winner. Your comment, while widely accepted, seems to be no longer accurate
Algore won a Nobel*, too, and we see how that turned out:cheeky:.
There are credible economists who argue strongly against Sen's "theories" (which are really liberal/socialist political ideologies wrapped in "economists" clothing) as being very incorrect. In fact, there are credible economists who claim that Sen's policies were specificall in support of the prevailing Bengal gubmint, and not only did not reduce famine, but were a root cause of them. Additionally, credible economists and historians have accused Sen of intentionally manipulating data to achieve the conclusions he wanted (where have I heard the Left harp about THAT one before...).
I realize you're a "globalist", Chris, and fall in step with those who embrace pro-globalist agendas (like the UN; they've done a fine job of fixing world problems, huh?). I have no problem with that, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. But simply citing an article that you ~want~ to believe is so, doesn't make it so.
I read the Monbiot's agruments and the annotations and footnotes, almost all of which come from sources of "Fellow Travelers" in the Global Socialist Movement (BTW-did you know the moniker for the whacky Left, "Moonbat", is a parody of his name. Someone added "Barking" because of his style of speech. And did you know that just recently he tried a "Citizens Arrest" of John Bolton, before being toos out on his ass by security folks in GB? A classy move, huh?). I would hardly consider anything Moinbat writes as either scholarly or unbiased. Unless of course, I WANT to believe because we "in the struggle together".
One "study" which he (and, therefore you) use in his "analysis" is that small farms IN TURKEY are like 10 or 20 times MORE PRODUCTIVE than large farms. Maybe in Turkey. But not in the First World. Not even in the DR. There are a bazillion studies that show there is clearly economies of scale with incredible increases in per-acre productivity in larger farms. They may not be as cute and warm-and-fuzzy, but they produce much more real food that the old "family farm" did. Again, maybe not in the countries that Unal studied, but in the rest of the world that produces massive amount of crops, you're gonna be hard pressed to prove it.
Before you go off on me (again), I'd ask that just for once that y'all make even the slightest mild effort to either offer a more balanced view of a topic, even if seen as weak efforts. Or at least not crucify and demean those here who do in the spirit of being fair and balanced, and offer countervailing opinions that do not agree with your fundamental political World View.
*Do you know who was up for the Nobel Peace Prize nomination with Algore? Irena Sendler. She lost. Read about her, and then tell me who should have won, her or a former politician with a discredited PPS slide show: Irena Sendler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WiKi said:
Just sayin'...
Okay, if you kids want to get into a fight about the environmental impact of small vs. corporate farms, now you have your own thread in which to do so. :tired:
Keith R
Environment Forum moderator
Keith R
Environment Forum moderator
Call it what you will, here's the place, not the thread announcing new GT blog entries.
Thanks.
I am?
Which one CB? Firstly you get all political because I read and quote someone who is known as a socialist? I am not scared of socialists you know. I read socialists and capitalists too.
And now you want to place me in a political 'box' while having no idea what you are talking about. You do not know me from a bar of soap. So, now you-re back to attacking al gore and whoever else is out there to attack. Geez man, get over it already, whatever it is.
Forgive me for taking this issue of farm size and productivity somewhere else to discuss. It is being discussed you know. It is being discussed in all 17 countries that the quoted studies pertain to. It is also being discussed in places like:
- Oaxaca and the Chiapas, Mexico where I visited just a short time ago to study the economic viability of a number of weaving cooperatives including what a optimum size is for them to grow their cochineal producing plants on (oh my God, they were all socialist working together in socialist cooperate management structures!) utilizing locally harvested organic dyes.
In the Chiapas, people are fighting a heroic fight (amongst others) to maintain their thousands of years old corn seed stock free of gm contamination and to maintain their significant biological diversity in the area. (Oh my God, these people wear black masks so that the Mexican Government cannot identify them - they must be communist at least! - perhaps even worse than that!)
- in Costa Rica, specifically central where they have just now opened a new organic market, (you are allowed to wonder what I was doing there - it may must have been something to do with soil enrichment)
- in Nicaragua where I am currently assisting to open a new facility making organic nut and seed butters and products - the cycle is sustainable - as well as fixing a small community bakery that seems to be suffering from 'central american' syndrome.
- in Honduras, where I visited an organic peanut farm to tie them up with the Nicaraguans,
- in Guatemala, specifally a small town on the lake where an organic community is taking shape and a friend of mine will shortly present a yoga and body work retreat which I will joyfully attend. My year or so off is turning into a busy period.
Sorry CB, all of these people tell me that they do not care about your agenda, who won the latest nobel prize or who is who in the zoo for that matter. What they are interested in, is to improve their food sources, their sources of soil and their lifestyles. They're interested in preserving the old methods of making and dying their textiles because these are sustainable methods, they're interested in making their organic nut butters, because the complete process is sustainable and ecologically sane, they're interested in taking their organic produce to market where they get a good price for their food.
That is who I will discuss the issue with. It is rich and productive. You may choose eventually to pull your head out of your motorcycle engine but until then, I won't be discussing anything with you.
