Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Why won't any supermarket do organics properly?
-
28-07-2009 10:21pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Because there’s obviously no demand – you can’t expect supermarket stock to reflect your specific wants.
I don’t – there’s sufficient information in the public domain to allow people to educate themselves on what constitutes ‘healthy eating’. If people continue to demand microwave meals, then supermarkets will continue to stock them.
But, are you saying that organic food is healthier than non-organic?
I refer you back to my basic point - the three staple parts of the Irish diet - bread, butter and milk and the supermarkets can't even manage to stock them! Why stock organic milk and, for instance, organic mangoes but not organic butter or bread? Why - in Dunnes anyway - are the organic products scattered all over the store instead of having a seperate section? Their organic ordering must be done by somebody blindfolded, sticking a pin into the order form! What I am simply asking is, is the half arsed approach to organic food just a typically Irish approach to doing anything properly? Tesco (UK), for instance, stock their organic sections in a far more thorough manner. And, yes I do think organic food is healthier than non-organic - it's not rocket science that something not laced with artificial fertiliser and pesticides is going to be better for your health than the alternative. I am surprised that as Mod. for Green issues you would ask such a question - I can only assume you were playing devils advocate?
PS Apart from health issues anybody who can't not taste the difference between organic and non-organic products - especially something like chicken - must have had their taste buds removed! The last point being aimed at Cookie Monster but with a name like that I suppose taste doesn't come into it - just quantity!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Judgement Day wrote: »Am I alone in being totally pee'd off with the way supermarkets treat organic food. Down the country, especially, things are dire - 'sure only foreigners and hippies are interested in organic food and can't they go to the Farmers' Markets' seems to be the attitude.
...
especially down the country where there is generally unquestioning acceptance that a good lashing of artificial fertiliser and pesticide is an essential ingredient of any dish. :mad:
Not exactly the best way to start off both the start off. First of all not everyone interested in green issues is from Dublin and second the tone of your post makes you sound superior and that your problems in sourcing organic food stems from 'stupid yokels' not knowing any better.Judgement Day wrote: »Thanks for the replies but neither of you have addressed my exact point - why do supermarkets make a half-arsed attempt at stocking organic food?
To (badly) paraphrase taconnol's sig, the laws of supply and demand do not have to match up with your wishes.
I agree with the other posters here, if there was significant demand for such produce then it would be supplied. The supermarkets only care about profits so if they can get a profit from organic foods then they will sell them.
Vegetables as Cookie_Monster points out have a short shelf life and pose large difficulties not only on the shop floor but throughout the whole supply chain. Continuity of supply is is more difficult as risk of crop loss and damage is much greater (shoppers, especially organic shoppers who are paying a premium, don't like discoloured or misshapen fruit or vegetables)
If you look closely, I think that you'll find that the organics that they do have will tend to be those that have a longer shelf life (garlic and lemons I've noticed all right).Judgement Day wrote: »Maybe I am a nutter but I see at some stage in the future yet another tribunal being set up to see why mainstream food retailers were allowed to routinely and 'knowingly' supply unhealthy products to the public. Perhaps even massive court cases will be the norm like with the tobacco industry?
The reason that the tobacco companies were successfully brought to court was because they knew about the dangers to health from smoking and they kept this hidden. Also it's worth noting that it was the companies that manufactured the tobacco products not the retailers that the court cases were with.
Foods that have the potential to be bad for health have been known about for a very long time. Practically all foods have aspects of their chemical makeup that could be considered unhealthy. It would depend on the what that part is and how unhealthy it.Judgement Day wrote: »Of course M&S only operate in big urban centres and sure the peasants don't matter a damn. Am I wrong?? :mad:
Yes.
To again (badly) paraphrase taconnol's sig, the laws of supply and demand do not have to match up with your wishes.Cookie_Monster wrote: »The thing about Organics is there is percieved demand. Most average people will expect it to be offered in supermarkets without actually bothering to buy it, yet still get uppity if it wasn't offered at all. 99% of people will go price over organic.
taconnol I don't think that Cookie_Monster was trying to say that there is no demand for organic food, just that it does tend to get overstated in surveys and the like. As you pointed out there is a real and growing (well until last year anyway, as organic tends to be on the premium side of things I'd suspect that growth rates in 2009 could be rather different) market for organic produce.
I do think that a lot of people like the idea of organic but end up buying on cost.Cookie_Monster wrote: »On a more personal point of view I try to avoid organics at all costs. You're paying way more for much lower quality food grown in a totally unsustainable way. Orangic food takes far far more land to grow the same as 'normal' practices and this is very wasteful IMO.
I wouldn't try to argue that organic food is healthier but I'd be interested to hear why you think it's 'much lower quality'.
While I wouldn't totally agree with Cookie_Monster here, a few good points have been raised.
By it's nature, farmers have lower levels of control over organic produce than they do over conventionally farmed. This is because in a given situation they have less options on how to proceed. In conventional agriculture you have the option to put out a 'top dressing' of fertiliser if the crop is backward. Apply insecticides, herbicides or fungicides if the crop is been threatened by insects, competing weeds or fungi. While there are organic equivalents to these management practices they are normally less effective and almost always require substantially more man hours.
Plants under stress from disease and insect attack can produce lower quality fruit and vegetables if they are expending a lot of their energy on defending and repairing from such attacks.
This can lead to produce that is not as uniform as that produced by conventional agriculture and may have signs of disease and or insect attack. Some people could consider this lower quality, and from an ascetics point of view the might have a point.I'd also like to hear why you think that organic food is unsustainable. On the issue of the amount of land used, this can be addressed by using other farming methods, such as permaculture. Also, the smaller the farm, the more productive it is per square meter, in general. If I were you, I'd be more worried about the impact of increased industrialisation of 'normal' agriculture on land use and waste, not organic agriculture, which seeks to minimise waste. Nevermind the other issues, such as use of pesticides/oil-based fertilisers, etc.
As for sustainable, on a global scale I would doubt that there are many that would argue that 100% organic production could feed the planet. Yields of staples such as grain and rice are far lower organically than conventionally.
You could argue that in that way organic agriculture would not be sustainable.
Do you have any link from studies that show that smaller farms are more productive per unit area? It's just that it goes against a lot I've seen. Though the fact your unit is square metres rather than hectares would lead me to think that what you're referring to might be very high labour input, small area production but I'd be interested in seeing data.
I'm not sure what you mean by '...increased industrialisation of 'normal' agriculture on land use and waste...'. Conventional farmers are there to make money, the same as most businesses. Waste is an inefficiently and a cost to the business, so from that aspect alone they would be trying to minimise it.Judgement Day wrote: »I refer you back to my basic point - the three staple parts of the Irish diet - bread, butter and milk and the supermarkets can't even manage to stock them! Why stock organic milk and, for instance, organic mangoes but not organic butter or bread? Why - in Dunnes anyway - are the organic products scattered all over the store instead of having a seperate section? Their organic ordering must be done by somebody blindfolded, sticking a pin into the order form! What I am simply asking is, is the half arsed approach to organic food just a typically Irish approach to doing anything properly? Tesco (UK), for instance, stock their organic sections in a far more thorough manner. And, yes I do think organic food is healthier than non-organic - it's not rocket science that something not laced with artificial fertiliser and pesticides is going to be better for your health than the alternative. I am surprised that as Mod. for Green issues you would ask such a question - I can only assume you were playing devils advocate?
Yet again to (badly) paraphrase taconnol's sig, the laws of supply and demand do not have to match up with your wishes.
If Tesco is providing you with a better service than Dunnes then shop at Tesco, vote with your feet.
It mightn't be rocket science but as others have pointed out there is no good evidence that organic food is healthier than non organic food. Your personal opinion based on your gut instinct may be different but it still doesn't change that.Judgement Day wrote: »PS Apart from health issues anybody who can't not taste the difference between organic and non-organic products - especially something like chicken - must have had their taste buds removed! The last point being aimed at Cookie Monster but with a name like that I suppose taste doesn't come into it - just quantity!
I'd actually love to see a double bind test were a group of chickens were reared free-range, same breed of chicken from the same batch of eggs. One half would receive organic foodstuff and the other non organic of the same type and amount no other difference in husbandry or conditions.
