Jump to content
50 vehicle trips is a massive number for a small farm especially one that is operating out of such a small facility. An operation like that would be more akin to something of a store front and not simply a small farm processing their own products on farm for retail or wholesale sale elsewhere.
Having the general public access to ones farm all the time should require a different level of approval than simply preparing ones farm products on farm for distribution off of their farm. In a rural setting people tend to take as few trips per day as possible. I can not foresee a small operation needing that number of vehicular trips.
The Russian academy of Sciences seems to be worried more about global cooling because of the Sun going into a cool phase, in the near future.
If CO2 is the problem, then the fastest way to reverse the carbon in the atmosphere is to get rid of crop subsidies. Plain and simple, yet the government would prefer a program of cap and trade, which would line the pockets of the large land holders, who can sequester large amounts of carbon in the soil - through irrigation and grazing versus row cropping.
Anyway, the main point is that government intervention, has not helped and has harmed just about everything possible - when it comes to their agricultural policies, imo..
I am glad there is some agreement that the government intervention has had an effect on how crops are produced. I suppose the best course for government action would be to phase out those programs which are causing distortions within the free market.
That is the best corrective action the government could take, to positively make an impact on the dead zones in the gulf of Mexico, the lack of carbon in our topsoil (now in the atmosphere), the loss of nutritional value in our foods, higher employment and a myriad of other issues, most likely would be positively impacted by phasing out the USDA's crop subsidies. Yet those subsidies, serve to consolidate wealth in the hands of the few.
Scott on Solar activity warming or cooling the planet, does it not stand to reason that if the sun provides more energy to this beautiful rock, reduces deliveries then we will see cooling and conversely if more energy is thrown at this planet then warming will occur. Simple logic, imo. and usually the simplest solutions are the right ones. yes CO2 has an effect, however, nowhere near the effect the sun has. Cold spring, during the supposed solar maximum (yet activity is well below predicted levels today).
Jeremy Johnston states - "Mark, Still not sure I'm getting it. You are arguing against government planning and interference in the "free" market and at the same time arguing for an agricultural system that is only still viable because it is propped up by government subsidies? The same subsidies that prop up ethanol?""
Mark, this is what I stated also and you fail hear it. That the industrial system is based upon GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
In addition, for a free market to operate freely, those production costs which are externalized by business', should be dealt with and internalized. The Diesel exhaust in inner cities causing asthma in its population, mercury poisoning and acid rain from power plants making lakes sterile.
There government intervention is needed, not in telling people how to live because it is "green". The McMansions created by a tax break for carrying a mortgage, are far less sustainable than a cottage is and yet both get held to the same standards. There are far more instances in which the government involvement is simply making things more expensive to do business.
Though a grain silo, that is operated as a coop or some other way, to help reduce feed costs for the local food model - allowing one achieve some economies of scale would be a very good idea. Fortunately, the structure already exists and it is being revived by the Delaney's, to provide local flour, grain and maybe bread.
The great fears of the sustainability crowd is global warming and the most recent data from NOAA would indicate we are either entering a dalton minimum or worse the Maunder Minimum which lasted for about 60 years and was the most likely cause of the little ice age. Having seen negative 50 here I hope it does not get much colder, though the neighbor has seen -60 which does not sound like fun for any livestock or me.
In addition, most meat chickens are seasonal here, as they arrive via the post office for their short lives, except the layers, and mine stay in the barn - that should be heated at some point, with the least costly heat source for the long term as I prefer to have a 50 year fix, without government coercion. I will do it because it is the right long term decision for me - wether or not that is what the government states I have to do (though they should have ZERO involvement in that decision, it is mine to make, wether right or wrong). It could be that my decision in five years needs to be rethought as the market has changed - but that is a risk I take and one I should be taking by my own free will, not by government coercion.
Mark, I think Jeremy agreed with you that "good intentions" can have disastrous consequences - if you read his comment.
The industrial model that you are defending is a direct result of community planning, in grain subsidies. Also, Jeremy points out that the industrial model can not produce the same yields as other methods.
You are both making the same point. Though, the difference is in trying to convince others to spend more for local food. However, in achieving economies of scale, one can produce food as inexpensively as the "industrial" model, with creativity which limits the needs for harsh chemicals to treat symptoms of problems. A good example would be chickens following cattle - to eat the emerging flies from poop. Yielding a free food for the chickens to eat, reducing the input costs of the chicken operation - to bring it more in line with industrial models. Though that can only be achieved when one achieves some level of scale - raising 1000's of chickens as opposed to 100's - or more.
