<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for I loathe the farm bill but can’t bring myself to accept the Bush administration’s party line]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/the-farm-bill-archer-daniels-midlands-man-at-usda-and-me/ Sat, 17 May 2008 07:21:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-farm-bill-archer-daniels-midlands-man-at-usda-and-me/1 conservation; resistance in Mexico

The National Wildlife Federation has been talking up the conservation programs included in the farm bill for some time now, saying rather less about how the corn-to-ethanol subsidization is resulting in the decision of many farmers to plant the marginal areas where the conservation programs ideally would apply.

A few days ago, this interesting story appeared in the NY Times, about a conscious return to less productive farming traditions in the beautiful but poor Mexican state of Oaxaca:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/world/americas/13oaxaca ....

Notice, by the way, the cute irony of the Ads that Google in its brilliance supplies on the left:  "Support the Farm Bill" at tomharkin.com; "Archer Daniels Career" at vault.com

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> conservation; resistance in Mexico

The National Wildlife Federation has been talking up the conservation programs included in the farm bill for some time now, saying rather less about how the corn-to-ethanol subsidization is resulting in the decision of many farmers to plant the marginal areas where the conservation programs ideally would apply.

A few days ago, this interesting story appeared in the NY Times, about a conscious return to less productive farming traditions in the beautiful but poor Mexican state of Oaxaca:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/world/americas/13oaxaca ....

Notice, by the way, the cute irony of the Ads that Google in its brilliance supplies on the left:  "Support the Farm Bill" at tomharkin.com; "Archer Daniels Career" at vault.com

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> Comment #2 by Jeremy Cherfas http://www.grist.org/article/the-farm-bill-archer-daniels-midlands-man-at-usda-and-me/ Sun, 18 May 2008 19:05:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-farm-bill-archer-daniels-midlands-man-at-usda-and-me/2 It isn't less productive

Thanks for the link to the NYT article, but why do you say that the farmers in Oaxaca are less productive? The whole point of the article is that they are more productive than they used to be. Maybe they don't compete with intensive industrial agriculture, but that's hardly the point. They are now more productive than they were 20 years ago, and that is enabling them to eat and to stay on the land.

]]> It isn't less productive

Thanks for the link to the NYT article, but why do you say that the farmers in Oaxaca are less productive? The whole point of the article is that they are more productive than they used to be. Maybe they don't compete with intensive industrial agriculture, but that's hardly the point. They are now more productive than they were 20 years ago, and that is enabling them to eat and to stay on the land.

]]> Comment #3 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/the-farm-bill-archer-daniels-midlands-man-at-usda-and-me/ Tue, 20 May 2008 16:47:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-farm-bill-archer-daniels-midlands-man-at-usda-and-me/3 productive; Obama's "support"

Hey, Jeremy Cherfas, I do not know what it all means, I am just repeating what journalist sources whom I trust tell me: industrial methods of agriculture, promoted by agribiz, are more "productive" -- and I can probably stand by you as you quarrel with how that word is defined -- than traditional methods.

Surely, we can agree that traditional methods, many of them at least, are likely to be much more constructive, to everyone with interests in what happens on a particular piece of land, including the birds, the bees, the turtles and the frogs.

Worth noticing in this connexion is David Brooks's slap at Barack Obama for voting for the farm bill:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_ ....

By way of "Correction," Obama did not actually vote for it, but he "supported" it.

So are we supposed to draw a conclusion from this?  "Yes you are, good-hearted Americans," cries Brooks, "you are supposed to realize you ought to vote for McCain."

Meanwhile I shall creep outside and get sick, as quietly as possible.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> productive; Obama's "support"

Hey, Jeremy Cherfas, I do not know what it all means, I am just repeating what journalist sources whom I trust tell me: industrial methods of agriculture, promoted by agribiz, are more "productive" -- and I can probably stand by you as you quarrel with how that word is defined -- than traditional methods.

Surely, we can agree that traditional methods, many of them at least, are likely to be much more constructive, to everyone with interests in what happens on a particular piece of land, including the birds, the bees, the turtles and the frogs.

Worth noticing in this connexion is David Brooks's slap at Barack Obama for voting for the farm bill:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_ ....

By way of "Correction," Obama did not actually vote for it, but he "supported" it.

So are we supposed to draw a conclusion from this?  "Yes you are, good-hearted Americans," cries Brooks, "you are supposed to realize you ought to vote for McCain."

Meanwhile I shall creep outside and get sick, as quietly as possible.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> Comment #4 by Jeremy Cherfas http://www.grist.org/article/the-farm-bill-archer-daniels-midlands-man-at-usda-and-me/ Sat, 24 May 2008 17:39:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-farm-bill-archer-daniels-midlands-man-at-usda-and-me/4 Of course, it depends where you are starting from

Yes, you're right, the local farmers are less productive than the intensive farmers on the flat lands, with the high-potential varieties, the fertilizers and pesticides and the irrigation. But that's a really unfair comparison. Nothing would ever make them even close in simply measured productivity.

The good news in that article, for me, was that they are 3 to 4 times more productive than they were 20 years ago. That is making it possible to stay on the land and to be somewhat insulated from market prices for maize.

I suspect we are in total agreement, and that we barely begin to know how to measure "productivity".

]]> Of course, it depends where you are starting from

Yes, you're right, the local farmers are less productive than the intensive farmers on the flat lands, with the high-potential varieties, the fertilizers and pesticides and the irrigation. But that's a really unfair comparison. Nothing would ever make them even close in simply measured productivity.

The good news in that article, for me, was that they are 3 to 4 times more productive than they were 20 years ago. That is making it possible to stay on the land and to be somewhat insulated from market prices for maize.

I suspect we are in total agreement, and that we barely begin to know how to measure "productivity".

]]>