On May 10, 8:31*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> There is no requirement to grow fodder for livestock.

It is profitable in India for farmers in villages located couple of
miles outside a town. Often the farmers cut green, not fully ripened
maize, sorghum, millet stocks or alfalfa feed early in the morning and
get it delivered to their fixed customers by 7 or 8. Having emptied
their carts they collect garbage collected by sweepers on the streets
and are back on their farms by midday. For carrots they need to be dug
previous evening and washed, Alfalfa and carrots are mainly for the
horses as still there are horse buggies, In towns there are carting
services which use bullocks or camels. Donkeys are used to carry
building material often in smaller quantities in narrow streets.

> However, the idea that it is "inefficient" to use land to produce feed
> for livestock is completely wrong. *Efficiency of resource use means
> looking at costs, not physical output. *It is *irrelevant* that you can
> 20 kg of (say) potatoes from a given amount of land, vs. "only" 1 kg of
> meat. *What matters is the cost of the resource compared with the price
> people are willing to pay for the good produced. *If people value the
> kilogram of beef more highly than they value the 20 kg of potatoes, then
> the use of the land to produce feed for cattle is economically rational.
>
> Physical outputs by themselves are meaningless. *Costs and prices are
> what determine efficiency.
>
> --
> Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
> know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs