6 ms·

I find myself agreeing with most of what you said, but just wanted to address a couple things. >>You wouldn't need all the farmers in the US to convert to his

I find myself agreeing with most of what you said, but just wanted to address a couple things. >>You wouldn't need all the farmers in the US to convert to his methods, since he's far more productive per acre you could have 1/4 of the acreage (and presumably 1/4 of the farmers) that are used in conventional farming and still produce the same output. I'm not sure about this. It seems today that most conventional farm operations are fairly large (speaking from my experience in the Midwest). Not only would they need to restructure their operations, they would also need to scale down significantly. So we would actually need more farmers. Not to mention that Salatin's region is well suited for raising animals. I would venture to guess that farmers in arid regions would not fare as well. Furthermore, this still wouldn't meet our demands. Salatin talks about seasonality; there are certain times of the year when it makes sense to slaughter cows, chickens, pigs, etc. We demand all of these meats even when they are out of season. It wasn't to long ago that we reserved beef for special occasions. Now some people eat beef multiple times a day on a consistent basis. >>That kind of competitive advantage might make it possible for start-up farms to grow and slowly buy out retiring farmers so that no tremendous upheaval is necessary for new ideas to become the norm. I am hoping that something like this will happen, but Wall Street is also interested in this land[0]. We need to decrease our demand in the cheap, convenient food that Wall Street makes money off of and increase our demand in high quality, local food. If we do this then our demand for meat will also decrease because we will start to eat with the seasons in mind. [0] - http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-individuals-are-looking-to-invest-in-farmland-and-timberland-1405706090 http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-individuals-are-looking-to-...

msandford 11y ago
On the first point, you're right. It will require more farmers. But if you increase the productivity of the land and don't grow an intermediate feed it might not be as bad. And because there are multiple things going on (cows, meat chickens, egg chickens, etc) that does help from a productivity standpoint. On the second point, I think it'a s business that's decidedly unfriendly to scale which means that it's protected (to an extent) from being over financialized or otherwise exploited. Wealthy folks may buy land, but in this farming model it's not the land that's the limiting factor; it's farmers. And there are plenty of young people who can't get real jobs these days that are getting pretty fed up with their traditional prospects. If you could earn a real living farming that doesn't require you to sell your soul that might look very attractive to a lot of people. Now the wealthy folks bidding up the price of land such that "normal" people can't afford enough land to make a go of it, well, that's a real risk. But since the land is so much more productive it's easier to make it happen. You don't need to farm 1000 acres to make a living if you spend little/nothing on inputs and sell fairly pricey outputs. 50 acres might be enough to earn a low middle class income that you can slowly grow to upper middle class as your herd grows and you buy more land.
wtbob 11y ago
> Furthermore, this still wouldn't meet our demands. Well, nothing will ever meet our demands: we want everything, for nothing. But if the prices of meats were allowed to fluctuate in the open market, then people would eat less when there's less to go around, and more when there's more.

msandford 11y ago

On the first point, you're right. It will require more farmers. But if you increase the productivity of the land and don't grow an intermediate feed it might not be as bad. And because there are multiple things going on (cows, meat chickens, egg chickens, etc) that does help from a productivity standpoint. On the second point, I think it'a s business that's decidedly unfriendly to scale which means that it's protected (to an extent) from being over financialized or otherwise exploited. Wealthy folks may buy land, but in this farming model it's not the land that's the limiting factor; it's farmers. And there are plenty of young people who can't get real jobs these days that are getting pretty fed up with their traditional prospects. If you could earn a real living farming that doesn't require you to sell your soul that might look very attractive to a lot of people. Now the wealthy folks bidding up the price of land such that "normal" people can't afford enough land to make a go of it, well, that's a real risk. But since the land is so much more productive it's easier to make it happen. You don't need to farm 1000 acres to make a living if you spend little/nothing on inputs and sell fairly pricey outputs. 50 acres might be enough to earn a low middle class income that you can slowly grow to upper middle class as your herd grows and you buy more land.

wtbob 11y ago

> Furthermore, this still wouldn't meet our demands. Well, nothing will ever meet our demands: we want everything, for nothing. But if the prices of meats were allowed to fluctuate in the open market, then people would eat less when there's less to go around, and more when there's more.