On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Alex Rast wrote:
> at Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:56:41 GMT in <1109869001.780053.45920
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, (Neil) wrote :
>
>>> Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
>>> farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to developers.
>>
>> No real correlation there. Any system of farming that makes the farmer
>> successful tends to keep the land out of development. Farmers are
>> successful if they produce crops cheaply that the public desires.
>> Organic production doesn't contribute much to that end.
>
> It must be said that in fact organic production contributes a great deal to
> that end. A lot of farmers are converting to organic for the simple reason
> that they can't make ends meet growing conventionally. The problem with
> growing conventionally, from the farmers' POV, is that it puts you
> completely in the commodity market, where those who win are those who sell
> for the lowest possible cost. A small American farmer can't compete on a
> cost basis with either a large agribusiness or a farm in places where costs
> are generally less, e.g. Mexico. Thus if he grows for the conventional
> market, he faces minuscule to nonexistent profits because he can barely, if
> at all, sell his products for enough money to cover his costs. Meanwhile,
> organic products can be sold at considerable premiums over conventional,
> enough, in fact, that the farmer can more than make up for increased costs
> of production. So he converts to organic, makes a profit, and stays alive.
> The farm doesn't get sold to developers.
there are other alternatives. like farming _intelligently_. but, I've
got to tell you, I think all the smart farmers have been out of the
business for years.
Lena
will buy nutri-farmed food. if you find any, please tell me where! :-)