[threadbare]

I just finished reading through a bit of touchy back and forth between Cog and Pstarr on the Spain Riots thread. Pstarr wrote that he figured land redistribution is the answer to many modern ills. Cog interpreted this as being a typical progressive's collectivist approach. He feels this attitude represents a threat to his own 100+acre farm.

Having just read the book, 'Methland', I have to throw my head back and laugh at the idea that either party would EVER support any collectivist action on behalf of 'the little guy'.

We have to wage a war here, and the war is against the concept that cheaper prices serve everyone well. They don't. When farmers have to compete with huge factory farms, they end up losing it...the farm, that is. Does anybody seriously think Obama, Pelosi or any other 'leftist' is going to interfere with this model? Hell no.

Like the banks, huge farm oligopolies HAVE to be broken up. Period. Repatriate the land back to the farmers who were driven out of business.

Tear down the packing plants and slaughter houses and factory farms that cause so much mayhem and pain in the lives of humans AND animals. Rebuild small. Recreate, reshape towns and rural areas that are sustainable, peaceful and SANE places to live.

Conservatives claim to love the idea of getting back to basics? This should be a basic platform in their list of talking points. But is it? Hell no.

If you have a problem with any of this, allow me to direct you to the book, 'Methland', by Nick Reding. Here is a reader review:


Oelwein could be Anysmalltown, USA, where the bulk of the employment opportunities have dried up or moved away (in the name of progress - giant agribusiness), and where the inhabitants are looking to escape their troubles and feel better and have the opportunity to make a few bucks to boot. One of the great revelations of the book is that meth was formerly widely used, and historically was associated with increased productivity and an increased sense of well-being (although its bad side-effects were well known).

Just how Oelwein morphed from a railroad roundhouse/agricultural community into a place where people ride their bikes in the open in order to cook meth is a story well-developed in the book, told from the perspective of the prosecutor, the hospital chief of staff and the mayor. Their views on how Oelwein might be brought right again, and their own personal struggles of being in Oelwein are valuable - the approaches they ultimately take might serve as a model for other communities in dire circumstances.

How Oelwein's predicament dovetails with government anti-drug policy (and the incredible power wielded by the pharmaceutical companies lobbyists); the hierarchy of the Mexican drug industry; international regulation of the materials needed to make meth; and the rise of giant agribusiness (both for the low wages and no benefits, as well as the employment of persons of dubious nationality) is a tale of many a small town in America. In many respects, it is also a call to action on all of these fronts.

http://www.amazon.com/Methland-Death-Li ... 1596916508

After reading it, I had the dreadful feeling that the cruelest of commissars or Communist overlords couldn't have done a better job of ruining, gutting an entire country.

Another article that touches on the theme of the disaster in the heartland is this one from the World Watch Institute. If I remember correctly this institute is a letter agency front that is not exactly promoting a left leaning govt overthrow. Their analysts have just sifted the data, seen what has happened in rural America and drawn some obvious conclusions.

Where Have All the Farmers Gone?


Probably very few people have had an opportunity to hear both pitches and compare them. But anyone who has may find something amiss with
the argument that U.S. farmers will become more competitive versus their Brazilian counterparts, at the same time that Brazilian farmers will, for the same reasons, become more competitive with their U.S. counterparts. A more likely outcome is that farmers of these two nations will be pitted against each other in a costly race to maximize production, resulting in short-cut practices that essentially strip-mine their soil and throw long-term investments in the land to the wind. Farmers in Iowa will have stronger incentives to plow up land along stream banks, triggering faster erosion of topsoil. Their brethren in Brazil will find themselves needing to cut deeper into the savanna, also accelerating erosion. That will increase the flow of soybeans, all right-both north and south. But it will also further depress prices, so that even as the farmers are shipping more, they're getting less income per ton shipped. And in any case, increasing volume can't help the farmers survive in the long run, because sooner or later they will be swallowed by larger, corporate, farms that can make up for the smaller per-ton margins by producing even larger volumes.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/490

So Cog, I very much sympathize with your anxiety but feel it's not 'the left' you have to worry about, it's the hard pro-corporate right.

PStarr, we would have redistribution if we just turned the clock back.

[Pops]

There is no Left in the US is there? We have center, right and pretty-darn-right but no left. The Robber Barons are our royalty and always have been, we all dream we can be them, they are our idols (along with the contestants on American Idol of course). I'm pretty sure we'll continue down the capitalist road with larger and larger concentrations of land in fewer and fewer hands until at some point it doesn't work anymore. And I'm pretty sure that will be a long way off because big machines growing monocultures are super efficient compared with the puny efforts of humans/animals. To put it another way, as long as there is the capability for any mechanical/chemical farming to take place, the ditch-to-ditch monoculture will win.


You can buy a good acre of land for the price of a couple of years cable/phone service but I don't see any land rush happening. That's because true subsistence farming that uses "fewer" inputs than modern monoculture is in no way competitive –– if it were, it would be Modern Farming wouldn't it?

Besides, farming the old fashion way is no fun either –– it wasn't the bright lights than made it hard to "keep 'em down on the farm", it was the work.

If/when .gov comes to confiscate my land and put starving web designers here (to starve) I'll be happy to see DHS coming because I'll surely want to be put me out of my misery by that point.

[Shaved Monkey]

The earth is slow but the ox is patient.
The mono culture high input advantage will slowly collapse,the only long term solution is sustainable agriculture and sustainable population.

The unaccounted cost of environmental damage wrought by businesses in 11 major industries probably equals 41 per cent of their profits.
That's the estimate in a report by global accounting and consulting giant KPMG, which sought to quantify the 'externalities' businesses impose through environmental damage.

Environmental degradation is an externality that is caused in varying degrees by most types of business activity, yet businesses rarely have to cover the full cost of the damage they cause.

One estimate in the KPMG report puts that unaccounted cost to the environment at $US2.15 trillion for the top 3,000 global listed companies in 2008.
And the KPMG report estimates the costs of businesses' environmental impacts are doubling every 14 years.
But it's not just big polluting corporations causing these externalities and innocent citizens wearing their costs.
In fact, it's really current generations imposing these externalities on future generations.


The worst performer is agriculture, which is estimated to cause more than twice as much damage to the environment as it generates in profit.
Contrast that to telecommunications and the internet, where estimated environmental costs equal only 2.5 per cent of profits.
There is one key message from that finding: if you think food prices are high now, then you ain't seen nothing yet.
Eventually, some of those unaccounted costs are going to filter through into the actual price of food, because the theoretical environmental costs estimated by Trucost's model will eventually manifest in lower yields from degraded soil, higher input costs from depleted deposits of phosphates for fertilisers, higher water costs as competition for fresh water increases, etc.
That's not to mention the upward price pressure caused by the rapidly growing demand from Asia's expanding middle class.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-07/j ... vl=theDrum

Its a marathon not a sprint.

[IndigoMoon]

Where have all the farmers gone? Probably to the same place that all of the small businesses across this country went. Corporations and greedy bankers gobbled them up and will most likely never spit them back out again. We allowed them to become too big to fail and this is the price we pay for it .

[Loki]

Redistributing land would be pretty pointless without farmers who know what to do with it. What are we as a society doing to encourage a new crop of farmers? Next to nothing. Learning how to farm requires years of hard work and low wages. Owning a 100 acres in the country does not a farmer make, you actually have to farm to learn how to farm. I've been farming full time for 2 years, apprenticing with farmers who've done it for 20+ years, and I feel like I've only scratched the surface.

It doesn't help that modern farming requires an enormous amount of capital (not the least of which is land), with the possible reward of a very low rate of return on investment, if you're lucky. And Mother Nature apparently has a passionate hatred of farmers, just in the last 3 months or so on my farm we've had two massive floods, a surprise late snow storm that destroyed our packout, and today we got a good hail storm to boot. Might get a late frost this week to help kill off what wasn't killed by the snow two weeks ago, the flood last week, or the hail today. Gotta love farming.

I'm on the fence as to the medium-term future of farming. I hope we'll see a renaissance of small farms a la Heinberg, Kunstler, Astyck, et al. But it wouldn't surprise me if Stuart Staniford over at the Oil Drum is right and peak oil results in a hardening of the power of Big Ag. Malignant government policies will also play a major role, of course, probably for the worse (as usual). I seem to recall a UK government report about catastrophic climate change that suggested a radical land redistribution scheme, except it involved seizing land from small farmers and handing it over to big agribusiness. (anyone have a link to this, I read it 2-3 years ago but can't find it?)

Pops, I'm not sure I agree that mechanization necessarily results in monoculture. It certainly can, and certainly has, but not all mechanization is the same. I think there is appropriate technology that can benefit small farmers. Walk-behind rototillers can greatly benefit small market gardeners, and they really don't cost very much. Even tractors can pay for themselves if you consider the cost of labor, which is by far the #1 expense on my little organic vegetable farm.

Shaved Monkey, long term it wouldn't surprise me if our distant ancestors are scratching a living from the land with wooden dibblers.

[JohnRM]

It all starts with demand. If people demand vast quantities of cheap food, then there will be business that will provide it. If people demand cheap fast food, then McDonald's and Arby's franchises will litter the landscape. If people demand vast quantites of cheap products, then there WILL be Wal-Marts everywhere driving out small businesses leaving downtowns across America destitute and forgotten, while their employees are paid next to nothing, in comparison. You have to change people's wants and attitudes, which, I am sorry to say, is extremely difficult.

[PrestonSturges]

it's the tragedy of commodity pricing - the orange grower makes about $0.02 per orange, etc etc. There's no one bad guy in the distribution chain - most of the profit margins are pretty slim. The orange grower was probably better off when oranges were so scarce that kids got oranges in the Christmas stocking.

[Pops]

For a long time here and on da blog I posted about the future of small farming kinda hoping to see a glimpse of a new "back to the land" movement that might get a foothold utilizing the oil slaves still readiy available –– maybe helped along by aging hippies or unemployed/undereducated kids or just dropouts like me. But I don't see it happening much. There is some increase in farmers markets and co-ops and maybe even in gardening in general, but nothing huge.

Anyone interested in the future of small farms will be interested in John Ikerd (A list of his papers). We've not met but have corresponded a little. He is a PO aware agricultural economist (I Know!) now retired from MU who talks about the future of small farms, small towns, etc. He is no Kunstler or Heinberg spouting rhetorical doom but he puts PO into the mix with the various other problems around modern ag.
Here is a new paper, Sustaining the Profitability of Small Farms

So I have to admit, profitability is perhaps the greatest challenge to sustainable farming today, particularly on small farms. First, those on small farms need to face economic reality. Most farms in America are large today because large farms that have access to more land, labor, and capital tend to make profits. Since small farms have less land and less capital they are likely to make less money, unless they have more of something else. There is a limit to how hard a farmer can work and without capital they can’t hire more labor. So, the something else has to be the farmer – the farmer’s imagination, creativity, ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and overall management ability.

---

Pops, I'm not sure I agree that mechanization necessarily results in monoculture. It certainly can, and certainly has, but not all mechanization is the same. I think there is appropriate technology that can benefit small farmers. Walk-behind rototillers can greatly benefit small market gardeners, and they really don't cost very much. Even tractors can pay for themselves if you consider the cost of labor, which is by far the #1 expense on my little organic vegetable farm.

I guess my point is, as long as there is fuel for the rototiller there is fuel for the 24-row strip tiller and the economic advantage will remain. That applies to commodity crops of course, fresh fruits and veg are different and may have a chance on the small local scale if/when transport costs become prohibitive for the Peruvian grown December Air Freight Tomato (DAFT™).

Although as I think about it, if transport costs make the DAFT too expensive for the market, it won't be simply that the DAFT has increased in price. In addition, consumers will be less able to afford even locally grown tomatoes because they will be paying more for every type of basic necessity, including the commodity staples. Right?

[Windmills]

It's possible that what we envision as small farming won't return, even when the conditions would seem favorable. We may simply see corporate agriculture change its business model. We might see a lot of local growing and distribution, but all still owned by a couple of corporations (two, perhaps, so that they can't be accused of being a monopoly). Franchised small farms. Local food, but no local control, no power to the people. There are plenty of times in history when agriculture was run this way, starting with feudalism.

[Loki]

Pstarr, the BCS is exactly what I was thinking of. I wish there was more appropriate technology like that for small farmers. BCSs are relatively expensive, but are very cool concepts, and I think much more widespread elsewhere in the world. I've used BCSs (only the rototiller implement), they're beasts.

I do get Pops' point about the availability of big machinery lowering prices across the boards, though, a feedback mechanism encouraging monoculture. I think a large part of our problem is bad public policy combined with consumer demand for cheap garbage food. There are no easy answers, including hoping that peak oil will "fix" our structural problems.

[kublikhan]

Did you check out Pop's 24 row tiller video? It is behemoth, a dinosaur. The giant farm of the future is dead. Too inflexible. What happens when one little circuit board breaks and the Japanese fabricator is underwater? Whoops, can't source the part. There goes ten thousand acres of corn. That kind of specialized equipment only exists in a world of cheap petroleum and complex network of world trade, financial systems, credit and distribution system are now just-in-time, hyper complex, and vulnerable.

Giant mega farms are not a modern phenomenon, they existed even in ancient times. I am not convinced they are going away simply because of fossil fuel depletion. The giant mega farms of the Roman Empire(Latifundia) were also more productive and efficient, yet produced many of the same problems discussed in this thread, such as unemployed, displaced workers.

The latifundia of Roman history were great landed estates, specializing in agriculture destined for export: grain, olive oil, or wine. The latifundia were the closest approximation to industrialized agriculture in Antiquity, and their economics depended upon slave labour.

The latifundia quickly started economic consolidation as larger estates achieved greater economies of scale and senators did not pay land taxes. Owners re-invested their profits by purchasing smaller neighbouring farms, since smaller farms had a lower productivity and could not compete, in an ancient precursor of agribusiness. By the 2nd century AD, latifundia had in fact displaced small farms as the agricultural foundation of the Roman Empire. This effect contributed to the destabilizing of Roman society as well. As the small farms of the Roman peasantry were bought up by the wealthy and their vast supply of slaves, the landless peasantry were forced to idle and squat around the city of Rome, relying greatly on handouts.

Overall, the latifundia increased productivity. It was one of the greatest levels of worker productivity before the 19th century. Such consolidation was not universally approved, as it consolidated more and more land into fewer and fewer hands, mainly Senators and the Roman emperor. Pliny the Elder argued that the latifundia had ruined Italy and would ruin the Roman provinces as well. He reported that at one point just six owners possessed half of the province of Africa.

But then again, Pliny the Elder was very much against the profit-oriented villas as presented in the writings of Columella. His writings can be seen as a part of the 'conservative' reaction to the gain- and profit-oriented new attitudes of the upper classes of the Early Empire.

It can be argued that the latifundia formed part of the economic basis of the European social feudal system.

Latifundia

Some are stewards of their property, including their workers and the environment. Some not. Historically, concentrated property and especially land ownership has led to revolt. Two great opposing movies on the subject are Warren Betty’s “Reds” regarding the Russian, and Andy Garcia’s “The Lost City” about the truth of the Cuban Revolution.

Would you recommend seeing these movies? Care to offer a brief summary of them?

[Pops]

The giant farm of the future is dead.

Actually strip tillage is pretty cool, basically its no-till without the RoundUp. Instead of disking the whole field before planting or no-tilling in seed and going back and spraying with chemicals, you're only tilling a strip where you are planting. So fewer passes, less erosion and no – or at least less chemical.

My point is, again, as long as there is fuel to be used for growing food, the big machines and the big acres will have the advantage for commodity production, even if the fuel is peanut or rape seed diesel. I can just about guarantee machines won't be parked en mass because parts aren't available. If there is a market for crops and there is fuel to burn, farmers will make due or pay for replacement parts and someone will supply them, even if the replacement is a patch. Farmers just aren't going to park the tractor and pick up a grub hoe until there is nothing left to burn.

Which isn't to say that that somewhere down the line there won't be lots more poor people using grub hoes but they will be doing it then for the same reason people in the poor world are doing it today, because they are simply too poor to buy food at any price. A $3k tiller or for that matter a $300 tiller isn't going to help them any more then than it helps poor people now.

If the basic PO scenario is that everything gets more expensive, there might be a period, in some locations, where the small farmer can compete with the distant commodity grower because of transport fuel, fertilizer, credit and other costs drive the big guy out of the market.

But consider history, as soon as the railroad made it to the Sacramento valley they were packing produce on ice and sending it east. That was in 1870, only 10 years after Drake made oil. I'm going to say it'll be a long while before big ag is dead and long distance food transport is over.


I'd like to find one of these original "Rototillers" - easy enough to operate, mom can turn up a few spuds for dinner while still in her Sunday best



Some real Rototillers http://www.zucksrototillers.com/

http://www.sacramentohistory.org/resour ... eline.html

[vision-master]

Where have all the flowers gone

[PrestonSturges]

On youtube, there are tons of Eastern European BCS videos showing them clawing through deep mud and generally doing a lot of things that would otherwise be impossible with just muscle power.

[Revi]

We get wood out of our woodlot with a chainsaw and one of these: