Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Yes the farmers can't compete with Africa, so the governments waste billions
in subsidies, and companies need to try all kinds of dirty tricks to
compete.

   

There are issues all over the world with the agricultural industry, and the environment plays a part in any region. I don't know what you mean by 'environmental' though but I am curious about that.

In Europe for example farmers are funded to set aside some portion of their land into non-productive uses, ie that don't produce crops for use. So it might go into soil building, forestry, or even beautification programs to enhance tourism. If farming continues to drop behind population growth, as it has for the last few years, there will be pressure to remove that land and put it back into production. That would be an environmental issue in my opinion.

   

Where in Europe?

   

I would suggest that it's only chicken little if it isn't true, Are you of the impression that global warming, peak oil, high input costs, and depleted water resources aren't going to affect agricultural production?

   

Well, countries that I have heard referenced in this kind of program are Germany, Switzerland, Poland, and France. I expect it is possible for a country to decide not to participate if it chooses, but as far as the European Union policies go, I don't see a lot of benefit for any one to decline to participate. So I expect all countries do at least some forms of land set aside.

   

Could you at least quote someone that had a clue as to what they are talking about. The above is just so much verbal diarrhea.

Please give me examples of why raising broiler chickens with the square footage per bird alloted is bad. Compare growth rates of current methods to those of the 1930's or even 1950's. Show me how current methods of milk production are disregarding the animal's welfare. Of course you will be able to back your statements up with statistics on kg of milk produced, days producing milk, freshening cycles and peak production numbers. Now let's discuss farrow to finish operations and why current practices are wrong and disregard the animals welfare.

Or you could recite more verbal diarrhea from people who do not know what they are talking about. Your choice.

   

So you are just making assumptions?

   

Enviromental sustainability, water or air pollution, eco system damage, habitat destruction. For a nation like Germany where this protest happened, those are not real problems with the industry.

Europe is basicly fucked when it comes to a natural enviroment, they can't have it, and just about all the damage that can be done is done.

If the land is set aside it is not an enviromental issue to reactivate it. However as tech and methods have improved yeilds have risen, even today a lot of production in the EU isn't sold to support price protection.

The amount of subsidy in the EU for farmed products is IIRC the highest in the world. Which you would think would lead to some of the lowest food prices in the world, rather than what they have; Some of the highest.

Most of the EU's agro issues are policy issues that deal with price protection and anti competition messures. Or they are in my opinion.

   

I take it that means you disagree with the comments. Very tactfully put. What any one person considers to be animal welfare is their perogative, surely such persons have the right to their feelings and opinions.



Broiler chickens for example are routinely given antibiotics in large scale operations, while in smaller ones farmers have the option of watching their chickens and treating when needed. Broiler chickens in square footage type environments have few opportunities to see the sun, eat a green meal, or catch an insect. I can see how a person might think that disregards the animals welfare.

Dairy cattle in the states are often given recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST an artificial growth hormone, which I understand has been shown in some studies to cause problems for the cows health. That would seem to disregard the animals welfare.

It has been a while since I worked with pigs, though it is my understanding that genetic modifications which aren't being regulated very carefully have been adapted to swine. Personally I don't think that is in the best interests of the animals welfare.

Production is up per unit. This is a bonus, but if all such improvements rely on expensive, environmentally damaging, and serious health considerations, I question if it is worth it.

Then there are the fertilizers and chemicals that were mentioned in the quote. Again there are production gains, but if they are derived from the expense associated with disappearing fossil fuels, plus they cause other environmental problems, like algae blooms, biodiversity loss etc. I question if we are going down the right path in this part of farm planning.

   

Europe has the environment that they have. It seems reasonable to want to protect it from getting worse. Take the set aside for example, if land is taken out of the soil building segment, that rebuilt soil will start to deteriorate. If other soils are not set aside to compensate then all soils will deteriorate. that would be an environmental problem.

European subsidies are very high, no doubt about that. I don't know how they compare to American subsidies now and I expect that it would be very difficult to come to agreement on the relative benefits and costs to the consumer, processer, and the environment.

   

You are going to need to go into a lot more depth about what you are calling deterioration, and how setting aside works.

The picture you paint is that if they start working this land over there, all the near by land is going to fail. Clearly this isn't going to happen, farmers tend not to be as short sighted as most businesses and they have been farming in Europe for a few thousand years now.
Overall higher, but lower for some and higher on others.



How about cutting them all and letting the market adjust by the driving forces of demand, location, supply, efficency and so on?

   

Ya well that would mean closing just about every farm in Europe.

So not going to happen.

   

Wealthy French farmers receive more money through the CAP - which accounts for 40% of the EU's total spending - than the amount of money that poor African farmers receive.

   

I think there is a misunderstanding, farm land does deteriorate if it is not maintained, the same as any renewable resource. If land is not being replentished through soil building practices like manure, or green manure, or intensive fertilization by some means, it will go downhill. Depending on individual farm fields, farmer practice, and returns to the land, the rate can vary significantly. Europe has areas with deep rich soils and hardpan, same as anywhere so the effect of deterioration can vary too.

Cutting all subsidies in favour of market forces? I am all in favour of it as soon as we figure out how to factor environmental and sustainability consequences into the mrketplace. I expect it could be done with an educated public and an ongoing discussion between farmers and consumers, and with compliance from farm suppliers.

   

Would you say that the reason is a concern for food security? I understand that French farmers are well organized and make themselves heard, but could they do that if there was no memory of food insecurity?

How do British farmers fare?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next