I'm sure that [probably at a guess] most of the farmers frequenting these fora don't want handouts and charity. All they want is for their produce to be bought at a fair price!

Yes Woolies and Coles screw the farmers over - and though I don't and won't buy my fresh produce from them (I buy fruit and veggies at Harris Farm), I understand that there are those who don't have the opportunity to do so and so give the W & C chains a captive market. But people should be the ones that vote with their wallets and patronage are the ones that should force W & C to change their behaviour and not via an edict by those that know best.

Wow! Leave the computer for a day to go do some work on the house and look what happens! By the way, Arnost, your post on the previous page was excellent!

I just wanted to quote the following and add my remarks in italics before I hit the hay.

These are not "social" objectives - these are more like "socialist" objectives. I'm sure that a lot of agrarians here would have had a snigger or two when reading that list. Look - the politicos don't want to win the farmers vote with that. They are trying to win the vote of the latte sipping urbanites! If they want the farmers vote they hand out subsidies! Need I say more?

Sorry, the bottom trawling was not intended to be an analogy with farming, rather a simple example of an economic and efficient method for catching fish.

Yes, unintended consequences can arrise from bending an economy and care must be taken but governments tinker with economies all the time, notably taxation laws.

Fair enough, however there are other methods appart from handouts to make sure that their produce is bought at a reasonable price, such as tax rebates, GST exemptions on their products, rebates on input costs...at the end of the day it all leads to the same thing. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade

Your second statement is correct, but my personal belief is that you cannot rely on the mighty market to produce optimal outcomes. How many people would pay tax without an edict from the government?

(a) Sure, some of these points are not specific to organic farming, you are quite correct. However, one could argue that some are prioritised more with organic farming, specifically with respect to environmental issues. On this point and coniciding with your last point, I don't think I have ever claimed that conventional farming is standing still, it is simply just another branch of agriculture with many identical goals but different ways of achieving them. It is likely that the organic and conventional branches will approach each other in the future.

(b) I would consider the removal of subsidies in the EU as an initiation of competition, not cooperation. An example of the sort of things encouraged I witnessed whilst working on organic farms in the southwest of France where farmers would regularly take turns to work for each other. Some jobs are easier with two pairs of hands, it is sociable, knowledge is shared and it is also 'tax effective' - a barter system of work. The local organic market stall here is collectively manned by the local farmers on a roster basis.

(c) Some other good points brought up in your post. Again more economic and political issues at the roots of the problems (except the drought one). The land values one is a good one.

For some reason your post reminded me about a film I saw a while back - I strongly recommend anyone interested to see 'The Real Dirt on Farmer John'. Here is the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqP1SC5Tr7U

I agree, there are socialist undertones to organic farming, surely a primary reason why it prospers more under socialist orientated governments. Should farming be treated purely as a business or is it something more important than that?

Couldn't agree more with your second point, but judging by the sarcasm I think that you agree that this is not an ideal scenario. It is an example of a glitch in democracy.

Hmmm a fair point, one that I didn’t fully consider. Business practise between say farming and engineering are still not all that different however. Its just that the manufacturing industry is less prone to speculators and commodity listings. Obviously global pressure have an effect but you dont see the major short-long term fluctuations in price the primary industries see. This is one thing I think that needs to change though. I mean obviously supply and demand issues will create price fluctuations but I don’t think its fair on the industry to allow speculative buyers push the price where they see fit.

You imply Arnost that these issues are socialist ideologies but I disagree. I think adopting a couple of these ideas(mostly on a governmental level but also at ground level)could go a long way to levelling the playing field between primary producers and the multi-nationals who drive the cost of produce up or down depending on how much money they feel like making week to week. In the end, even if farmers are paid less and less for their produce, it does not equal cheaper prices for consumers, just larger profits for the corporations. I dont see the consumer as the enemy,but at the moment they're largely impartial, not stupid. They dont set the price but rather put a cap on profits for businesses such as wollies, coles etc. What price primary producers are paid isnt exactly set by the free market but rather market forces out of the hands of the consumer. Its a shame but its true. Oil companies and petrol prices is a similar situation that comes to mind.

so assuming your not a socialist and that these objectives are not really what you would adhere to....

Being a farmer you think it appropriate to:

• NOTRespect the health of humans and animals
• NOTFavour cooperation rather than competition in agriculture
• NOTRespect equality for all jobs within the food production process
• NOTAllow primary producers to live from their work and their land
• NOTPropose alternative food choices
• NOTEstablish direct links with consumers (avoid the Coles, Woolies etc.)
• NOTFavour the creation rather than the dimunation of jobs in the agricultural sector


now im not saying these guidelines posted my majorowe are rules or should be followed but they do seem like common sense to me.

just because if you dont believe what was posted doesn't mean its "socialist".



and yes I get it, you dont like people from the city who drink coffee. (i dont drink coffee and dont goto the city and do not fit that category and surprisingly i think there are less people who are like that than you think) it would be similar to me using a generalisation of a "bogan redneck" but i imagine how that would go down here. i dont like the city scene nor do i like bogan rednecks but i dont see any point in venting my anger here about them.
anyway i think its useless for every post to contain something along the lines of "late drinkers from the city are idiots"

OK fair enough the govt doesnt care about farmers (which i understand that point and think thats not fair) and has rules in place to stop you from doing such things like listed by majorowe(???) but they still seem like a good lift of objectives to me.
Why do you and Andy Double U seem to disagree and have to discredit each individual point?

Why is everything mentioned here by someone who isnt a farmer get their opinions smashed and the farmers ideas forced upon them?
Why if a a "non-farmer" posts here all they seem to get is the response of "your an idiot, why dont you just go and vote and drink coffee" ?

LOL… Well actually, I’m about as urban an urbanite as you can get… And I’m a coffee addict – hence why I sometimes post at 2am as I can’t get to sleep!


Yes, true… but then not so much as a glitch in democracy but a distortion in the checks and balances.


You would be surprised… The “government” is (or should be) that to which we outsource all the stuff that we don’t want to or can’t do, yet need to maintain “society”.


And that’s the problem! I said earlier that the market is smart – and hence it will outsmart the government each and every time if they try to prescribe (or legally mandate) some “desired” action or outcome (rent seekers nirvana) or proscribe some activity (and that does not really work either - think drugs / prohibition). Chasing / rectifying bad policy through more “tinkering” exacerbates the problem and inevitably sets up a downward economic spiral as seen in the centrally managed Eastern European states last century – and as we are probably seeing now in Western Europe…


Now we are getting closer to the nub of this. It is the existence of monopolistic, cross border / cross jurisdictional corporations, with quasi governmental powers (i.e. they can lobby for whatever laws they want) and with significant control over media (through the ability to choke of advertising lifeblood) that is the issue. The anti-trust or anti-competition watchdogs are at the moment either unable or unwilling to do anything about these and hence we have this problem with entities “too big to fail”.

To tie this back to the topic...

A) Consumers have the right to buy anything they want.
B) Producers have the right to produce anything they want.

First Corollary: market forces of supply and demand will inevitably result in a fair price where inefficient producers will fail and where consumers will find alternatives if too expensive.

C) Producers will look to find cheaper ways to satisfy consumer demand and gain advantage over competition.

Second Corollary: The system / environment will get exploited to its maximum and beyond.

D) Regulation will be necessary to prevent the “tragedy of the commons” and similar environmental degradation (i.e. bottom trawling / slash & burn proscribed).

Third Corollary: Producers will look to find more efficient ways to satisfy consumer demand and gain advantage over competition.

E) Regulation will be necessary to prevent “economies of scale” driven monopolistic conglomerates forming that have an “unfair” market advantage.

And that’s about it. Any further tinkering will create dislocations and readjustments in the market and the market (at least temporarily while it adjusts) will cease to be fair – which is where I think we find ourselves at the moment.

Just a gentle suggestion to a couple of other posters!
Just be aware that if you take on Arnost, you know neither his interesting background nor the the intellect that you are debating with.

