Re: India and Factory Farming [was - money and health]

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 6:38:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> have a look at this article -- The real reasons for hunger -- for a view

> from within India.

> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,742147,00.html

Vandana Shiva also considers meat-eating a cause of third world hunger, so

I'd take an extra dose of sketicism with this.

That said, there's no doubt some of the SAPs promoted by the IMF are nasty.

They shouldn't be equated with globalization or free-trade. The IMF locks

foreign countries into slavery and a constant cycle of struggling to pay off the

never-ending debt just to get new loans. Free trade helps everyone involved,

but the IMF and WTO in my opinion can go to hell.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 8:12:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, bwp@...

writes:

> Thanks Dedy, that was a really interesting article to me. And it

> reminds me I meant to reply to Chris' comment above, which I think is

> ridiculous and foolish, and kind of shocked me. (hey your

> batting average is still probably higher than average...) I don't

> see how factory farming can be good for *anything* except making a

> tiny group of people wealthy; it's completely counterintuitive to me

> that factory farming would help prevent starvation more than

> sustainable farming, but unfortunately I have little more than

> intuition on this topic, so I can't offer a solid fact-based

> rebuttal.

I tend to associate factory farming with all the modern farming technology, I

guess because they arose together. I'm probably wrong that " factory farming "

per se is necessary or helpful, but it's probably true that much of the

modern farming technology would help very, very much, and it would be best to

choose selectively and dump the worst of the crap.

Chris

[Guest guest]

wrote -- <<Now, factory farming has probably done more harm than good to

Americans, but in somewhere like India, it's the hope of preventing starvation>>

have a look at this article -- The real reasons for hunger -- for a view from

within India.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,742147,00.html

Dedy

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> wrote -- <<Now, factory farming has probably done more harm

than good to Americans, but in somewhere like India, it's the hope of

preventing starvation>>

>

>

>

>

> have a look at this article -- The real reasons for hunger -- for a

view from within India.

> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,742147,00.html

>

> Dedy

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Thanks Dedy, that was a really interesting article to me. And it

reminds me I meant to reply to Chris' comment above, which I think is

ridiculous and foolish, and kind of shocked me. (hey your

batting average is still probably higher than average...) I don't

see how factory farming can be good for *anything* except making a

tiny group of people wealthy; it's completely counterintuitive to me

that factory farming would help prevent starvation more than

sustainable farming, but unfortunately I have little more than

intuition on this topic, so I can't offer a solid fact-based

rebuttal.

Coincidentally today I was glancing through a book

called " Permaculture in a Nutshell " by Whitefield that was

sort of buried in my bookshelf among things waiting to be read, and I

caught the following passage:

" Gardens are much more productive than farms. Research suggests that

the average domestic vegetable plot in Britain yields three and a

half times as much per square metre as the average farm, due to the

extra attention that can be given to smaller areas. Applying the

principles of permaculture design, especially those of stacking and

multiple yields, can increase the productivity of the land even more. "

This reminds me of Fukuoka's legendary coup of equalling the rice

yields of scientific farming through his low-effort, no-till, no-

fertilizer, no weeding approach, where detail and subtlety replace

the brute force, coarse-tuned methods of industrialized farming.

So perhaps it would be best for the starving in India to return to

small, sustainable farms that maximize their natural resources

through human craft instead of chasing the cruel illusory hope of

factory farming.

In the article cited above, the article exposes the " world's leading

expert on famine " , Amartya Sen, for rejecting this possibility of

self-sufficiency, but whether his view is grounded in objective

analysis of agricultural ecology is not discussed. Perhaps his

knowledge of agriculture lags too far behind his expertise in

economics? As usual, I doubt we are getting the full story from any

one party in the debate.

" Sen describes food sovereignty and self sufficiency as " obtuse "

and " fetishist " , and recommends dependence on imports. However,

deregulated imports are a major cause of poverty and famine in

countries like India. Globalization has dismantled the systems which

guaranteed domestic market access for farmers, a system which brought

food security to the poor. "

I see from a little googling that Amartya Sen is a Nobel laureate in

economics who champions the poor and points to class inequality and

huge stockpiles of grains in India going unused in his arguments.

