---I totally agree that current economic signals are messed up. But there are
no such things as markets that are totally guided by invisible hands. That is
a ridiculous myth taught gullible undergraduates. We should be trying to
decide what we as a society want the endproducts to look like and then agreeing
upon the road to getting us there. Taxes and subsidies that alter prices are
one approach. There are others. Our political system is presumably the
platform for discussing and deciding how to do so. Farm Bills are the
traditional vehicles in the ag arena.
>
> Dennis Avery's criticisms gain legitimacy the more that the
sustainability
> movement adheres to restrictions on farming practices that cannot be
justified
> by science or common sense.
Just what are you talking about here? Is it common sense to pay for
nutrients to put on fields and then pay again to get rid of those same
nutrients once they become a waste in a feedlot or chicken house?
---Our current system is not sustainable. I would never argue that it is.
However, I believe it is necessary to avoid the trap that Avery and his ilk trap
set for proponents of a more sustainable system--that the concepts of
sustainable agriculture are guided more by ideology than science and sound
economics. The economic signals in our current system encourage some very
dumb practices. Let's fix the signals, particularly the more egregious ones
which result from government subsidies, inappropriate insurance programs, and
flaws in our liability laws that make contract growers responsible for the
decisions made by integrators.
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