And a few of the quotes above;

"Favour cooperation rather than competition in agriculture
Respect equality for all jobs within the food production process
Allow primary producers to live from their work and their land"

Those are some very amusing quotes above if they weren't so tragically and studiously ignored and quite deliberately negated by entire governments of some western countries and the parochial self interested big agricultural interests in the countries where these quotes originated from.

It is estimated that the EU's agricultural products export subsidies plus the EU's farm subsidies cost third world farmers and third world countries about US$50 billion annually by the heavily subsidised EU exports undercutting third world countries farm and farm export prices leading to much greater levels of unneccessary poverty throughout the third world.

The hypocrisy and the total self interest of those who have created those quotes from France and the EU are very evident in what they do and not in what they wrote and is demonstrated in the way in which they are quite prepared to destroy other far less fortunate beings attempts to better themselves so that they themselves might benefit and acquire even more wealth.

And look where those quotes come from!



And just guess which country benefits most from the EU Agricultural subsidies.

Selected quotes from various sources


Nor it seems are there any farmers in the top ten recipients of France's EU Ag subsidies.
Big business has it all by the short and curlies with something like 80% of the EU's Ag subsidies going to big European business.



http://farmsubsidy.org/
http://www.followthemoney.eu/does-the-cap-fit/
http://farmsubsidy.org/news/

For those who have strong interest in what they will be able to buy and eat tomorrow or if they will be able to buy and eat tomorrow then I would suggest a browse through the ABARE's report.
[Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics] , "Global Food Security and Australia"
If you don't eat then don't bother.

And Arnost, I did chuckle at the "agrarians". Anybody would think that you read this regularly [ I do! ]

LOL ROM!

The simple fact is that the markets (and not just agriculture) are dominated by "big business" - that can, and in a lot of cases does, influence policy. ROM's quotes in above suggest just that...

Now please don't get me wrong - I'm all in favour of business and the freedom to do operate in any market completely unfettered... But the thing that gets me is that our (and probably "western") media - which should be the check and balance on "government" and "big business" - is also in the pockets of "big business" - or to be more precise "big interest" to coin a phrase. Without an agressive media exposing corruption and inefficiency, this will mean that the governments and larger corporations will become lazy, become bloated (bureaucratically) and sub-efficient. And in the worst cases - will consider themselves above the law.

I'm sorry, but this is what I see evident everywhere.

But it's not difficult to change this. In much the same way that the media (and advertising!) has moulded mass thinking into memes where Keynesian economics has supplanted free market oriented economics based on Adam Smith and Hayek; the new media, the news aggregators and on-line forums such as this, (where interested people debate, ask questions, and learn) is rapidly "re-educating" the "people".

Krauthammer in the US has come up with a wonderful line that encapsulates the problem that we face at the moment with left v right or liberals v conservatives and it is: "the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe that Democrats are wrong and Democrats believe that Republicans are evil".

And this "evil" tag - is the meme or current flavour of political correctness is that which the media has foisted on the masses. But what goes around, comes around. There will come a time when the people (who are not dumb) will realise that they have been played dumb... and then watch the flavour of political correctness change.

In the meantime - if you listen, and I mean really listen to the arguments on both sides - you will find that the arguments are not that different.

ROM, you are confusing the EU government with Agricultrure Biologique France - they are not one and the same and constantly do not share equal views. You seem to be quite fond of making sweeping generalisations - the French, the Europeans, the city lattle sippers and greenies being the best examples found in previous posts.

I do totally agree with you about the mis-targeting of the funds - I read somewhere that Queen Elizabeth is a large beneficial. More weight to the argument that it is big business that profits.* Not so sure about the cow quote - millions of people around the world spend more money on ciggies and alcohol than the average wage of an African, at least the cow goes on to provide a useful service. I doubt we would be even having this conservation if all military funding was gainfully employed.

I had a read of your pdf - some decent points in there about biofuels, but the I'm very blazé, even frightened by the rest. For example...



No thanks.



Snip. GM seeds are as biological as synthetic chemicals.



How about some organic farming education?



Harsh. You cannot force countries to adopt GM crops if they don't want them. As Arnost said, "consumers have the right to buy anything they want" - the inverse is surely true also. Finally, why are Africa so keen to export food to Europe if they so desperately need it themselves? Economics again.