The conclusion of the author repudiating Sen's analysis runs as

follows:

" In the case of meat exports, for every dollar earned, our research

has shown that India is destroying fifteen dollars worth of

ecological functions preformed by farm animals for sustainable

agriculture. Thus, as a society, India is paying more in terms of

food insecurity and ecological destruction than it is earning through

exports of luxury crops such as flowers and meat. Putting resources

in people's hands, and guaranteeing small producers access to local

markets is a far more secure, sustainable and inclusive way to remove

poverty. "

The paragraph following the one I quoted above from the permaculture

book is also worth sharing:

" The present strategy of large-scale mechanised farms, with only 2%

of the population working on the land, is only possible thanks to the

subsidy of grossly under priced fossil fuels. Imagine the last half

billion years of Earth's history compressed into one year. It is now

midnight on 31st December. Oil has been laid down continuously since

about May. We discovered it three seconds ago and in another three

seconds we will have used it all up. Whatever may be uncertain about

the future, one thing is sure: we cannot go on as we are. "

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

p.s. Did everyone notice that Dedy **changed the subject line**??

It's not hard!

[Guest guest]

From: Anton -- <<So perhaps it would be best for the starving in

India to return to small, sustainable farms that maximize their natural

resources through human craft instead of chasing the cruel illusory hope of

factory farming.>>

~~~ Ah... if only they were 'allowed' to...

as for Prof. Amartya Sen..., even though he's all pro free-market economy, he

stresses the importance of certain aspects, which I personally, find sadly

absent from some of the recent posts to the list.

" However, we also have to recognise the enormous inequalities that exist across

the globe and often within each country, and we have to examine the manifest

disparities that give these global doubts the political salience they

undoubtedly have. What is needed is not a rejection of the positive role of the

market mechanism in generating income and wealth, but the important recognition

that the market mechanism has to work in a world of many institutions. We need

the power and protection of these institutions, provided by democratic practice,

civil and human rights, a free and open media, facilities for basic education

and health care, economic safety nets, and of course, provisions for women's

freedom and rights - a neglected area which is only now beginning to receive the

attention it deserves. " ...

.... " There is, of course, no basic conflict between economic globalisation and

the fostering of democracies. But quite often global capitalist institutions

show a distinct preference for orderly autocracies over the adversarial politics

of democratic governance and the activist use of human rights. " ...

.... " To take a second issue, the ability of people to participate in the market

economy is enormously influenced by social arrangements for education, health

care, microcredit, land reform, and other public policies. Furthermore, the

sharing of the benefits of the market economy also depends on social

institutions. This applies even to very prosperous countries. " ...

there's quite a bit more on

--http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,336125,00.html

Dedy

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>it's completely counterintuitive to me

>that factory farming would help prevent starvation more than

>sustainable farming,

Actually, there are different elements of modern confinement husbandry to

consider.

Confinement husbandry by itself is merely a method to concentrate ownership

of animals so that fewer people reap more wealth. Unfortunately, it also

inevitably decreases the nutrient quality of the resulting meat, because no

factory feed is going to be as good as fresh, growing pasture can be. Even

if fields of grass were mowed and the clippings either fermented into

silage or transported directly to waiting cows' mouths, it would still lose

a substantial portion of its nourishing power. This has, AFAIK, been

scientifically established, though I don't have citations at hand.

Yields, however, are another thing entirely. Modern fertilization may

temporarily increase yields dramatically -- at the expense of nutrient

content, and, ultimately, at the expense of the soil's ability to grow

anything. The problem is that though you can generate more calories, at

least in the short term, the calories are less nutritious, and consuming

low-quality processed food from degraded soil leads to all the modern

degenerative diseases. Also, I'm not so sure that modern fertilization

necessarily yields so much more than other forms of agriculture -- French

intensive, for example, or any form of really intensive biodynamic

growing. The real " advantage " it offers is in automation -- again, an

advantage to those who want to concentrate the maximum wealth into their

few hands, but not an advantage to the population at large. Sustainable

intensive agriculture involves heterogeneous fields and all kinds of

labor-intensive practices. Maybe someday it would be feasible and

affordable to automate some of it, but it's not possible now, and it'd

never be as cheap as having huge threshers moving through completely

homogeneous fields repeating the same simple tasks on a mass scale.

So, in short, no, is completely, utterly wrong.

>So perhaps it would be best for the starving in India to return to

>small, sustainable farms that maximize their natural resources

>through human craft instead of chasing the cruel illusory hope of

>factory farming.

Yes, exactly. I read the excerpts you quoted after posting the above, so I

went and wasted my time. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

