What is to be grown? (Agribusiness, Organic, Local Farming Discussion)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What is to be grown? (Agribusiness, Organic, Local Farming Discussion)

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Local farming vs industrial agriculture in New England:

# ¿ Jun 11, 2016 02:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 05:38

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Read the thread. I've already posted sources that dispute that claim. Please post some that support it.

This parallels the discussion in the CA Politics thread. Drive up I-5 and see farms spraying water up into the air and on the ground in 90+ degree weather. Much of that water is lost to evaporation.

My farm, and all the neighbors I've seen, have irrigation systems on our small farms so we aren't just spraying everywhere. We also water during the times of day that minimize evaporation.

Most people who are running small farming operations in this day and age, and working local markets, in opposition to the large industrial agribusinesses, want to make a living sustainably. They are far more likely to invest in ecologically responsible methods, even if that hurts the bottom line. The large agribusinesses are absolutely not willing to take a hit in profit unless they are forced to by regulation. Shareholders are king.

e: The exception, as I've said, is livestock. You don't want local livestock operations. They are terrible for the environment.

You're making dumb distinctions that don't have to do with big farm vs small farm. The idea that small farms won't waste water is a laughable anecdote. And if they don't have the incentive to be profitable (another silly claim) they won't have the incentive to be efficient with resources like water or land either. The dumbest sprinklers I've seen are private houses watering their driveway because on a small scale that kind of waste is a negligible expense.

The problem is that you're not accounting for all the costs of local farms. Your small farm is efficient if you take for granted that you own X acres of cleared land. If that's a given, then its great you have a bunch of apple trees or whatever instead of a pruned lawn. But when people don't farm forests actually return. As I alluded to in the picture above in New England it's actually a remarkable transformation. Roughly 40% of land has re-grown forests after being previously clearcut. This is among the visible direct benefits of modern industrial scale farming.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2016 03:33

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Minrad posted:

Visible, but what is the direct benefit? Farm lands require forests as well. Places that demolished forests are turning into deserts, so I'm not sure what is supposed to be so great about the picture you posted.

If you want to argue visible benefits of small scale vs only industrial, what of pig farms and their massive sewage ponds?

North Carolina has serious, crippling problems every few years when heavy rains or hurricanes pass through, and pig poo poo covers the land for miles and miles. The smells are bad enough to make people faint and will be a prime location for spreading the next superflu when an anti-biotic resistant disease appears in one of these giant pig farms.

No actually forests and farming don't go that well together. Hence the mass scale reforestation of a large part of the us east coast largely due to the decline in 'local' farming.

Concentrated industry concentrates waste. That's a given. It's also not a bad thing if the result is less systemic waste overall. Lot's of people think cities are more wasteful than rural living for the same reasons and they're wrong.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2016 23:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What is to be grown? (Agribusiness, Organic, Local Farming Discussion)