Arnost, a quick comment on your laws and corroralies. Corroraly D is not always appropriate and easily applicable. Also, economics as a science seems to be drifting further and further from reality. These laws are too simple.

"Also, economics as a science seems to be drifting further and further from reality." - Maybe, as I said, the enfatuation with Keynesian economics - which is way divorced from reality - may be to blame.

"These laws are too simple." - Finest kind! Over complex laws are half the problem in our society - nobody understands them and a loophole can be found for everything...

The Backyard Battlefield: Grow Your Own Organic Food to Fight Climate Change

It's not too hard to imagine what kinds of scary changes our food-producing farms will face as our global climate changes. A drop or rise of a few degrees, drought, shifting pest and weed habitats, or increased flooding could spell disaster for crops worldwide. While there's certainly no quick-fix to quell climate change, it is important to recognize that your own backyard garden plays a part in the fight against climate change. Producing some of your own food may lessen your carbon footprint in terms of food miles, but managing your garden and lawn in a climate-conscious manner can also go a long way.

http://www.justmeans.com/-Backyard-Battl...ange/15390.html

Regardless of the debate over AGW or any climate change, and from a purely shelfish point of view, the almost certain increase cost of energy over the coming decades will (or should) see the cost of food increase; how much, who knows. This could promote the backyard as an important source of cheap food for families and perhaps even restore a bit of reality to how societies order their priorities (a $500k house isn't much good if you can't afford to feed your family!).

And as a bonus to turning your turf into vege beds, you can get that nice warm fuzzy feeling that you're saving the world

Forgive an old guy for reminiscing so much.
Just to reinforce what bigwilly is saying.

Way back in the 1950's and into the early 1970's I would go on family visits to my mother's people out on Doncaster road where they owned an orchard.
Now just another small shopping centre right at the eastern end of Doncaster road [ Melbourne ] just before it turns into Mitcham Road.
My grandfather bought that 40 acres and cleared it of the forest and trees to plant an apple orchard.
The forest was so thick in those times that he lost his horse for two days in that tiny 40 acre block.
He went on from there to exporting his apples into England for many years under the"Fireside Fruits" label.
As a kid the great trees of the Dandenongs still came right down to near the corner of Doncaster and Mitcham roads but now when I stand on Doncaster road up near the Council offices from which across the road my grandfather's retirement house was built and still stands, what is left of that forest and those great Dandenong trees are just visible kilometres away to the east and almost invisible on the top of the far hills.
Nothing but a vast sea of concrete, bricks and bitumen is now seen.
So much for the constant and shrill cries from some quarters on how the farmers are destroying our environment.
The city developers are certainly doing their share of that destroying as well.

OK rant aside!

Those trips to Big Smoke and in all the towns, both large and small everywhere in those times revealed glimpses of vegie and fruit gardens of every type in backyards everywhere.
Backyard vegie and fruit growing in the cities was an industry in itself with a lot of backyarders growing their own vegies and often supplying and swapping fruit and vegies with neighbors and rellies.

Then the rise of the supermarkets began and food / vegies / fruit became a less and less costly part of the average wage packet and the convenience of just going and buying your vegies and fruit from the supermarket and having more time to follow other interests began to outweigh the benefits and constant work and time needed to keep a backyard vegie / fruit patch going.
It had every thing to do with economics and convenience.
Food was just becoming cheaper and cheaper and was taking a less and less percentage of the average wage packet compared to those times before the early 1970's.
Now perhaps the wheel is about to turn again and the raw food prices before the supermarkets get their greedy hands on it, may have very nearly reached their nadir.
There are limits to how low the raw food prices can be pushed before industries start shutting down and that then leads to shortages and rapidly increasing prices in that then short supply commodity
The old capitalist iron clad supply and demand forces at work again!
And there is no getting around this real life factor.