Doing it the right way, does not mean you can not provide a decent product at a decent price. Though, as in the industrial model, efficiencies have to be attained. Waste products from the harvest of cattle, needs turned into a viable product as it is in the industrial model. Yet on a more tolerable scale. So that if you desire to test your beeves for mad cows dis-ease, you can - that is if the USDA would let you.
Really local should not nor be any more expensive than stuff coming from elsewhere. The two problems are government subsidies for row cropping systems that have depleted the top soil - thus taken carbon out of the biggest carbon sink and put it the atmosphere. The other being the capital required to be in agriculture full time. The only way around that is to try and layer the enterprise with others pitching in so that no one is worked to hard. long hours for less than minimum wage really should not cut it for anyone. getting to a scale that can support ones self is critical, which either requires a lot of capital and a low return on investment or trying to work with others on the same land all doing something different, while at the same time adding to the whole so 1+1 is greater than 2
I suppose others in the valley are not trying to do it right. Unfortunately, a firewall to alleviate engineering on a barn and to keep it from being a commercial structure, might also be doing it right.
Just have to wait for additional capital to dump another six figures into completion of a project that could be operational today but as there is no way to sell the product locally without a little processing that could be done in the milk house (an agriculturally excepted structure as its sole purpose is to store an ag product, that was to be processed in town long term, so now I wait for plans to build a firewall into the area that would have aged cheese long term - short term only immediately consumed cheese's would have been made along with some milk.
Oh well, still a year away from being able to operate and the right way also. - just don't see the logic behind requiring a 100 year old barn that has not been altered to require engineering to show it will stand the weather in the valley. Maybe if it were going to be a real commercial establishment with customers arriving daily. Yet the barn will still be a barn simply attached to commercial structure so it either needs to be commercial and to code, electrical code is fine, engineering of the structure makes no sense, except to achieve full employment of the engineers or as one individual suggested have some one put there stamp on it by simply looking at it, which if it were to somehow fail they would get sued which is not the right way to do it.
Oh well, I get a vacation this summer while I wait for a firewall in a new place with a changed plan, so that the code is met, yet no real changes will have been made, no safety threats went unaddressed before excluding having someone provide engineering for a structurally sound barn which would have been classified as commercial, according to the building department, technically could be taxed as commercial, which it is not. It is agricultural even though the milk house might have housed something other than agricultural - yet so is washing lettuce - which should be changed in the local building codes - as that is the "right thing to do"
What about taking a percentage of the superintendents $10,000 travel budget for the year? I'd like to see last years detail on that one.
It was looking better than last year 3 weeks ago. If it warms up and rains a little bit in May June, it will be fine. Cattle prices have been terrible for bred cows recently and with the recent weather here and elsewhere, that could change. There could be a large run up in prices as the national cow herd is at its lowest level since the 50's.
Putting 6 months of hay (3 tons or more) into a cow that will yield a $1,000 calf does not make much sense. Cows migrating to other regions for the winter makes far more sense as Doug Carlson did this winter. Similar to what the deer and elk have done for centuries.
Yep, inputs are getting more expensive, though by having a legume in your pasture, you do not require the fertilizer. Personally the way to make it work best, is to layer the agricultural operation, so that chickens follow cows which are rotated through pastures being moved multiple times per day (new timed gates open every couple of hours on some ranches these days) - though it takes a lot of infrastructure to be put in place so that water is well distributed for the livestock - to achieve that goal.
With the settlement of the region cows were moved more akin to wildlife, being herded by shepherds/drovers. Then came the barbed wire fence which allowed the livestock to be turned out for continuous grazing, not closely replicating how the natural system evolved and damaging to the environment. Today, we have ATVs and electric fence and electronic gates, which allow us to move livestock more frequently as the system does not take as long to build as a permanent fence - trying to mimic the natural world tends to build the topsoil.
All business models evolve over time. Agricultures only difference, is that it is subject to natures whims also. Technology and a greater understanding of how the system works, is allowing for farmers and ranchers to move away from old paradigms towards more sustainable agriculture.
I suppose that was misstated as it can not create wealth. It can create short term jobs at the expense of future generations.
Their is no positive equity created by government jobs and in most cases a loss of equity/real capital or wealth occur.
We should just have the government take over all jobs and ensure everyone is fed, safe and educated. Make sure that everyone has equal prosperity. That way no one needs to worry about working hard to get ahead.
Anything the government creates has to be taken from somewhere else.
We can look at the story of Robin Hood who stole from the rich to give to the poor, but really Robin Hood took back excessive taxes and gave them back to the taxpayers.
It is simply legalized theft, taking from one and giving to another through taxation or better yet printing of money - which the government does not do a private corporatin does in the US.
It really is not a topic that can be discussed with you as you have your beliefs, i have mine their does not seem to be any chance of reason stepping in.
Last login: Saturday, April 27, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.