Re: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1018

Greg & Lei Gunthorp (hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com)
Fri, 14 May 1999 00:21:02 -0500

This is what scares conventional agriculture. It is hard for anyone to
argue that consumers will choose chemical free food over non-chemical free
if or when the prices converge. I have found the latest group of posts on
the sucess, or lack there-of, with modern day agriculture very interesting.
I would have to add one point that is often not mentioned in regards to
Dennis Avery's comments. His poorest assumption, in the opinion of this
grassfarmer, is that we have to raise corn and then in turn feed it to
animals when a more direct approach of harvesting sunlight by pasture and
harvesting pasture with 4 legged creatures is a very ecological, economical,
and socially acceptable practice. The only problem with this approach is it
leaves very little room for the agribusiness industry that funds the think
tank that Dennis Avery works for. I got into a lengthy "discussion" with
hog producers about this very notion on the NPPC board. I also can't resist
adding that the research does not document this clear cut economic
efficiency gained by large farms. In fact, all the research I have seen
points to a very distinct L-shaped cost curve at about full time farm
levels. I would suggest they take a look at Mike Duffy's work at Iowa
State. Big farms are good at producing volumes but I'm going to have to
check my dictionary once again for the industries very loose use of the word
efficiency.

The story that there is fundamentally something wrong with agriculture is
slow to take hold. Resistance to change is strong in the agriculture
community.
Best wishes,
Greg Gunthorp
Free Range and chemical free hog farmer
LaGrange IN

PS Hogs are back up to about $40. I kept way too many gilts when prices
were $8. (good decision actually) The little pigs following behind them
are now worth about 10 times what their mother was worth only 5 months ago.
I'm sure glad I read Allan Nation's editiorials in the Stockman Grass
Farmer.

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Gillman <pgillman@cafarmersmarkets.org>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1018

>>that it is a darn good thing that
>organic yields are generally lower than conventional.
>
>This has actually been proven in several long term studies to not be
>true over the long run- It seems that due to the long term improvements
>in the soil quality due to organic methods are the primary cause for
>this-
>
>I have the links for the Nature article of the Rodale study should
>anyone want it.
>
>Phil Gillman
>pgillman@cafarmersmarkets.org-
>
>PS in the long term, organic foods are often cheaper than non organic
>when grown in diversified systems, - another note that premiums may not
>last as volume grows
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>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". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
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