There are quite possibly other factors at work; rising world living standards which lead to increasing food consumption and diversion of crop products into animal feed for meat and protein for human consumption as a direct result of those rising living standards and the demand for more animal protein.
Rising world population so more mouths to feed.
The possibility of climate change only this time towards a increasing prospect of a long period of a cooling and colder climate as the solar output remains and is now forecast to remain at decreasing levels for perhaps until around 2030.
And all the ramifications this has as some northern hemi food production areas may close down as it is will no longer be possible to grow full season crops there due to too short a summer periods.

So the backyard vegie patch and a couple of fruit trees may well be on the way back in the near future and that will be a very positive move.

But there is another factor that must also be addressed.
Councils and governments must be made to realise that the planning laws must be changed to allow such backyard production to be placed on an equal footing with the supermarket chains.
Small markets located right through suburban areas must be created to allow backyarders to buy, sell, swap or whatever with their produce without hindrance from all sorts of the usual nasty gaggle of do gooders who will demand all sorts of conditions on such activities.
The super markets will fight these developments all the way using any means they can including license proposals, health scares and any other means you can think of to shut these markets down or to frighten people off from buying in them.

But there is even another factor in play which few if anybody ever considers.
All types of activities have a certain life before they start to decay either though failing to move with changes in society or just plain bad management that develops over time or just the plain failure to see that the scene they have operated in for a generation or two is changing and the public attitudes to their activities are changing.

The supermarket concept had been developed through the 1970's had matured by the late 1980's and has now been around for some two generations.
It is highly likely that the supermarket concept as we know it and which seems so impregnable is facing it's moment of truth within the next decade or so.
Our society as always, is changing but in ways that have not yet been fully defined or understood.
The supermarket concept over the next decade may well start to decline as the very big players fail to realise that their previous very successful operating strategy is now starting to disintegrate before their eyes but like most organisations in this situation their operations and management will have become too sclerotic to change and adapt to the new circumstances.
Their time in the sun might soon be over as the sun as it always does eventually sets on empires of every kind.
And the supermarket chains are just another set of temporary empires that have come and will soon go again.

As I have so often seen through my life, when an organisation or a specific group of companies and the way they operate seem utterly impregnable and unstoppable anytime that one can see into the future, go looking for the white ants in the basement.
They will be there somewhere and the bigger the outfit the harder those white ants will be working on the foundations of that structure above them.

As food again starts to take an increasing portion of the wage packet which it will, it could well be that the many thousands of years old concept of the backyard vegie and fruit patch and the small neighbourhood market could well again appear as a common scene across the cities and country.

I really had to chuckle over this one considering the arguments and hype that has been a part and parcel of the promotion of organic foods that has been posted on this thread.
Says something that even wild birds can tell the difference between organic origin food and that which is conventionally grown and then go on to selectively prefer the conventionally grown foods.

From Science Daily.
Wild Birds Opt for Conventional Food Over Organic, Study Shows

Maybe those birds have a lesson for some people.

And Lubos Motl in his blog The Reference Frame makes a pertinent point.

Well ROM, if animals will eat the food that they require the most, then so will I. Its the same with farmed animals, your more likely to eat the healthiest in the paddock than one that is thin and sickly hey. Just like when you see spots or other marks on the fruit and vegies in a supermarket.... The story has run full circle!!! I know when I'm out hunting, I'll look over the animal in the cross hairs before I place the shot because I don't want to damage good meat, on the other hand, if it's diseased, just put it out of its misery.

"But because the conclusion of the research is the inconvenient one, you won't read about this paper almost anywhere."

Bullocks. The conclusion of the study is a very logical one, this is why you won't read about it anywhere. I don't find it very inconvenient either.

Here is a similar study I just ran in my head:

"95% of people prefer to buy cheap asian made socks rather than more expensive local made hand woven equivalents. Independent tests carried out in seperate shopping malls over two seasons found that people consumed considerably more asian fabricated socks compared to local varieties. Incredibly, even when the sock stands were switched around, the people still managed to locate the cheaper Chinese made socks. Sociologists explained that people need money to live, and will often try and save money to their advantage.
Dr Peters remarked that asian workers generally toiled for lower wages than local workers, thus the clothing they produce is less expensive. He also claimed that most products produced in asia tend to be cheaper thus the study has wide reaching implications for all sorts of things, such as cars, computers, violins and bras."