On 5/10/2010 10:10 PM, Romanise wrote:
> On May 10, 8:31 pm, "Fred C. >
> 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.

I guess I should have said there is no requirement to grow fodder for
livestock that are intended to be eaten as meat. I can see a case to be
made for growing vegetable matter to be fed to draught animals.


>
>> 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
>> get 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
>