http://www.plamondon.com/b2evolution/blogs/blog4.php?disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:25:15 +0000 Robert [Member] c371@http://www.plamondon.com/b2evolution/blogs/ DennisP,<br /> <br /> Thanks for the comments. <br /> <br /> I think that "true cost" arguments have failed the test of time. When I was given a subscription to Organic Gardening in 1970, people made the same arguments and gleefully predicted we'd all be dead by 1975 due to a combination of financial and ecological collapse. <br /> <br /> I'm all for eliminating farm subsidies of all kinds, but other than relieving the taxpayer of an unnecessary burden, I don't think the overall picture will change much. Conventional farming is dominant all over the world (not just in areas that get US subsidies) because it works really well. You can tell it works well because an entire generation of American farmers (the ones who started farming before 1945) started out as non-chemical farmers, switched over <i>en masse</i> to chemical farming, and stayed with it for the rest of their lives. There was nothing to keep them from switching back if they wanted to. They didn't want to. Farmers are nowhere near as dumb as people make them out to be, so the fact of their preference for chemical-based farming needs to be taken seriously.
Thanks for the comments.

I think that "true cost" arguments have failed the test of time. When I was given a subscription to Organic Gardening in 1970, people made the same arguments and gleefully predicted we'd all be dead by 1975 due to a combination of financial and ecological collapse.

I'm all for eliminating farm subsidies of all kinds, but other than relieving the taxpayer of an unnecessary burden, I don't think the overall picture will change much. Conventional farming is dominant all over the world (not just in areas that get US subsidies) because it works really well. You can tell it works well because an entire generation of American farmers (the ones who started farming before 1945) started out as non-chemical farmers, switched over en masse to chemical farming, and stayed with it for the rest of their lives. There was nothing to keep them from switching back if they wanted to. They didn't want to. Farmers are nowhere near as dumb as people make them out to be, so the fact of their preference for chemical-based farming needs to be taken seriously.]]> http://www.plamondon.com/b2evolution/blogs/blog4.php/2009/04/09/the-geography-of-fertilizer#c371 Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:27:56 +0000 DennisP [Visitor] c370@http://www.plamondon.com/b2evolution/blogs/ You are right on with your comments. I've read Edmund Morris' book several times, enjoying it each time. And I'm going to raise some chickens for the first time this year to complement my garden. (Your site has been helpful.) The gardening/small farm life is a wonderful way to spend one's time. <br /> <br /> But it is cheaper to "ship oil halfway around the world, make fertilizer out of it, and truck the fertilizer to the farm belt than it is to truck free manure to the farm belt" only because costs are badly calculated. A lot of the harm done by this process to the environment, to soil and productivity, to underpaid and mistreated workers, and to global warming is ignored. I wish the prices could be correctly calculated, taking into account properly all costs. <br /> <br /> It is sad that corporate interests have such a firm control over agricultural policy in this control. But there are hopeful signs that the Obama Ag. Dept. is beginning to change course, judging from the nomination appointments. We can hope!
But it is cheaper to "ship oil halfway around the world, make fertilizer out of it, and truck the fertilizer to the farm belt than it is to truck free manure to the farm belt" only because costs are badly calculated. A lot of the harm done by this process to the environment, to soil and productivity, to underpaid and mistreated workers, and to global warming is ignored. I wish the prices could be correctly calculated, taking into account properly all costs.

It is sad that corporate interests have such a firm control over agricultural policy in this control. But there are hopeful signs that the Obama Ag. Dept. is beginning to change course, judging from the nomination appointments. We can hope!]]> http://www.plamondon.com/b2evolution/blogs/blog4.php/2009/04/09/the-geography-of-fertilizer#c370