"GLOBALISATION CHEAPENS EVERYTHING."-- The True Cost of Cheap Food.

[Ladyhawke1]

My ex used to work in Malibu Canyon. It has one of the best-known wastewater treatment plants in the world. His motto was...Flush without fear.
Back to topic. There was an agreement at that time that the treatment plant could spread the treated waste on the farmers land. Only that land could not, at that time be in production of crops for human consumption. There was always testing for heavy metals and e-coli. Samples would be taken daily and sometimes hourly.

Now that was years ago and even then they were trying to convince the public that if this treated material was allowed to rest and let nature take its courseit could eventually be used as a safe fertilizer. I mean this was millions of acre feet from one treatment plant.

They wanted to do a tertiary treatment on the waste. That means it would be treated three times instead of twice. This was very expensive and I think it may have involved burning in an enclosed environment. The second benefit from this system... is that it would have produced an energy source from the contained burn off. Unfortunately, it was turned down by a very wealth community that live in the canyon. I am not sure what the canyon is doing today. However, I think that back then, the community set themselves back thirty years.

Of course people poop and animal poop are different things. But poop is not a bad thing if handled properly.

 

[Hattie the Hen]

I think this article belongs on this thread but I am anxious about the furore it might cause: so we must be careful. So far we have been allowed to keep it open.

This arrived on my laptop this morning:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/15

I am very concerned for farmers in other countries as well as my own.


Hattie

 

[Ladyhawke1]

I personally want to thank Hattie for bringing these things to our attention. These practices are worldwide and I think we must be kept informed in order to prevent these practices from harming others, including ourselves.

 

[Reinbeau]

From Hattie's link:

"The majority of people in the world are still farming on small farms," she said. "If we're addressing food security we'd better enhance the security of small farms."

Hmmm, now, could we possibly extrapolate from that statement that the majority of the world is feeding themselves from small, non-industrial based farms? But I thought we needed all this new-fangled GM garbage to feed the world! What could possibly be the real truth?

 

[wifezilla]

"Resilience is built through diversity," Shiva said.

Exactly!

(Nice pink elephant rb )

 

[Reinbeau]

"Resilience is built through diversity," Shiva said.

Exactly!

Yea, I liked that line, too.

(Nice pink elephant rb )

Thanx - gathered it along the way

 

[Ridgerunner]

Hi, Hattie. I admit I have not been following this thread in detail so I have missed a few posts but when I see you post, I definitely want to take a look.

Looking back a few posts, I'll just comment that Oklahoma is currently suing chicken interests in Arkansas, claiming that they are polluting the Illinois River by spreading chicken manure as fertilizer. While the case is not as simple as it may sound and will be determined by legalities, I thought it might bring a bit of a perspective to certain posts. Also, I remember being in a far eastern country during the spring thaw many years ago. Oh, the smell! This is a country where people have used night soil as fertilizer for a long time. This is a country with a high population density where people highly value privacy, yet the people are taught at a young age that if you are where you cannot go in a traditional place, you go where it can be found and used. This was many years ago.

Now, a couple of stories that I thought of while reading your article. My parents had a sweet potato variety that produced white sweet potatoes. They cooked up with a greenish tint, were not very stringy, had a nice flavor, were pretty prolific with thick potatoes instead of the long narrow ones. It was prized in our family. One year they did not grow it, I think around Dad's second round of heart atttacks. That sweet potato variety is now lost to our family. I've grown most of the available varieties of white sweet potatoes and none match up. How safe is it to depend on small farmers to maintain our genetic diversity in crops grown? I know Dad was willing to try new varieties to improve yield, sometimes not growing the older heirlooms.

Another story. In the 60's a rural Tennessee family lost their house and all their possessions to a fire. All family members escaped without injury, but they even lost their family car since it was parked too close to the house. This made the local TV and tens of thousands of dollars were donated to help the family get back on their feet. The parents immediately made a down payment on a trailer, a car, and appliances. Of course, they also bought clothes and some nice toys for the kids. In a few months the donations stopped and they lost the trailer, car, and appliances when they could not keep up with the payments. There was enough money originally donated to outright purchase a trailer, car, and appliances but they were not used to managing money.

The article implies that the sole reason for bankrupcy was the farmers buying the seed instead of saving seed. I wonder if this explanation might be a bit simplistic. Do you think it was possible that after a couple of years of good harvest with the hybrid seed, lifestyle and expectations had changed so that after a bad year bankrupcy was more of a possibility? I just feel that there is often more to the story than is sometimes given. Yes, I am petty cynical.

The article also implied that the mean old seed companies made the farmers buy new seed every year. At least, that's the way I read it. If it is hybrid seed, I would not want to subject my families livelihood to saving it and planting it. I feel they probably switched to the hybrid seed to try to improve their lot in life.

I don't have the answers. I'm not even sure of the right questions. I don't know how to insure the genetic diversity of our plants. I don't know how to solve the problem of the earth's human polulation expanding thoughout history so that a significant percentage is always living on the edge, where a bad harvest means starvation to many people or that some people are on a starvation diet even in good years. I don't want to destroy the big corporations that are financing research that just may, possibly, hopefully find an answer. I am concerned that with the rise in worldwide communications expectations are rising and we could be in for some really unsettled times in the fairly near future. I do believe if we expand the food supply to where we can feed the world's hungry, the population will expand to where we have more hungry people. I do believe the questions and the answers are not as simple as many people seem to believe and that they have to take human nature into account.

Thanks, Hattie. Your articles are interesting and thought-provoking.

 

[Ladyhawke1]

Hi, Hattie. I admit I have not been following this thread in detail so I have missed a few posts but when I see you post, I definitely want to take a look.

Looking back a few posts, I'll just comment that Oklahoma is currently suing chicken interests in Arkansas, claiming that they are polluting the Illinois River by spreading chicken manure as fertilizer. While the case is not as simple as it may sound and will be determined by legalities, I thought it might bring a bit of a perspective to certain posts. Also, I remember being in a far eastern country during the spring thaw many years ago. Oh, the smell! This is a country where people have used night soil as fertilizer for a long time. This is a country with a high population density where people highly value privacy, yet the people are taught at a young age that if you are where you cannot go in a traditional place, you go where it can be found and used. This was many years ago.

Now, a couple of stories that I thought of while reading your article. My parents had a sweet potato variety that produced white sweet potatoes. They cooked up with a greenish tint, were not very stringy, had a nice flavor, were pretty prolific with thick potatoes instead of the long narrow ones. It was prized in our family. One year they did not grow it, I think around Dad's second round of heart atttacks. That sweet potato variety is now lost to our family. I've grown most of the available varieties of white sweet potatoes and none match up. How safe is it to depend on small farmers to maintain our genetic diversity in crops grown? I know Dad was willing to try new varieties to improve yield, sometimes not growing the older heirlooms.

Another story. In the 60's a rural Tennessee family lost their house and all their possessions to a fire. All family members escaped without injury, but they even lost their family car since it was parked too close to the house. This made the local TV and tens of thousands of dollars were donated to help the family get back on their feet. The parents immediately made a down payment on a trailer, a car, and appliances. Of course, they also bought clothes and some nice toys for the kids. In a few months the donations stopped and they lost the trailer, car, and appliances when they could not keep up with the payments. There was enough money originally donated to outright purchase a trailer, car, and appliances but they were not used to managing money.

The article implies that the sole reason for bankrupcy was the farmers buying the seed instead of saving seed. I wonder if this explanation might be a bit simplistic. Do you think it was possible that after a couple of years of good harvest with the hybrid seed, lifestyle and expectations had changed so that after a bad year bankrupcy was more of a possibility? I just feel that there is often more to the story than is sometimes given. Yes, I am petty cynical.

The article also implied that the mean old seed companies made the farmers buy new seed every year. At least, that's the way I read it. If it is hybrid seed, I would not want to subject my families livelihood to saving it and planting it. I feel they probably switched to the hybrid seed to try to improve their lot in life.

I don't have the answers. I'm not even sure of the right questions. I don't know how to insure the genetic diversity of our plants. I don't know how to solve the problem of the earth's human polulation expanding thoughout history so that a significant percentage is always living on the edge, where a bad harvest means starvation to many people or that some people are on a starvation diet even in good years. I don't want to destroy the big corporations that are financing research that just may, possibly, hopefully find an answer. I am concerned that with the rise in worldwide communications expectations are rising and we could be in for some really unsettled times in the fairly near future. I do believe if we expand the food supply to where we can feed the world's hungry, the population will expand to where we have more hungry people. I do believe the questions and the answers are not as simple as many people seem to believe and that they have to take human nature into account.

Thanks, Hattie. Your articles are interesting and thought-provoking.

Dear Ridgerunner:

You said:

The article implies that the sole reason for bankrupcy was the farmers buying the seed instead of saving seed. I wonder if this explanation might be a bit simplistic. Do you think it was possible that after a couple of years of good harvest with the hybrid seed, lifestyle and expectations had changed so that after a bad year bankrupcy was more of a possibility? I just feel that there is often more to the story than is sometimes given. Yes, I am petty cynical.

I am assuming that you are talking about Hatties link to the article on India I do not believe that you are privy to the whole story. Do a Google on Wikipedia on Monsanto. The subject is a very lengthy one and this problem has been going on for over fifteen years or more.

There are farmers here in the States, and in Canada that can tell you how Monsanto has dealt with them for being accused of using seeds from their crops bought from Monsanto. They have been arrested, taken to court and sue over this matter.

Farmers in India could NOT save seed. It was against the law and if I am not mistakenthere may be terminator technology involved. If you check out Monsanto and "Terminator Technology". Moreover, if you believe that Monsanto says it has stopped doing this type of technology, then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[vfem]

Hi, Hattie. I admit I have not been following this thread in detail so I have missed a few posts but when I see you post, I definitely want to take a look.

Looking back a few posts, I'll just comment that Oklahoma is currently suing chicken interests in Arkansas, claiming that they are polluting the Illinois River by spreading chicken manure as fertilizer. While the case is not as simple as it may sound and will be determined by legalities, I thought it might bring a bit of a perspective to certain posts. Also, I remember being in a far eastern country during the spring thaw many years ago. Oh, the smell! This is a country where people have used night soil as fertilizer for a long time. This is a country with a high population density where people highly value privacy, yet the people are taught at a young age that if you are where you cannot go in a traditional place, you go where it can be found and used. This was many years ago.

Now, a couple of stories that I thought of while reading your article. My parents had a sweet potato variety that produced white sweet potatoes. They cooked up with a greenish tint, were not very stringy, had a nice flavor, were pretty prolific with thick potatoes instead of the long narrow ones. It was prized in our family. One year they did not grow it, I think around Dad's second round of heart atttacks. That sweet potato variety is now lost to our family. I've grown most of the available varieties of white sweet potatoes and none match up. How safe is it to depend on small farmers to maintain our genetic diversity in crops grown? I know Dad was willing to try new varieties to improve yield, sometimes not growing the older heirlooms.

Another story. In the 60's a rural Tennessee family lost their house and all their possessions to a fire. All family members escaped without injury, but they even lost their family car since it was parked too close to the house. This made the local TV and tens of thousands of dollars were donated to help the family get back on their feet. The parents immediately made a down payment on a trailer, a car, and appliances. Of course, they also bought clothes and some nice toys for the kids. In a few months the donations stopped and they lost the trailer, car, and appliances when they could not keep up with the payments. There was enough money originally donated to outright purchase a trailer, car, and appliances but they were not used to managing money.

The article implies that the sole reason for bankrupcy was the farmers buying the seed instead of saving seed. I wonder if this explanation might be a bit simplistic. Do you think it was possible that after a couple of years of good harvest with the hybrid seed, lifestyle and expectations had changed so that after a bad year bankrupcy was more of a possibility? I just feel that there is often more to the story than is sometimes given. Yes, I am petty cynical.

The article also implied that the mean old seed companies made the farmers buy new seed every year. At least, that's the way I read it. If it is hybrid seed, I would not want to subject my families livelihood to saving it and planting it. I feel they probably switched to the hybrid seed to try to improve their lot in life.

I don't have the answers. I'm not even sure of the right questions. I don't know how to insure the genetic diversity of our plants. I don't know how to solve the problem of the earth's human polulation expanding thoughout history so that a significant percentage is always living on the edge, where a bad harvest means starvation to many people or that some people are on a starvation diet even in good years. I don't want to destroy the big corporations that are financing research that just may, possibly, hopefully find an answer. I am concerned that with the rise in worldwide communications expectations are rising and we could be in for some really unsettled times in the fairly near future. I do believe if we expand the food supply to where we can feed the world's hungry, the population will expand to where we have more hungry people. I do believe the questions and the answers are not as simple as many people seem to believe and that they have to take human nature into account.

Thanks, Hattie. Your articles are interesting and thought-provoking.

Dear Ridgerunner:

You said:

The article implies that the sole reason for bankrupcy was the farmers buying the seed instead of saving seed. I wonder if this explanation might be a bit simplistic. Do you think it was possible that after a couple of years of good harvest with the hybrid seed, lifestyle and expectations had changed so that after a bad year bankrupcy was more of a possibility? I just feel that there is often more to the story than is sometimes given. Yes, I am petty cynical.

I am assuming that you are talking about Hatties link to the article on India I do not believe that you are privy to the whole story. Do a Google on Wikipedia on Monsanto. The subject is a very lengthy one and this problem has been going on for over fifteen years or more.

There are farmers here in the States, and in Canada that can tell you how Monsanto has dealt with them for being accused of using seeds from their crops bought from Monsanto. They have been arrested, taken to court and sue over this matter.

Farmers in India could NOT save seed. It was against the law and if I am not mistakenthere may be terminator technology involved. If you check out Monsanto and "Terminator Technology". Moreover, if you believe that Monsanto says it has stopped doing this type of technology, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Ok Just to say this while I know the answer I must get a copy of the statement from Des Moine. Farmers using 'super crops' pay more per bag of seed then they should... in other words it may give them great crop yield but fails to fix the issue of yield worth! Costs have been calculated that the average bushel of corn is worth $1.50 and the average cost to grow it (including seed cost and farm cost BUT NOT the cost of equiptment replacement and repair) is $2.50!!!

I think the issue is the explaination IS too simple. The costs are too high, the demand too low and the land HAS to produce something.

Ok, but that's not what I came to post and like Ridgerunner, I have not read this whole thread so if I'm off topic and commenting inapproprately I apologize.

What I came to post was this, the fertilization of our land using war time weapons which were unused for killing, and now expected to feed us. We polluted our own food and fields. We can NOT blame any type of pollution of chicken waste, or pretty much anything other then the fact we mixed natural waste with unnatural waste and no mater what we do, we all still produce waste that can NOT be quality controlled.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/presence-jul06.html

And here's the water damage that is nearly un-reversible from our GREAT farming ways in the Midwest! Go ahead and point fingers, but its a collection of 40 years of damage to our soil.

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

Ok I just thought it was good info, good reads and probably fit it well here.

 

[Ladyhawke1]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/14-5

The latest business practices. If you snooze, you lose.