My suspicion would be there would be absolutely no statistical difference in a taste test between these two groups of chickens. In my opinion genetics and husbandry would play a much greater role.0 -
Well Dahak - 'plenty of food for thought' there - sorry! As regards Tesco, it was Tesco UK (specifically the IoM) that I was referring to as both the Irish Tesco stores that I very occasionally frequent - Gorey and Wexford - are only marginally better than Dunnes. My point throughout has been why do supermarkets bother stocking any organic products if not a comprehensive range. I mean they sell ordinary flour, butter, milk and eggs so that you could for instance make an ordinary loaf of bread but - perhaps only organic milk and eggs so that making an organic loaf is impossible. Likewise they might sell organic milk but not organic tea or coffee - there is just no rhyme or reason to their operation.
0 -
Actually, quite the opposite is true. In response to attacks, plants produce certain chemicals such as resveratrol. When there are fewer pests, the plants do not produce such high levels.Plants under stress from disease and insect attack can produce lower quality fruit and vegetables if they are expending a lot of their energy on defending and repairing from such attacks.
They may not be as aesthetically pleasing but are we really that superficial? Even about our fruit?? Anyway, more for meThis can lead to produce that is not as uniform as that produced by conventional agriculture and may have signs of disease and or insect attack. Some people could consider this lower quality, and from an ascetics point of view the might have a point.
Well first of all, I think we need to get away from the idea that there is a global food shortage at the moment. If you look back in history at famines, they are not necessarily always caused by a crop failure (or some other such instance) but by political failures (ie civil war etc).As for sustainable, on a global scale I would doubt that there are many that would argue that 100% organic production could feed the planet. Yields of staples such as grain and rice are far lower organically than conventionally.
You could argue that in that way organic agriculture would not be sustainable.
Secondly, 'conventional' agriculture is intrinsically unsustainable because it is so dependent on oil. From imported fertility (fertilisers) to petroleum-based pesticides to fuel for heavy machinery to transportation extraordinary distances not to mention the lighting and heating/cooling of our supermarkets. It was some time in the 1970s that parity was reached between oil calories pumped into agriculture and food calories produced. Now it takes about 10 oil calories to produce 1 calorie of food. It doesn't take a genius to realise that this situation cannot continue indefinitely.
BTW, I'm not particularly anti-GM food, if it can help improve yields, etc. I would just like the proper tests to be carried out before it is released into our soil because, like pandora's box, it won't be quite as easy to get it all back into the test tube.Do you have any link from studies that show that smaller farms are more productive per unit area? It's just that it goes against a lot I've seen. Though the fact your unit is square metres rather than hectares would lead me to think that what you're referring to might be very high labour input, small area production but I'd be interested in seeing data.
http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Small-Farm-Benefits-Rosset.htm#F1
I have found other research: I did my MSc dissertation on this very subject but I looked through so many studies, I don't have a clue where I saw the other papers.
Really? So what do these set of photos tell you about 'conventional farming' and the attitudes of supermarkets (Although, tbh I lay most of the blame at the feet of the supermarkets)? Monocrops naturally make less efficient use of space than permaculture methods.I'm not sure what you mean by '...increased industrialisation of 'normal' agriculture on land use and waste...'. Conventional farmers are there to make money, the same as most businesses. Waste is an inefficiently and a cost to the business, so from that aspect alone they would be trying to minimise it.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=146871085464&h=ZAN6V&u=GU0NP&ref=mf
Well, there are studies that say 'yay' and studies that say 'nay'. I would have to question some of the criteria used by the 'nay' studies.It mightn't be rocket science but as others have pointed out there is no good evidence that organic food is healthier than non organic food. Your personal opinion based on your gut instinct may be different but it still doesn't change that.
I'm sorry but I can actually see the difference between the chickens when they're laid out in the butcher's I go to. Also, how much water is being pumped into those 'chicken' fillets? Are you buying cheap chicken or expensive water?My suspicion would be there would be absolutely no statistical difference in a taste test between these two groups of chickens. In my opinion genetics and husbandry would play a much greater role.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Judgement Day wrote: »Well Dahak - 'plenty of food for thought' there - sorry! As regards Tesco, it was Tesco UK (specifically the IoM) that I was referring to as both the Irish Tesco stores that I very occasionally frequent - Gorey and Wexford - are only marginally better than Dunnes. My point throughout has been why do supermarkets bother stocking any organic products if not a comprehensive range. I mean they sell ordinary flour, butter, milk and eggs so that you could for instance make an ordinary loaf of bread but - perhaps only organic milk and eggs so that making an organic loaf is impossible. Likewise they might sell organic milk but not organic tea or coffee - there is just no rhyme or reason to their operation.
Sorry that post was so long, I didn't realise it was that length until I posted it :rolleyes:
To turn your question on it's head, is something (as in the supermarkets stocking some organic products) better than nothing. taconnol pointed out the total sales of organics has increased in the last number of years, however it's still a relatively small percentage of the total spend on foods.
From my personal experience (totally anecdotal, with absolutely no data to back it up) is that organic consumers tend to fall into two broad groups.- Environmental sustainability
- Health benefits
Those that are primarily interested in environmental sustainability tend to think of where the food come from and how it gets to them (thinking of food miles). For them an organic apple from New Zealand is almost as bad as a conventional apple from New Zealand. These people tend to like to shop for local produce and dislike large multinational companies like the supermarkets on principal. These type of people are less likely to buy organic food in supermarkets.
Those that are primary interested what they perceive are the health benefits of organic foods treat organic food somewhat like the the 'general population' treat vegetables, as in replacing unhealthy food with more vegetables is better for your health. This group is less concerned with exactly where the organic food comes from, they are much more interested in the effect that it will (or will not have) on them rather than the effect on the whole distribution and sales chain. These type of people are more likely to buy organic food in supermarkets.
Could this be a factor in the amount of organics available in supermarkets? As in there is demand but a large proportion of the market would much rather not purchase their organics in supermarkets.
One other possibility for the difference between British and Irish stores is the size of the supermarkets. Irish planning laws limited the size of the supermarkets (for very good reasons in my opinion). Smaller stores tend to have a smaller selection of products and a smaller hinterland. Both of these things tend to push out speciality products in favour of higher sellers.0 -
-
Actually, quite the opposite is true. In response to attacks, plants produce certain chemicals such as resveratrol. When there are fewer pests, the plants do not produce such high levels.
Point taken regarding Resveratrol, when I was writing that I was mostly thinking of ascetics however pest and disease attack can lower the quality of produce as well. One example off the top of my head is the Fusarium family of fungi. With the wet harvest last year they were prevalent in barley crops, badly infected fields actually had a pink cast to them. Not only does the fungi reduce grain quality directly (through lower bulk density of the grain, this is a quality indicator for cereals) it produces mycotoxins which can be directly harmful to human and animal health.
Now this isn't something unique to organic grain production, but without the use of fungicides organic crops can be more susceptible to fusarium and other fungal diseases.They may not be as aesthetically pleasing but are we really that superficial? Even about our fruit?? Anyway, more for me
I think you might have answered your own question with the link to the Guardian photo article. One of the pictures was of potatoes rejected by Tesco because of aesthetics
. From my (limited) experience though it would seem that the organic consumer that's more concerned about environmental sustainability tends to less concerned about the aesthetics of the produce.Well first of all, I think we need to get away from the idea that there is a global food shortage at the moment. If you look back in history at famines, they are not necessarily always caused by a crop failure (or some other such instance) but by political failures (ie civil war etc).
It was a very long post and it would have been very easy to misread what I wrote but I never said that there was a shortage of food, I said that it was doubtful 100% organic production could feed the planet at the moment.
I fully agree with you that worldwide food production is the not the main issue with regard to famines and food shortages. EU and US agricultural policies keep the world price of agricultural produce low (see milk for example). This means that small local farmers can not compete with imports. 'Food aid' in some situations can do more harm than good, destroying the local market for produce. This can leave the local farmers in the situation where they can not afford to plant the following years crop.Secondly, 'conventional' agriculture is intrinsically unsustainable because it is so dependent on oil. From imported fertility (fertilisers) to petroleum-based pesticides to fuel for heavy machinery to transportation extraordinary distances not to mention the lighting and heating/cooling of our supermarkets. It was some time in the 1970s that parity was reached between oil calories pumped into agriculture and food calories produced. Now it takes about 10 oil calories to produce 1 calorie of food. It doesn't take a genius to realise that this situation cannot continue indefinitely.
I agree with you that conventional agriculture is very energy dependent. The thing is so can organic agriculture. An organic apple from Israel takes just the same amount of energy to ship around the world as a non organic one. Using local produce will have a large effect on energy usage rather than shipping food from the other side of the world and this is true of both organic and conventional production methods.
