Skip to main content

View Diary: Photos from the Farmer's March on Wall Street (78 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  SingleVoter - Eddie was suggesting (9+ / 0-)

    that our energy intensive corporate farming methods were not developed for oil at $90-100/barrel, but rather oil at $30/barrel. However, the efficiency of corporate farming methods have kept food prices very competitive for a long time, even at higher oil prices. In most cases it is cheaper to buy factory raised and harvested food than buying at your local Farmer's Market. I say that as someone who has been a local, slow food enthusiast before it became popular, has a large vegetable and herb garden in my backyard and shops at my excellent, local Farmer's Market 52 weeks a year.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:39:19 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's not just the "efficiency" of corporate (9+ / 0-)

      farming -- it's the subsidies.

      •  That's why my Wednesday grocery flyer (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eddie C, Heart of the Rockies

        can say, buy one steak (or chicken, or pork roast), "and get one free!"

        And I know a few people who are pretty well off who will deliberately "save money" that way.

        Too expensive to buy local much less buy organic.

        The connections are never made.

        •  Money is a measuring stick. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          isabelle hayes, FarWestGirl, Creosote

          Making decisions about what to do on the basis of the measuring stick is a bad idea, even if it's what economists tell us to do.  Why do economists want all transactions to be monetized (mediated by money)?  Because it makes them easier to count and compare.  We are running our lives for the convenience of the bean counters.  How silly is that?

          Accountants devised double-entry book-keeping because they figured that, if they counted something twice, they'd be more likely to get it right. Then economists, a much more recent cadre, decided to take the numbers and make predictions about the future.  At first, it didn't occur to them that what wasn't being counted (externalities) is as important as what is.  When they got a clue, they insisted that everything countable be translated into money and counted, never realizing that some things aren't worth doing, much less counting. So, now we've got machines counting day and night and nobody's better off because of it.
          It's the "counting angels dancing on the head of a pin" syndrome.

          People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

          by hannah on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:28:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I wish I could find a link but I can't (4+ / 0-)

          One time I read a break down of how much taxpayer money goes into a happy meal at McDonald's. I recall that the the corn subsidies was the biggest number but all together the numbers were staggering.

          The point being that if left to their own devises McDonald's prices would be much closer to one of those independent  whole food counters that will serve up a quick organic bite.

          But McDonald's gets the subsidies so those little independents are seldom seen.    

          •  Eddie - is it McDonald' or their suppliers? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eddie C, nextstep, Creosote

            Don't all the fast food chains benefit from the same subsidies?

            In my view there should be no farm subsidies and we should end them gradually over five years, reducing them each year until at the end of five years they would be gone.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 08:54:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good point (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, Creosote

              I would guess that all the fast food companies that deal in corn fed beef are subsidized. I guess it plays into chicken and pork too. I'm pretty sure that the soybean oil gets a pump from the government. Of course the HFCS in soda is subsidized, that would move the balance for people who are watching what they spend when choosing something to drink, organic restaurant teas vs. The Big Gulp.  

              I'm still looking for that link. I posted it in one of my own diaries but can't find it and I can't do justice to how damaging it is to both the American diet, independent fast food and job outside of the fast food empire.

              Don't quote me but I think the number was something like $1.20 is paid for by taxpayers on a Big Mac, fries and a Coke. If you took that away would people on a tight budget make better choices? And would small whole food eateries see more business opportunities?  

              I do notice that in recent years decent food is popping up almost everywhere in food carts. The people want it and the low overhead of a street vendor makes that possible. Add  $1.20 to a McDonald's meal and small vendors might be able to support a storefront too.    

            •  I'm fine with subsidies - (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, Eddie C

              so long as they go to small local and organic farmers, or perhaps to businesses below a certain size. These are the people who actually care about what they're doing, and about their employees, and who together produce some astonishingly good food, while actively building sustainability of the food supply.

              •  Yes but how the subsidies have been working is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Creosote

                Small farms get small help compared to subsidies for agribusiness. That is a "too little, too late" report about the Obama administration trying to turn around a system that has been gamed against the small and midsized farms for generations. Not to knock Obama, at least Tom Vilsack acknowledges there is a problem and there was obviously some good in that support but;

                "I believe the USDA is well-intentioned and is making an earnest effort to shift the focus back to the smaller family farms and cooperatives," she said. "But the system of farm subsidies that helps corporate agribusiness is so well entrenched."

                In 2009, Congress doled out $15 billion in farm subsidies. According to Food First, 90 percent of that sum went to the production of five crops - corn, wheat, rice, soy and cotton.

                "Most of that 90 percent went to the large farming corporations," Shattuck said. "Much of those commodities were not used for food, but for animal feed and industrial applications. Cotton is not even a food."

                The subsidy system primarily assists agribusiness, firms like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill. Mid-sized farms, although they often appear to make a great deal of money, often and the year in the red because of costs.

                According to much of what I read, this is what the government has been supporting for too many years are corporate factory farms, a system that embraces one employee per 5,000 acres of corn. Thoughts from a small farmer;

                As of now, America’s farms leave room for few employees, and even fewer career seekers. There is one farmer for every 155 of us, and current farm technology allows for a farmer to grow 5,000 acres of corn with one employee. On top of that, the farmer will be subsidized heavily by the USDA for doing so. But the way Logsdon figures it, if one 5,000 acre farm were divided into smaller farms of 300 acres, each run by a family farmer with three employees, these farms could be employing close to 100 people. And they would be polluting less and supplying their communities with better food. Multiply that out to the total amount of corn grown in the country this year–90 million acres–and you’re talking about a million new jobs.

                This is chemical farming, overproduction that has the effect of increasing total use of pesticides and fertilizers and contributes to declines in grassland ecosystems and many bird and other wildlife species that depend on them.  

                Nutrients from fertilizers and manure travel from Midwest farm states down the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico, causing a massive "dead zone" on the Louisiana coast. The nutrients, including nitrogen and phosporous, trigger a process whereby excess algael growth and decomposition reduces oxygen levels in the water, killing fish, shrimp, crabs and other sea life in an area nearly 8,000 square miles in size. Farm fertilizers contribute 50 percent of this nutrient pollution. Livestock manure contributes another 15 percent and municiple and industrial sources account for 11 percent.

                I'm not an expert but the numbers that amount to damage to the environment by supporting factory farms that maintain dead land through a system of chemical farming are staggering.

                # How many times have we heard that large farms are more productive than small farms, and that we need to consolidate land holdings to take advantage of that greater productivity and efficiency? The actual data shows the opposite -- small farms produce far more per acre or hectare than large farms."

                # "Integrated farming systems [employed by smaller farms] produce far more per unit area than do monocultures. Though the yield per unit area of one crop -- corn, for example -- may be lower on a small farm than on a large monoculture farm, the total production per unit area, often composed of more than a dozen crops and various animal products, can be far higher."  

                I talk to the farmers at the farmers market all the time and I ask what subsidies they receive. I've been told "Nothing because subsidies are only for farmers who can afford big accounting departments." I've been told "These fruits vegetables are not eligible." Not the correct commodity?  

                I have not been told all bad things because the small farms are now getting much public support. I do remember one farmer who has a place close to the city saying "My only support is that I pay less taxes on the land and because local government would rather see suburban houses than a farm, I need to deal with fines and harassment."  But that is a whole different point.

                It is the midsized farms that have been under attack for many years and from what I've read much of the government support has amounted to helping large agribusiness buy the land from families who had previously used the land wisely to turn it into more environmental disaster land.

                So back to a quote from the link above;

                All government really has to do is provide a level playing field where small intensive farming can compete fairly with large, heavily-subsidized, industrial farming and then stand back. A revolution will take place in new job creation and it will be in the right direction: more good food and a more stable society at a lesser overall cost.

                I don't agree. The government should be working to support midsized farms but they would fall into the unheard 99%, more people who cannot seem to be heard by government.

                It's confusing and more so since Bush left. I'm not sure if the present administration is about lip service or if real progress is being made. I don't want to knock a White House administration with a garden on the White House lawn but all of those people who showed up were not protesting some guy chopping wood in Crawford, Texas neither.  

                •  Interesting - as for the environmental damage (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eddie C, Creosote

                  corporate farming causes, here is a quote from this morning's interview of Amy Goodman with Dr. Rajendra Pachauri (He is chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with Vice President Al Gore) Broaccasting from Duban, here his answer as to why he became a vegetarian for environmental reasons.

                     DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: I became a vegetarian some years ago for environmental reasons.

                      AMY GOODMAN: Why?

                      DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Because the meat cycle is highly intensive in emissions of greenhouse gases. If you look at the global meat cycle today—and, you know, this is a personal view; I’m not saying this as chairman of the IPCC. Since you asked me a personal question, I’m giving you a personal answer. You cut a number of forests in several parts of the world to create pastureland. Then you feed animals with a lot of food grains, which incidentally are produced with the use of fertilizers and chemicals. Then, when you kill these animals or birds or whatever, they have to be refrigerated. They often have to be transported long distances under refrigeration. And then wholesale stocks of these are kept under refrigeration. Retail stores keep them under refrigeration. Our refrigerators have large freezers, where—and all of this uses a lot of energy, most of it dependent on fossil fuels.

                  So ... not only chemcial pollution to soil and water, but very inefficient energy-wise, but causing a lot of greenhouse gas emissions as well. The whole interview is worth reading, imo.

                •  Thanks for all these nuts and bolts facts, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eddie C

                  with which I am in full agreement. My grandfather was still cultivating his corn in Nebraska with mules as late as 1947-48. My surprise: I hadn't realized you were following this so closely, Eddie C.

                  I think we are still attempting to even begin to understand how things could work in a saner way in this mass society. It's pretty clear now that supporting the biggest banks, farms, factories, pipelines . . . because they seem more "efficient" has proven to be a false economy, if not a fatal one environmentally.

                  As for those New York-resident subsidies, I wonder how much of the funding actually reaches the farms?!

              •  Park this link here (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Creosote

                It's four pages from 2006 so I don't expect you to read Federal Subsidies Turn Farms Into Big Business but it was a pretty good assessment of what subsidies were doing for big agribusiness and doing to small farms.

                Not the least bit good for rural communities either. But what are the answers?  

              •  Just for the fun of it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Creosote

                The number one New York City farm subsidy goes to a 12th floor apartment in Manhattan?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site