Last edited:
Okey Dokey. I only put you in "the box" that your own words over the years here describe, Chris. Virtually ALL your links and data come from World Golbalization (i.e. socialist) sources. This would include the link you ASKED me to read...which I did. And how is quoting a dedicated socialist NOT political (which is what you did), when the "spiritual leader" of socialism himself said "everything is political"? Don't blame ME for pointing out WHO the source YOU cited and asked others to read actually IS in real life.
If you had quoted some boring Ag Professor at Mississippi State or FAMU or U of Nebraska about small farms instead of a agenda driven socialist with UN credentials, the post wouldn't come across so political.
I applaud the small farmer solutions. I applaud organic peanut farms. I applaud organic nut and seed butters and products. I applaud sustained dying of natural fabrics. I applaud local organic markets. I'm a big advocate for producing goods as close to the consumer as possible. I'm a HUGE advocate of personal choice for what they put in their mouths and bodies. I'm a huge advocate of soil enrichment (which corporate farms in the U.S. do, because it's in their best interest to do so). I'm a big advocate for yoga and body work retreats for consumers who choose them.
But that's not my "issue".
But the very premise YOU PRESENTED that small farms can produce 10-20 times the goods as a big farm who have the economies of scale going for them is laughable and absurd. And the assumption that if land is taken away from the "corporate interests" (as advocated by Monbiot and the guy he admires, Mugabe, from the item you referred me to) and re-distributed to little farmers, and then explode with 10-20 times the production is just hogwash. That point is not political. It's pure agricultural economics.
There is a reason co-ops were formed by farmers a loooooong time ago, and continue to this day: they combine private ownership of property with economic muscle to create synergy in production and marketability through shared interests, a lack of competition between them*, and economies of scale. They were the first to develop a "corporate farm" concept. Heck, they even do it in the DR.
On another point, I find it somewhat intresting that the praise Moinbat heaped on Mugabe for the redistribution of land confiscated from it's rightful owner was on June 10, a mere month before Mugabe imprisoned his political rival in Zimbabwe. Funny, dat.:knockedou
*The simple premise that individual farmers can get higher prices for their goods is easily disproven right here in the DR. Just go to a municipal market where farmers hawk their crops, and see how you can play them against each other by how THEY behave toward a consumer. It takes the negotiation skill of a newt to drive the price down. Supply and demand in it's purest form.
That is clear that that is not your issue. What are you doing in this forum then? If it was, we may have a conversation. Unfortunately I do not have a conversation with you as these are indeed my issues whether it is a farmer in Nebraska or in India. So, get back to my issues or leave. My issues are environmental and social. My issues are food and earth and water related. Yours are political as you've made abundantly clear many times. I am not interested. Talk environmental issues or leave. I'll requote the quote that you decided to ignore as it was not political.
Kottke in that underground classic, The Final Empire: The Collapse of Civilization and The Seed of the Future said: "Because civilized people do not know what they are, they talk politics, religion and science and pursue material wealth while the basis of their life on earth, the soil, slips away beneath their feet."
A factual correction .. (and btw, you won't take the focus of this thread off environment again ... I am correcting these comments because I am convinced now beyond a shadow of a doubt that your reading comprehension sucks and you have never been anywhere else but Florida, Mississipi and perhaps Nebraska - get some world experience already man!)
No, Monbiot did not praise Mugabe. You seriously need to consider a reading comprehension course. One reads more than the first paragraph usually.
As for the rest, you need to support everything you say and you know what? You cannot. You're simply trolling again. You do not make a contribution and then want to muddy the waters to any other contribution. I guess what is happening in our world today does not fit your worldview. You cannot make it fit any more CB. Things are kinda proving you out to be a relic of an older age.
In addition, we've never been treated here on the environment forum to the long list of things that you say you applaud so forgive me for not believing you. Once the sound of your incessant 'applause' stops drowning out discussions of the issue at hand, I dare say we will continue. The message here to you is simple .. get out of here!
No, Monbiot did not praise Mugabe. You seriously need to consider a reading comprehension course. One reads more than the first paragraph usually.
As for the rest, you need to support everything you say and you know what? You cannot. You're simply trolling again. You do not make a contribution and then want to muddy the waters to any other contribution. I guess what is happening in our world today does not fit your worldview. You cannot make it fit any more CB. Things are kinda proving you out to be a relic of an older age.
In addition, we've never been treated here on the environment forum to the long list of things that you say you applaud so forgive me for not believing you. Once the sound of your incessant 'applause' stops drowning out discussions of the issue at hand, I dare say we will continue. The message here to you is simple .. get out of here!
You'd be wrong. I've been around. Maybe not yoga parties, but I've got some bona fides. Anyone who actually knows me will tell you my reading comprehension is just fine. They will also tell you I have an exceptionally accurate BS detector.
Uhhhh...he did. He just said he fell short in the kind of redistribution of wealth that Monbiot wants.Chris said:
What kind of "support do ou want, Chris? AG101? Jeez, woman, have you ever actually BEEN to a rela farm that produces real food for real people by folks who expect to be rewarded for their efforts? Economies of scale in farming has been around forever.Chris said:
And you're simply wrong again, Chris. I did nothing but contest your assertions.Chris said:
No. I make contributions that you don't like.Chris said:
Now that's funny.Chris said:
Sorry I'm not more New Age/One World for you, Chris. I guess I'm "Old School" in that regard, even though I'm told we're about the same age. I do my own critical thinking without consideration of what's popular. It's a lonely path, admittedly, but even Thoreau took it.My worldview is that each man is sovereign within himself, and has the inherant power of self-determination; it's gubmint that takes that ultimate freedom away. That is a "relic of an older age"? Oh, really? The nature of man has changed?
Your problem, Chris, not mine. If folks want to produce organic seed butter, I'm all for it as long as I have the free choice to choose to purchase it or not, and I'm not required to economically support it, against my will, at the point of a gun. If there is a market for organic seed butter that is self-supporting, I think it's a fine pursuit of ones vocation. Seriously. I'm also glad that there are yoga and body work retreats that do not reqire my forced subsidy. Heck, I'm glad there is a market for hair defolliant that does not require my participation. Everybody has their right to choose their own path, and I applaud each of them.Chris said:
By all means, please continue the discussion. And I will also participate.Chris said:
Besides, it was YOU who brought up the good works you're involved in, and I applauded you for them, because I meant it.
Oh, and they aren't DR related.
Fair enough, I understand opinions vary. My message to you is similarly simple: no.Chris said:
I mean no harm. I mean to discuss topics I find of interest, and that I can make worthy commentary.
Period.
When are you coming back to the DR?:classic:
Folks, keep it more on the issues and less about each other and the personal philosophies and politics of each.
Talk about soil CB, or black gold ... why is it called black gold?. Why is soil called 'dirt' in the US?
Talk about what soil degradation is? Talk about how it happens? What is the major cause of soil degradation? Talk about what can be done? Why is it of concern? What can the farmer do? .. what does the appropriate governmental agency need to do?. Or in the US, the agricultural extension of the Universities. How does one manage soil in the tropics? What types of soil is most prevalent in the tropics? Why do we get that reddish color? Why is it sometimes bone grey? How does one recognize impoverished land? Why do we need to concern ourselves with land degradation? Is it not so that soil is a non-renewable resource using human timescales as the authors of "Soil Degradation in the United States" state? (2004)
Talk about what soil degradation is? Talk about how it happens? What is the major cause of soil degradation? Talk about what can be done? Why is it of concern? What can the farmer do? .. what does the appropriate governmental agency need to do?. Or in the US, the agricultural extension of the Universities. How does one manage soil in the tropics? What types of soil is most prevalent in the tropics? Why do we get that reddish color? Why is it sometimes bone grey? How does one recognize impoverished land? Why do we need to concern ourselves with land degradation? Is it not so that soil is a non-renewable resource using human timescales as the authors of "Soil Degradation in the United States" state? (2004)
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote from Chris ana CB: But the very premise YOU PRESENTED that small farms can produce 10-20 times the goods as a big farm who have the economies of scale going for them is laughable and absurd. And the assumption that if land is taken away from the "corporate interests" (as advocated by Monbiot and the guy he admires, Mugabe, from the item you referred me to) and re-distributed to little farmers, and then explode with 10-20 times the production is just hogwash. That point is not political. It's pure agricultural economics.--END Quote
While its true that agri-giants have economies of scale that the small farmer can't compete with, they also lace the soil with a multitude of pesticides and chemical fertilizers - so do some small scale farming operations. This grows wonderful productive crops but over time depletes the soil. On the opposite side, the use of fallow fields, crop rotation, and organic fertilizers in the end produces crops as bountiful, but is more time consuming and results in less land under production, however the long term effect on the soil is regeneration. In Reality the majority of the world can't afford the expense of fertilizers/pesticide however much they increase production. It makes sense both economically and socially
to encourage as much production of local sustainable industry and food production as possible. In a perfect world.....etc.
While its true that agri-giants have economies of scale that the small farmer can't compete with, they also lace the soil with a multitude of pesticides and chemical fertilizers - so do some small scale farming operations. This grows wonderful productive crops but over time depletes the soil. On the opposite side, the use of fallow fields, crop rotation, and organic fertilizers in the end produces crops as bountiful, but is more time consuming and results in less land under production, however the long term effect on the soil is regeneration. In Reality the majority of the world can't afford the expense of fertilizers/pesticide however much they increase production. It makes sense both economically and socially
to encourage as much production of local sustainable industry and food production as possible. In a perfect world.....etc.
Of course it does. No one was implying otherwise.
However, the "19 times more productive" figure is...err...well... little hard to swallow. No way. I can see how there may be some smaller scale efficiencies because of personal involvement of the small farmer working his ass off (like my relatives did until 70 years ago...we still own the farm). Especially when not farming just one crop, maybe mixing it with farm animals, and in the absence of modern equipment and tools.
Even farmers learned the efficiency lessons a long time ago. That is why they formed co-ops. It's quite simple to anyone who has studied economic history.
And, Chris, I again refer you to AG101. It's not like soil depletion is a recent concept. Farmers have understood about it for centuries. Heck, even folks planting small gardens understand the concept, and implement strategies to keep their gsarden productive.