>>So perhaps it would be best for the starving in India to return to

>>small, sustainable farms that maximize their natural resources

>>through human craft instead of chasing the cruel illusory hope of

>>factory farming.

Discover (or maybe it was New Scientist) had a great article over

a year ago about that ... they had these " pilot " farms in India

that were not only highly productive, but they BUILT topsoil

at an astounding rate. They relied on humanure and animal manure ...

rather labor intensive, but so what? There was plenty of labor

to be had. They also have to get rid of all that manure and

other garbage ... so composting is a good way to go. The trick

is to do it without spreading, say hepetitis.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 9:36:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, katja@...

writes:

> besides, personally, the thimble-full of farm knoweldge that i've garnered

> since we started has made me buckets happier than the bushel-full of

> city-knowledge and computer programming crap ever did.

Sure, but what makes people happy differs from person to person, often

dramatically, so you can't extrapolate from yourself onto others. Though I'm

certainly glad you found what makes you happy!

I'd also like to apologize for making the factory farming comment... it was a

rather stupid comment.

Chris

[Guest guest]

the problem being, of course, that there as here, farming is seen as

inferior work. as long as we treat farmers as idiots who can't make a

living doing anything else, then factory farming will continue. if farmers

are treated, however, with respect for the immense amount of knowledge they

have - even though that knowledge is different than " city knowledge " (which

is what we seem to value at the moment) - and we respect that farmers need

to make a decent living wage, then sustainable agriculture by way of small

family farms is completely scalable.

besides, personally, the thimble-full of farm knoweldge that i've garnered

since we started has made me buckets happier than the bushel-full of

city-knowledge and computer programming crap ever did.

At 08:12 PM 1/18/2004, you wrote:

>So perhaps it would be best for the starving in India to return to

>small, sustainable farms that maximize their natural resources

>through human craft instead of chasing the cruel illusory hope of

>factory farming.

atg technical support

support@...

1-800-RING ATG

[Guest guest]

Dedy,

> and Sally Fallon doesn't endorse Pork... how sceptical does that make you

> of her body of work?... hardly, judging by your posts...

Actually, Sally eats pork products, and makes inconclusive comments about

pork in NT. Her inconclusive comments are perfectly reasonable-- on the one

hand, some lab experiments indicate pork might be a problem; on the other hand,

numerous traditional societies seem to have eaten pork as a staple to no ill

effect. Moreover, pork has little relation to any other given statement of

Sally's that I would have to judge, whereas Shiva's opinions on meat are

directly

related to her view of the causal factor's of third world starvation.

Secondly, I do read Sally's work with some skepticism.

> given the multitude of parallels between Dr. Vandana Shiva's views on

> traditional diets, sustainable farming practices etc. and the WAPF ideas of

> sustainable agriculture, the important [but undervalued] roll of small

farmers,

> and in particular, the roll of women, in providing real, fresh and local

> food...

Given it, what? You didn't finish your sentence, so I don't know what you're

asking. I never said that Shiva's views should be simply dismissed, and in

fact I gave a partial endorsement to her views within the same email in which I

expressed skepticism.

> what then Chris... would you be seeking a job with Monsanto?...

Hardly. I pointed out that Shiva's view of the causal factors of third world

starvation is at least *somewhat* distorted by ideology, and therefore it

would be wise to read her work with an extra dose of skepticism. That doesn't

mean that it should be discounted, nor that I " favor " third world starvation,

nor that because I might disagree with her on a given issue I'll be taking a job

in the employ of her enemies.

Chris

[Guest guest]

<<Vandana Shiva also considers meat-eating a cause of third world hunger, so I'd

take an extra dose of sketicism with this.>>

So Chris...

and Sally Fallon doesn't endorse Pork... how sceptical does that make you of her

body of work?... hardly, judging by your posts...

given the multitude of parallels between Dr. Vandana Shiva's views on

traditional diets, sustainable farming practices etc. and the WAPF ideas of

sustainable agriculture, the important [but undervalued] roll of small farmers,

and in particular, the roll of women, in providing real, fresh and local food...

what then Chris... would you be seeking a job with Monsanto?...

read here the BBC Reith Lecture Dr. Vandana Shiva gave in 2000 titled --

Poverty and Globalisation --

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm

Dedy

[Guest guest]

<< Actually, Sally eats pork products, and makes inconclusive comments about

pork in NT... Shiva's opinions on meat are directly related to her view of the

causal factor's of third world starvation.>>

Dr. Vandana Shiva's might eat meat although if she's a Hindu she probably

doesn't... Hindus do eat dairy products though... in the context of third world

hunger and poverty she might just be right... can you quote her words on the

subject?

<<Given it, what? You didn't finish your sentence, so I don't know what you're

asking. >>

you snipped my original sentence too early... it ends with the word Monsanto.

<< I never said that Shiva's views should be simply dismissed, and in

fact I gave a partial endorsement to her views within the same email in which I

expressed skepticism.>>

interesting... Masterjohn ENDORSES, albeit partially, Dr. Vandana

Shiva..! cant' help thinking about hats :-)

Dedy