Comments Jim Goodman has made

Joel Salatin has done great things, but we all can't have the luxury of living so close to such a huge metroplitan market. Like real estate, in direct marketing it's location, location, location. The product has to be good, but --location.

So, has this guy ever farmed and made a living from it? If he has, does he think about the productive capacity of that land in 5, 10, 50 years? Probably not, corporate philosophy is all about profit today.

The truth hurts, but the truth shall make you free.

We do agree, CAFO's do not have a higher economic efficiency than extensive farming methods. Intensive systems are only more efficient when they can exploit some part of the production system. It may be the environment, or workers or livestock feed produced below the cost of production. Cheap food is available because people want it, and because it is possible to provide based on exploiting one or more parts of the production system.

People would also probably like to have cheap Caddilacs, but GM has no intention of selling below the cost of production, as is the case with most food. GM has no problem with making a profit at the expense of the environment or moving production out of the US and exploiting workers in developing, non-unionized production facilities, but they still insist on keeping all the profits for the corporation. No cheap Cadillacs.

Bottom line, intensive operations are more profitable only when they have one or more components of the production system that they can exploit, and in so doing, they keep their production costs below the true cost of production,

We must also seperate food production from commodity crop production. Corn that yields 250bu/acre means little in terms of feeding people. Corn that yields  50 bu/acre when planted with squash and beans can produce much more food/acre, Indigenous farmers can feed themselves, their families and their villages. No corn for to sweeten soft drinks, or produce ethanol, but more food per acre.

Cheap food in the US means 20 oz. soft drinks, CAFO produced livestock  and produce grown by underpaid and exploited migrant workers.

Don't tell me it's more efficient, it's more profitable, screw the avoided costs.

SO, are we, or farm animals or the environment better off because we have developed the CAFO system? I don't think so, I could be wrong, but tell me why, give me the benifits we reap from CAFO's.

Organic beer

The Lakefront ESB like most beers is better on tap. It also happens to be the featured beer during the evening social time at the Midwest Organic Farming Conference In LaCrosse WI.

Crannog Ales from Canada's only certified organic farmhouse microbrewery in Sorrento BC are well worth trying. Unfortunately they are only available in BC  and only on tap.On In our latest tasting, organic beer comes of age posted 9 months ago 10 Responses

Obama's plan for agriculture

Based on Obama's choice of Vilsack, the fact that Marshall Matz was Obama's agriculture team leader for most of the campaign and a recent Chicago tribune op-ed by Matz and George McGovern (a big fan of GM crops), I really don't see Obama as doing much to change agriculture policy. I hope I am wrong, I really do.

Matz has formerly worked as a lobbyist for DC firm Olsson, Frank and Weeda. His clients included National Meat Assn. Novartis AG, Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris), McDonald's, and others. Obama also had former Monsanto VP Michael Taylor (they guy who wrote the original rBGH rules for FDA) on his advisory team.

None of this gives me much hope, perhaps a McCain ag program would have been worse, so have we again chosen the lesser of two evils?On Big Organic execs and some activists rally behind Obama's USDA pick posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

pie in the face

I have farmed all my life using both highly conventional methods (chemicals, hormones etc) and now organic production. Personally, I like the organic system much better and so do my customers.

I am always puzzled as to why farmers are expected to produce cheap food for the poor. Wouldn't it make more sense if jobs paid fair wages? Wouldn't it make more sense if manual labor paid a fair wage so we didn't have to depend on fossil fuels to replace workers?  Everyone deserves a fair wage farmers.laborers, teachers whomever. People paid a fair wage can afford to pay a fair price for food, housing, education or whatever, provided those items are priced fairly as well.

As to the problems inherent on the large organic farms you mention, well that may be the problem, perhaps they are too large? Why must we assume everything must get bigger to get more efficient?

The final report of The International Assessment of Agricultural Science  and Technology for Development, the work of over 400 scientists, concluded that "small-scale farmers in diverse ecosystems should be the focus of efforts to get better quality food in the right places". Feeding people does not necessarily mean high tech farming. The Ecologist magazine in an article "Small is Bountiful" notes that total output of a farm is almost always higher on small vs. large farms, a fact even World Bank economists have come to accept.

The Soybean growers used to boast that over 90% of the US crop was fed directly to animals, so how necessary is it that we continue this practice? Some soy protein for poultry and pigs, but why ruminants? I haven't fed my dairy cows soy for years and I see no reason to start again. Shouldn't  we be looking at ways to get more animals off grain feeding instead of using them to dispose of the excessive amounts of grain grown world wide?

The fact is that we eat a diet high in processed foods that are high calories and low in nutrition. Foods with a high GM content. We have made a food system to fit the crops that are highly profitable to industry, with little thought given to what people should be eating.

If industrially produced GM food is all that people can afford to buy, we really need to re-assess our national priorities on diet, health care, fair wages and the fact that manual labor is not evil.
 On Searching for the hope in Obama's USDA pick posted 11 months, 1 week ago 4 Responses

USDA chief

How about Neil Ritchie, Mark's brother? He knows Ag policy, and perhaps Mark can keep fighting the good fight in MN politics?

Neil knows sustainable agriculture, trade issues and works well with farmers. He certainly would not be a pushover for agribusiness.On Prez-elect urged to name progressive farm-policy chief posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

lackeys

No, I'm not referring to the secretariat specifically, they are mostly lawyers and economists, of course in the eyes of many, lawyers and economists fall somewhere with used car salesmen and dentists as people to avoid. I suspect most of them are just folks trying to do their job and pay the bills.

The people I have a problem with are the ones who make the decisions.  People like Robert Zoellick former US trade representative and now head of the World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz former head of the world Bank and architect of the Iraq war. They seemed to have no problem with implementing Structural Adjustment Policies (SAP's) on poor countries.  They forced them to cut health and social programs, end assistance programs for farmers and forced them to grow cash crops instead of food crops. WTO Director Pascal Lamy, another free trader and advocate of SAP's dangled the carrot of open world markets and high prices for crops like cocoa and cotton which are now in over supply with corresponding low prices.

I blame Prime Ministers and Presidents of countries that support the WTO and who use food as a weapon, specifically G-8 member states (the "Fat Cats in the snow" of the Davos Forum). George Bush, Tony Blair and Stephen Harper, leaders who seem not to realize that "Food is Different" and should not be part of  world free trade.

So, there are some names, people who for whatever reason support the agenda of the multinational corporations who see globalization as nothing short of a windfall, even if it means more hunger in the developing world. On Globalization failed, cheap oil is gone, local production is the only way forward posted 1 year, 3 months ago 58 Responses

globalization

My point is, we need to get as much of our diet as possible from local and regional sources. If we want tropical fruit, tea, coffee, chocolate etc. we must be willing to pay for it, We must be assured it is fair trade so the farmer/farm workers get a fair living wage and have some assurance the environment is respected. Granted transportation is a problem and a big one, but lets start to solve it by eating foods we can grow locally, locally.  

I am content to eat strawberries for example, only when they are in season in Wisconsin, but I think buying fair trade coffee and chocolate can help growers in developing countries if they are paid fairly. That is how trade should work, globalization as we know it is nothing  less than legalized corporate pillaging of the world.On Farmers markets and local agriculture: age-old systems for the future posted 1 year, 4 months ago 11 Responses

It's not as bad as the patriot act, but--

It seems the only time Bush does or threatens to do the right thing he is doing it for the wrong reasons. I have no doubt the Administration loves all the provisions of the farm bill that keep concentrating agricultural, land, production, processing and profits into fewer and fewer hands. The big prize however is keeping the WTO alive, Bush knows that must be done, other details can be dealt with later, but the Administration needs WTO compliance.

True, some of the small victories in the bill are good and long overdue, like more organic research funding and some of the food security provisions, but with the increasing public support for organic food only an idiot would argue against those increases. Given the current world food crisis those provisions seem pretty weak, better than nothing but we have been accepting the lesser of two evils and better than nothing for too long.

The loss of the packer ownership ban, no mention of a farmer owned grain reserve to prevent against future food shortages and the continuation of programs that encourage fewer and larger farms and work against new beginning farmers entering agriculture tells me this bill is fatally flawed.

If legislators insist on subsidizing biofuels let them do it with Energy Department money, not Agriculture, USDA should deal with food. DOE should deal with energy.On How should sustainable-food advocates respond to the latest farm bill proposal? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses

local foods

Studies have shown that given the choice, low income people will choose local, nutritious food. They are poor not stupid. Many low income people have little choice other than processed food from the convenience store. Local is cheaper than that, and far far better. As to going to the farmers market, public transportation may not do it, and carrying a big bag full of vegetables home on a bus making several transfers is, I am sure, not  easy. I like the idea of inner city gardens, but realize that will not work everywhere. Our food system like everything else, is not very friendly to the poor.

As to biofuels or more correctly agrofuels, I am not a fan.
ttp://www.counterpunch.org/goodman12282007.htmOn Why Michael Pollan and Alice Waters should quit celebrating food-price hikes posted 1 year, 7 months ago 27 Responses