RE: farm policy

Harris, Craig (Craig.Harris@ssc.msu.edu)
Fri, 1 Jan 1999 10:06:46 -0500

i think that bob and cass dismiss the ecological function too easily . . .
probably it is better to look at what forces are driving the consolidation
and attrition, and what change in land use and land cover follows the exit
of the family farmer . . .
my sense is that there is no compelling evidence one way or the other
concerning the relationship between size of farm and environmental
stewardship; many studies have produced conflicting results . . . so if
consolidation is occuring in a sector where the costs of controlling
biological and physical risks are less than the pecuniary and (perhaps)
production economies of scale, then there probably is no strong reason to
believe that the environment will suffer
however if farmland is being converted to rural residential uses, then
changes in land cover may produce shifts in biodiversity, increased runoff,
and increased nitrogen loading to surface and ground waters . . .
cheers,
craig

craig k harris
department of sociology
michigan state university
429b berkey hall
east lansing michigan 48824-1111
tel: 517-355-5048
fax: 517-432-2856

> ----------
> From: Bob MacGregor[SMTP:rdmacgregor@gov.pe.ca]
> Sent: Thursday 31 December 1998 9:20 AM
> To: hhamilton@centerss.org; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Re: farm policy
>
> Hal's message included a list of by-product(?) functions/features of
> agriculture: "The following frequently cited functions are listed:
>
> *Food security, including nutritional aspects, sometimes termed
> 'strategic.'
> *Economic - income, employment (implicitly in rural areas)
> *Ecologic - environmental protection, natural resource conservation,
> including biodiversity, disaster prevention (floods, landslides),
> protecting rural landscapes
> *Social - viability of rural communities and hence maintaining rural
> society."
>
> I don't contest the validity of the claim that agriculture has a lot of
> effects beyond the farm gate. I am just not convinced that these would
> be lost if the government didn't create programs to subsidize agriculture.
> For example, I have heard the food security arguement used too often: "if
> our farmers go out of business, who will produce our food?" I have yet
> to see productive farmland go out of production because a farm business
> collapsed; somebody else just takes it over and farms it. The personal
> hardship and family distress that this displacement involves is
> undeniable; the broader economic ramifications are less dramatic, though.
>
> I think the same sort of argument holds true for the other non-farm
> services of agriculture.
> Agriculture will always be multifunctional, with or without government
> intervention. In any case, I'm not sure that government knows enough, or
> is competent enough, to develop policy instruments (taxes, subsidies, risk
> management devices, etc.) that optimize the range of all these functions.
> Heck, too often programs work at cross-purposes.
>
> BOB
>
> !
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
>

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail