• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Agriculture is a business. Farming without a financial motive is gardening.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Agriculture is a business. Farming without a financial motive is gardening.

    http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-calcook6-2010jan06,0,688...

    THE CALIFORNIA COOK
    The facts about food and farming
    Let's not join one of the armed camps deeply suspicious of one another shouting past each other.
    By Russ Parsons
    January 6, 2010

    One of the more pleasing developments of the last decade has been the long-overdue beginning of a national conversation about food -- not just the arcane techniques used to prepare it and the luxurious restaurants in which it is served, but, much more important, how it is grown and produced.

    The only problem is that so far it hasn't been much of a conversation. Instead, what we have are two armed camps deeply suspicious of one another shouting past each other (sound familiar?).

    On the one side, the hard-line aggies seem convinced that a bunch of know-nothing urbanites want to send them back to Stone Age farming techniques. On the other side, there's a tendency by agricultural reformers to lump together all farms (or at least those that aren't purely organic, hemp-clad mom-and-pop operations) as thoughtless ravagers of the environment.

    Well, at least we're thinking about it, so I suppose that's a start. But the issues we're facing are not going to go away, and they are too important to be left to the ideologues. What I'd like to see happen in the next decade is a more constructive give-and-take, the start of a true conversation.

    With that goal in mind, I'd like to propose a few ground rules that might help move us into the next phase -- fundamental principles that both sides should be able to agree on.

    * Agriculture is a business. Farming without a financial motive is gardening. I use that line a lot when I'm giving talks, and it always gets a laugh. But it's deadly serious. Not only do farmers have expenses to meet just like any other business, but they also need to be rewarded when they do good work. Any plan that places further demands on farmers without an offsetting profit incentive is doomed to fail.

    * What's past is past. Over the last 50 years, American farmers performed an agricultural miracle, all but eliminating hunger as a serious health issue in this country. But that battle has been won, and though those gains must be maintained, the demands of today -- developing a system that delivers flavor as well as quantity and does it in an environmentally friendly way -- are different.

    * Food is not just a culinary abstraction. No matter how much you and I might appreciate the amazing bounty produced by talented, quality-driven farmers, we also have to acknowledge that sometimes food is . . . well, just food. So when we start dreaming about how to make our epicurean utopia, we also have to keep in mind that our first obligation is to make sure that healthful, fresh food remains plentiful and inexpensive enough that anyone can afford it.

    * There's no free pass on progress. Just because you've always farmed a certain way does not mean that you are owed the right to continue farming that way in the future. The days of a small or medium-sized farm making a decent profit growing one or two crops and marketing it through the traditional commodity route are long past. The world is changing, and those who can adapt are the ones who will be successful.

    * The world is not black and white. The issues facing agriculture today are much more complicated than lining up behind labels such as "local" and "organic," no matter how praiseworthy they might seem in the abstract.

    * No farm is an island. That's not literally true, of course; there are several island farms in the Sacramento Delta. But even there, farmers have to remember that they're living in an ever-more crowded state where their actions affect others. Assuming that what happens on your land is nobody's business but your own just doesn't work anymore.

    * Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Holding out for an unattainable dream may mean losing a chance at a more easily realized goal. At the same time, just because an idea may not be the perfect answer, it doesn't mean that there aren't benefits to it. A completely locavore diet is, well, loco, but buying as much locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables as you can is just common sense.

    * Quality is more expensive than quantity. Farming fruits and vegetables that are not just healthful but also have great flavor takes a lot of time and work and usually means not growing as much as a neighbor who doesn't focus on flavor. So when you're shopping, don't begrudge a good farmer a little higher price -- that's what it takes to keep him in business.

    * You don't climb a ladder starting at the top rung. In a system as complex as our food supply, change is evolutionary. Remember long-term goals, but focus on what's immediately achievable. Any argument that begins, "All we have to do is rewrite the Farm Bill," is probably decades, if not centuries, from reality. But there are plenty of small things we can do now to start us down that road.

    * Don't assume that those who disagree with you are evil, stupid or greedy. And even when they are, that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility for making a constructive and convincing argument.

    * What's political is also personal. If you believe in something, you should be willing to make sacrifices to support it, even if it's expensive or inconvenient. Wailing about farmers who use pesticides and then balking at paying extra for organic produce is hypocritical because the yields in organic farming are almost always lower. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with doing the best you can whenever you can -- as long as you're willing to accept compromises from the other guy too.

    * Finally, and most important: Beware the law of unintended consequences. Developing tasteless fruits and vegetables was not the goal of the last Green Revolution; it was a side effect of a system designed to eliminate hunger by providing plentiful, inexpensive food, but that also ended up rewarding quantity over quality. We should always keep in mind that when we're dreaming of a system that focuses on the reverse, we run the risk of creating something far worse than strawberries that bounce.

    #2
    Out of curiousity, what should be done differently than is being done today.

    Working farmers to use tested seed that can be demonstated to a reasonable level of scientific certainty to be triffid free. Could be common seed or certified but has to follow the same tested under the same protocols.

    Finding new markets that will crush flaxseed for the European industrial linoil. This includes the US and China. Hopefully will include more Canadian flaxseed crushing in the future.

    Work with the European food safety system to get the genetic event around triffid registered. Flaxseed is a safe human food and industrial crop.

    Comment


      #3
      "There's no free pass on progress. Just because you've always farmed a certain way does not mean that you are owed the right to continue farming that way in the future. The days of a small or medium-sized farm making a decent profit growing one or two crops and marketing it through the traditional commodity route are long past. The world is changing, and those who can adapt are the ones who will be successful"

      I don't think a truer statement has ever been made.

      Comment


        #4
        Oneoff,

        This is a simple matter of percentages.

        I have a test done that assures me to an accuracy of .0025% I am free of triffid.

        Is this zero? NO.

        Is this reasonable to plant to meet the agreemant of .01%?

        A reasonable person would say it is.

        Is the EU reasonable?

        You know that answer.

        Don't blame the seed grower who got the stock seed from plant breeders who supplied the GM event. Pedigreed seed growers did everything according to every reasonable expected protocol. Every sample tested was below the required .1% varietial purity the seed regulations require.

        So when trace levels of .0025% are found... don't blame the Pedigreed seed growers. We did NOT inject this into our seed stocks... it has been admitted the plant breeders gave it to us without our knowledge.!!!

        Comment


          #5
          Charlie,

          "Agriculture is a business. Farming without a financial motive is gardening."

          What is so bad about growing food in a garden?

          I have always considered my farm to be a 'Big Garden"!

          The majority of the population on this planet are fed by food grown in gardens.

          When gardens are gone... humanity is no longer a 'civilisation'. The connection and choice on growing food is mandatory to peace, order, and the understanding of what it is to be a human being.

          Comment


            #6
            Likely also need to recognize as a customer requirement both on the European side and as a way to manage risk for a grain handler.

            Europe requirement is regulatory and from there, mandatory. If anyone has an idea how to meet these requirements based on something outside the current process, please share.

            Grain handlers is to prevent a boat landing in Europe only to have rejected at port.

            A strange comment but lots of questions from Alberta farmers about growing flaxseed on spec. People who are playing poker that the issue will be dealt with/there will be a market opportunity and acres in Saskatchewan will be way down. My highlight is for these individuals is to make sure you have thought about the marketing side and who your supply chain partner/customer will be as well as what their needs.

            I don't think the European situation will sort itself out so the markets will remain US and China with some limited shipments to Europe. Long term, the real impact will be distruction of the natural industrial oil based industry including paint, linoleum and things like highway sealants. But I guess the world is much better environmentally to use crude oil based synthetic products versus natural ones (tongue in cheek).

            Comment


              #7
              A USDA theme this year is "Know Your Farmer - Know Your Food". It starts at the Obama garden at the White House. It fits with USDA efforts around "Buy Local" initiatives.

              Perhaps the theme of the above is "If you don't know where you are going, you will likely never there". My alterations would be if don't know where the consumer is taking the agricultural (perhaps as represented by things the Wal Mart sustainability index), then you will always be the grower of a commodity where lowest price is the law (strangely the Wal Mart motto).

              Comment


                #8
                The flax industry should grow a pair and say... You want flax for your paint and linoleum? Here it is. Put it in the same warehouse as your GE yeast for beer. Or all the GE corn. Oh yes, even the GE canola oil. Or all the GE medicine everybody has been taking for decades.

                Flax industry needs to sell the product as it is. The debate over .00025% and .0025% will never end.

                Comment


                  #9
                  A couple of interesting highlights from today's food navigator.

                  <a href="http://www.fn-csr.com/page/home.html">corporate social responsibility</a>

                  <a href="http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Publications/Food-Beverage-Nutrition/ConfectioneryNews.com/The-Big-Picture/Supply-chain-transparency-only-answer-to-hostile-campaigns/?c=jYz%2BwZTNAeXmrizlYyYprw%3D%3D&utm_source=newsl etter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newslett er%2BDaily">supply chain transparency</a>

                  Comment


                    #10
                    As an analogy, these cumulative triffid test costs remind me of the costs of holding Royal Commissions. The outcome is always useless since the report findings are never adopted. Just gathering dust on shelves. And yes, we'll do the same jackass thing on the next grain.

                    It would be better to be honest to the public and admit it's all trace contaminated, and has been for the past decade. No European has been confirmed to have died from eating their grams of it, but that doesn't matter. Stop this silly testing nonsence, save our bucks, and admit it can't eliminated. We will soon find through the market what volumns are required, what price is available, and the commercial farmers will adjust their production accordingly.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I wonder what the battle cry would be if EVERY single
                      person involved in ag had to give up a proportional
                      amount of their pay checks.

                      Funny how most of the straw ends up on the average
                      farmers back,not so funny when that back finally
                      breaks.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Right on wd9! The baseless arguments and intellectual dishonesty around the GM flax issue are astounding. The sight of the "flax industry" leaders all rushing around trying to appease a bunch of protectionists and political opportunists is sickening. Building an industry on that kind of basis is a recipe for stagnation and failure. Until a new approach emerges based on sound science and a solid marketing approach, the flax industry will continue to portray itself as and be nothing more than a sad collection of individuals who have proven themselves to have no vision, no leadership, and no future.

                        Right now, the image of the flax business that I have running through my mind are re-runs of Abbot and Costello or the Three Stooges. Except not nearly as funny.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Tom and Charlie: Take your blinders off. You can tell yourselves and everyone else that you have a negative test that makes that sample and thus your seed or commercial flax Triffid free. Further you may even have widespread agreement that what you say is indeed a statement of fact.
                          Even with you; the testing lab result; and maybe even the vast majority of the population agreeing; you are deceiving yourselves and others. Read this carefully and tell me I am wrong. If I'm not wrong then you know what real men do.
                          Before you do any meaningful test you must collect an accurate sample if you want to extrapolate the conclusions to the much bigger lot you are really interested in. Then you must brinng yourselves to think of the Triffid tests as simply tests for traces of GM material. Admit that 0.1% is just a trace; 0.01% is a trace; now you are talking 0.025% which is just a trace. And make sure to keep that sample from which your past and current negative test results were drawn. Assume that up to the present all tests from that samples have indeed tested negative. Now I say you have hastily and unthinkingly concluded that your sample and your larger seed lot are "Triffid free"
                          If you agree that Triffid contamination is widespread; and at trace levels; and could show up in the most unexpected samples; are you going to be a little nervous when the next future more sensitive test (say 0.001%; or 0.0001% or 0.0000000001% sensitivity) is run on your previously tested negative sample which may only have had a sensitivity of say 0.025%. The future test could very well be positive. Why does this have to be pointed out to two of the supposedly clearer thinking posters on this site.
                          It is just wrong and foolhardy and plain stupid to be talking about Triffid free until the last Triffid seed has been disposed of. That can't be done; never will be done; and again just can't be done unless every single flax seed is disposed of; or tested to make sure that it isn't a Triffid offspring.
                          Again I challenge you and anyone who makes Triffid free statements.
                          And charlie; before I ever make my suggestions about handling such serious problems; don't you think that it would be important to have agreement with you on such basic statements as have been mentioned above.
                          Some statements should stand on their own without any need for debate.
                          But for those industry players who can stand some fresh ideas; contemplate on the posts of others just above in this same thread. I'm with them; and suspect you fellows should quit chasing Triffid free; because the idustry solutions could never accomplish that goal; and further the industry and regulators have staked our future on GM modification of every combination imaginable.
                          Give me some unarguable arguments regarding my analysis; or else please quit your sales pitches for the industry. You gain your credibility on future issues through your past positions on issues such as Triffid.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Sorry; missed a zero in 0.025%'s above.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Tom: You say don't blame the seed grower. Well when someone still says their seed is Triffid free (and there are seed growers who are saying that in printed advertisements); should those seed growers not be blamed if it ever turns out that their product is not indeed Triffid free.
                              What a setup for a false advertising claim; when I would think an equally effective claim of "Negative Triffid Test at 0.0025%" would convey all the necessary GM contamination information.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...