While fertiliser does have a high carbon footprint I would disagree with lumping pesticides into the same boat. While pesticides require energy input in their manufacture, the amount of active ingredient per acre is usually very low. Not using pesticides can require more machinery passes for example to mechanically hoe weeds.
It is also worth noting that there has been a direct swap between labour units and mechanisation.
From Hans Binswanger, 1986.Agricultural Mechanization: A Comparative Historical Perspective The World Bank Research Observer,1(1), pp. 27-56, with my calculated hours per bushel.
US Wheat Production 1915-78
|1915-19|1925-29|1935-39|1945-49|1955-59|1965-69|1974-78
Hours per acre|13.3|10.5|8.8|5.7|3.8|2.9|2.9
Yield (bushles)|13.9|14.1|13.2|16.9|22.3|27.5|30.0
hours/bushel|0.96|0.74|0.67|0.34|0.17|0.11|0.08BTW, I'm not particularly anti-GM food, if it can help improve yields, etc. I would just like the proper tests to be carried out before it is released into our soil because, like pandora's box, it won't be quite as easy to get it all back into the test tube.
I agree with you about GM varieties and while undoubtedly it may play a large role in plant breading in the future at the moment it's benefit seems mostly to the agrichemical industry.http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Small-Farm-Benefits-Rosset.htm#F1
I have found other research: I did my MSc dissertation on this very subject but I looked through so many studies, I don't have a clue where I saw the other papers.
The article you linked to is interesting, both in what it shows and what it doesn't show. Almost all the countries that are reported on are either second or third world countries except for South Korea. The absence of any European countries or the US (which is mentioned in the text but no data is shown for) is interesting in itself.
The underlying theme, though not explicitly stated, seems to be that higher productivity is achieved with high labour input small farms. Also what is considered small is not given, looking at the graphs I'd guess a small farm is defined (though indirectly) through labour units.
Owner operators have a tendency to put much higher hours into a business than hired labour (even if you could pay the labour to put in the same hours). Irish agriculture is a good example of that, though the average income per farm is respectable, the return per hour work (especially if you include work done by other family members) would be close to minimum wage, or below, in a lot of cases.
Many of the arguments for 'smaller' farms are very good. Social arguments about sustaining and developing of local communities and peoples connection to food and landscape are valid.
The original paper that that article is based on talks about the US, where the author seems to set the area as a small farm in the US as under 180 acres, notes that following:Development (2000) 43, 77-82. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1110149
(p 79)
In the United States the smallest farms, those of 27 acres or less, have more than 10 times greater dollar output per acre than larger farms. While in the US this is largely because smaller farms tend to specialize in high value crops like vegetables and flowers, it also reflects relatively more attention devoted to the farm, and more diverse farming systems.
Relatively more attention i.e. more labour input per unit area. With very high labour input you can get higher productivity. In lower wage situations or where a large percentage of the labour force is unemployed this is a beneficial situation. The US is in an unusual situation as it is a first world country with a second world bordering it. This provides a large amount of low cost immigrant (often illegal) labour.
You'll also notice that in relation to small farm efficiency the following is mentioned.In industrial countries, the pattern is less clear. The consensus position is probably that very small farms are inefficient because they can't make full use of expensive equipment, while very large farms are also inefficient because of management and labour problems inherent in large operations. Thus, peak efficiency is likely to be achieved on mid-sized farms that have one or two hired labourers. In other words, even in the 'developed' countries there is no reason to believe that large farms are more efficient - indeed, they may be quite inefficient.
This I would agree with, owner operator type farms with family labour and maybe one or two labours do seem to be most efficient in Ireland. It is important to note that this would no longer be a small farm. In Ireland this could equate to up to 400 acres of tillage or well over 100 cows. These are not what I'd consider small or medium sized farm in the Irish context.
From the teagasc website:
Average farm size is 32 hectares (79 acres) with almost 50% of farms less than 20 hectares (49 acres).Really? So what do these set of photos tell you about 'conventional farming' and the attitudes of supermarkets (Although, tbh I lay most of the blame at the feet of the supermarkets)? Monocrops naturally make less efficient use of space than permaculture methods.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=146871085464&h=ZAN6V&u=GU0NP&ref=mf
While the jury still seems to be out on how productive permaculture systems actually are there is no question (well in my mind at least) that they are very labour intensive. A monoculture while maybe not the most efficient use of space is a very efficient use of labour. In the industrialised world it's labour that has become one of the most significant costs in food production. To produce a significant proportion of our food with permaculture type systems would require the move back to an agrarian society. With the current cost of food in the industrial world that that would equate to very close to subsistence living.
I looked through the photo's that were in the Guardian story, to be perfectly honest most of them were regarding waste in supply chain or at the point of sale. The method of production would have had no effect here, organic or non organic produce can be spoiled or wasted in the supply chain or at the point of sale.
The M&S sandwich making though is a total waste. The least that they could do with that bread would be to use it for animal feed.
One question though, why did you link to a Guardian story through facebook?I'm sorry but I can actually see the difference between the chickens when they're laid out in the butcher's I go to. Also, how much water is being pumped into those 'chicken' fillets? Are you buying cheap chicken or expensive water?
It was a fairly long post and the chicken part was at the very end so it understandable that you might have missed the first part of that comment, the gap between the two portions of it probably didn't help either.I'd actually love to see a double bind test were a group of chickens were reared free-range, same breed of chicken from the same batch of eggs. One half would receive organic foodstuff and the other non organic of the same type and amount no other difference in husbandry or conditions.
My suspicion would be there would be absolutely no statistical difference in a taste test between these two groups of chickens. In my opinion genetics and husbandry would play a much greater role.
I agree with you regarding chicken breasts with saline solution injected to puff them up and increase their weight. In my humble opinion this is a similar action to watering down drinks and should not be allowed.0 -
-
I agree re EU & US policies. Can you supply some stats to back up your statement that organic couldn't provide the world's food?I fully agree with you that worldwide food production is the not the main issue with regard to famines and food shortages. EU and US agricultural policies keep the world price of agricultural produce low (see milk for example). This means that small local farmers can not compete with imports. 'Food aid' in some situations can do more harm than good, destroying the local market for produce. This can leave the local farmers in the situation where they can not afford to plant the following years crop.
I agree but it does depends on the pesticide, some are oil-based. What about the costs (energy and monetary) of the impact of these pesticides on the environment? Is that included in the price of food?While fertiliser does have a high carbon footprint I would disagree with lumping pesticides into the same boat. While pesticides require energy input in their manufacture, the amount of active ingredient per acre is usually very low. Not using pesticides can require more machinery passes for example to mechanically hoe weeds.
It's just one study, but yes I can see what you're saying. Here is another that looks at both 'Southern' and 'Northern' farms:The article you linked to is interesting, both in what it shows and what it doesn't show. Almost all the countries that are reported on are either second or third world countries except for South Korea. The absence of any European countries or the US (which is mentioned in the text but no data is shown for) is interesting in itself.
http://www.foodfirst.org/node/246
It mentions increased labour and commitment but also a few others:multiple cropping: as explained above, while large farmers almost always use monocultures, and one or at the most two cropping cycles per year, small farmers are more likely to intercrop various crops on the same field, plant multiple times during the year, and integrate crops, livestock and even aquaculture, making much more intensive use of space and time.
land use intensity: larger farmers and land owners tend to leave much of their land idle, while small farmers tend to use their entire parcel.
output composition: large farms are oriented toward land extensive enter-prises, like cattle grazing or extensive grain monocultures, while small farmers emphasize labor and resource intensive use of land. As in the U.S. case, large farms may produce crops with lower value than do smaller farms.
irrigation: small farmers may make more efficient use of irrigation.
labor quality: while small farms generally use family labor -- which is personally committed to the success of the farm -- large farms use relatively alienated hired labor.
labor intensity: small farms apply far more labor per unit area than do larger farms.
input use: small farms often use far more inputs per unit area than larger farms, though the mix on small farms favors non-purchased inputs like manure and compost while large farms tend to use relatively more purchased inputs like agrochemicals.
resource use: large farms are generally less committed to management of other resources -- such as forests and aquatic resources -- which combine with the land to produce a greater quantity and better quality of production.
Edit: D'oh just realised it refers back to the other study! Nuts..
Ah yes, I see what you're saying. Good point.The underlying theme, though not explicitly stated, seems to be that higher productivity is achieved with high labour input small farms. Also what is considered small is not given, looking at the graphs I'd guess a small farm is defined (though indirectly) through labour units.
Here we come to the crux of sustainability. Is it pure economics or do we care about more than just the bottom line? It may seem a little extreme bit in my opinion, every time I buy something, I'm voting. Do I want a big 24-hr Tesco only reachable by car or do I want a butchers & deli on the high st that I can cycle to? Similarly, do I want a big Monsanto farm down the road controlling the production of my food or would I rather there be small farmers that lend vibrancy to rural Ireland?Many of the arguments for 'smaller' farms are very good. Social arguments about sustaining and developing of local communities and peoples connection to food and landscape are valid.
The original paper that that article is based on talks about the US, where the author seems to set the area as a small farm in the US as under 180 acres, notes that following:
Good points.Relatively more attention i.e. more labour input per unit area. With very high labour input you can get higher productivity. In lower wage situations or where a large percentage of the labour force is unemployed this is a beneficial situation. The US is in an unusual situation as it is a first world country with a second world bordering it. This provides a large amount of low cost immigrant (often illegal) labour.
Again, fair points - and can I just say what a breath of fresh air it is to be discussing this with someone who backs up their points with data! Something that is sorely lacking on here sometimes.This I would agree with, owner operator type farms with family labour and maybe one or two labours do seem to be most efficient in Ireland. It is important to note that this would no longer be a small farm. In Ireland this could equate to up to 400 acres of tillage or well over 100 cows. These are not what I'd consider small or medium sized farm in the Irish context.
From the teagasc website:
Average farm size is 32 hectares (79 acres) with almost 50% of farms less than 20 hectares (49 acres).
Labour intensive as compared to what? To industrialised standards, probably but for me, that isn't saying much. It all depends what you consider 'standard' - a very loaded phrase that can lend undeserved credibility. But I take your point.While the jury still seems to be out on how productive permaculture systems actually are there is no question (well in my mind at least) that they are very labour intensive.
To be very honest, I think that we need more people involved with producing food. I think that we have moved too far away from it, moved to a point where there is a serious disconnect and the tangential problems are massive:A monoculture while maybe not the most efficient use of space is a very efficient use of labour. In the industrialised world it's labour that has become one of the most significant costs in food production. To produce a significant proportion of our food with permaculture type systems would require the move back to an agrarian society. With the current cost of food in the industrial world that that would equate to very close to subsistence living.
-obesity
-supermarkets and their inefficiencies and pressure on farmers to produce every cheaper, whatever the quality
-serious wastage of food at every point along the food chain
-incredible dependency on oil (even to the end, with out-of-town supermarkets that you have to drive to)
-ignorance among the masses on how to even grow food
-animal welfare issues
Never have we spent so little on our food (a stat I often quote is 10% of disposable income, as opposed to 30% in the 1960s). And what else are we spending our money on? Useless materialistic junk that soon ends up in a landfill - I really believe we need an entire rethink of our whole 'exponential economic growth' model. I'm not sure that it can be sustainable in the long run - but that's for another thread
From the FoodFirst report, and in turn from the UN:To face the current challenges of agriculture, we need to address agriculture and land in a broader context by integrating multiple roles (economic, food production, nature and land management, employment etc.). Sustainable agriculture and land use is not just a means to obtain more food and income, in socially acceptable ways which do not degrade the environment. Rather, it has an all-encompassing impact on communities, environments, and consumers. We must reach a consensus and common understanding of sustainable land use as an opportunity to improve the quality of the environment, including its physical (increased soil fertility, better quality air and water), biological (healthier and more diverse animal, plant, and human populations), and social, economic and institutional (greater social equity, cohesion, peace/stability, well-being) components... Land is not just a resource to be exploited, but a crucial vehicle for the achievement of improved socioeconomic, biological and physical environments. Concretely, by paying attention to the multiple functions of agriculture and land use, all economic, social and environmental functions of agriculture, at multiple levels, are recognized and included in decision making in order to promote synergies between these functions and to reconcile different stakeholder objectives.
I posted it on my facebook and then went back there to get the link - I didn't notice at the time that it created a facebook forwarding URL.One question though, why did you link to a Guardian story through facebook?It was a fairly long post and the chicken part was at the very end so it understandable that you might have missed the first part of that comment, the gap between the two portions of it probably didn't help either.
Ah ok, I see what you mean. Well, if you want to be totally anthropocentric about it, perhaps there wouldn't be a big difference. From the point of view of the poor chicken, I'm sure there would be a significant difference. Unfortunately there aren't enough people who give a crap.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement