Ok... First of all I prefer local produce and goods from small farms and buy from them whenever feasible. I was SOOOOO happy when the farmer's market opened last week here in Cohoes. I also get all my bread from the local independent bread baker and try to support local businesses as much as possible. It just makes sense
( ... )
If small farms are 20 times more productive than large farms then why are large farms taking over?
(1) Being more productive per area does not mean cheaper. It just means more productive.
(2) There's a crapton of subsidies supporting large farms in the United States.
(3) They are borrowing against the future--using mechanical inputs and liquid fertilizers rather than rotating crops and building the soil. They produce cheaper volumes of less nutritious food--but they won't be able to do so forever.
These are my guesses. Like you, I don't know.
Personally, I suspect that the 20 times more productive number is one of these pieces of conventional wisdom that are pulled out of thin air to prove a point.
Freakonomics is on my list to read. But I find it odd that you would assert that here in the face of an article that refers to repeated studies under a number of different conditions, and mentions the number as something that is *against* conventional wisdom, not for it.
The article doesn't say good things about Robert Mugabe. He is
( ... )
(1) Being more productive per area does not mean cheaper. It just means more productive.
I guess I'd need to read up on what the definition of productivity that the reports are using. I would use it as "he gets 1 carrot per sq ft, I get 20" If you were getting that type of productivity every company would be doing whatever whatever it could to get that productivity.
(2) There's a crapton of subsidies supporting large farms in the United States.
No doubt about it. But 20 times the productivity should be more than able to make up for something like that.
(3) They are borrowing against the future--using mechanical inputs and liquid fertilizers rather than rotating crops and building the soil. They produce cheaper volumes of less nutritious food--but they won't be able to do so forever.No argument here either. Part of the reason why I buy local as much as possible
( ... )
But if I'm a major agribusiness and the only way to get 20 carrots instead of one is to only farm an area small enough for me and my family to work it, I'm not actually going to do it.
with apologies for the non-sequitur, requesting C&C on my last lj post. i don't usually do sonnets, but i wanted to comment on the dual image of broken glass in the jewish consciousness. the piece still feels very raw right now, and i was hoping for some editorial suggestions.
Comments 7
Reply
(1) Being more productive per area does not mean cheaper. It just means more productive.
(2) There's a crapton of subsidies supporting large farms in the United States.
(3) They are borrowing against the future--using mechanical inputs and liquid fertilizers rather than rotating crops and building the soil. They produce cheaper volumes of less nutritious food--but they won't be able to do so forever.
These are my guesses. Like you, I don't know.
Personally, I suspect that the 20 times more productive number is one of these pieces of conventional wisdom that are pulled out of thin air to prove a point.
Freakonomics is on my list to read. But I find it odd that you would assert that here in the face of an article that refers to repeated studies under a number of different conditions, and mentions the number as something that is *against* conventional wisdom, not for it.
The article doesn't say good things about Robert Mugabe. He is ( ... )
Reply
I guess I'd need to read up on what the definition of productivity that the reports are using. I would use it as "he gets 1 carrot per sq ft, I get 20" If you were getting that type of productivity every company would be doing whatever whatever it could to get that productivity.
(2) There's a crapton of subsidies supporting large farms in the United States.
No doubt about it. But 20 times the productivity should be more than able to make up for something like that.
(3) They are borrowing against the future--using mechanical inputs and liquid fertilizers rather than rotating crops and building the soil. They produce cheaper volumes of less nutritious food--but they won't be able to do so forever.No argument here either. Part of the reason why I buy local as much as possible ( ... )
Reply
But if I'm a major agribusiness and the only way to get 20 carrots instead of one is to only farm an area small enough for me and my family to work it, I'm not actually going to do it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment