Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

[phillp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Ken,

When I was chair of the Manitoba Milk Control Board/ Milk Prices
Review Commission we found that medium size producers where
by far the most efficient producers -- i.e about 60 milking cows.
Large producers were not efficient and small producers were not
either although in this case, because they were usually part of
mixed farming operations, any standard measure of 'efficiency' is
highly suspect.  As you know, the same debate is being blown up
at the moment about large scale versus small scale pig farming.  I
would expect that when externalities were included, large scale
operations would cease to be economically efficient.  Whether the
current investigation of this issue under way in Manitoba will look at
externalities is problematic.  The NDP has developed blinkers as
opaque as its neanderthal Conservative predecessors.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba

ps. on a totally different strain, my understanding is that airline
pilots get a very high return out of owning/using dishwashers.
Since they can't fly when they have colds, the decrease in colds
due to dishwashers brings an enormous return in terms of decline
of lost wages.  In my own family, the decline in colds/flus has been
incredible -- and we don't pre-wash our dishes.
  Date sent:      	Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:42:29 -0500
From:           	Ken Hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Send reply to:  	pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To:             	pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:        	[PEN-L:21062] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd:
Position in the
	World-System and   National Emissions of]

> Perhaps Louis could explain what he means by small farms being more productive.
> Even if it is true of some small farms producing some items I am not sure what
> its relevance is to anything. If you can grow 50,000 watermelon on 10 acres but
> only 90,000 on 20 acres and you have a profit of 20 cents per melon is the
> farmer supposed to choose to farm 10 acres on the ground that the smaller farm
> is more productive?
>     I doubt that smaller farms are more productive around here as compared to
> larger ones but whether they are or are not they often end up being sold to
> larger farmers because farmers cannot make a living from them.
>     There is a smidgin of truth in Mark's remarks but small farmers certainly
> are not dead. The term small farm is undefined by Lou. A small farm here would
> be around a section i.e. a square mile. In the foothills of the Rockies or the
> Aussie outback that size unit would be a joke. In Japan it would be beyond most
> farmer's dreams. I can recall Don Wheeler a former economics prof. lecturing in
> Hungary. When he told them that farmers with a quarter section of land would
> starve in most areas of Manitoba they were sure he was spouting Commie
> propaganda. THis was when Hungary was communist.
>     It would be nice to have some statististics. I expect the trend is that
> larger farms are increeasingly responsible for a larger proportion of total
> production but that smaller farms may not be decreasing all that quickly in
> number. Many smaller farms survive by family members having off-farm jobs. In
> fact some larger farms may crash from cash-flow problems as they over-invest and
> then have a crop failure with resultant crushing debt loads. I expect that the
> number of hobby farms may be increasing as well. But where are the data?
>     CHeers, Ken Hanly
>
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> > Small farming is dead. It doesn't exist esp in the US. 'Farmers' are the
> > social equivalent of laundromat-owners, the economically disenfranchised,
> > overmortgaged persons who apply lots of energy and toxic chemicals to things
> > and hope for the best. In the UK, the class of prepacked sandwich-makers is
> > more numerous than the class of farmers. I'm sure it's the same in the US.
> >
> > Mark Jones
> > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> > > Sent: 30 June 2000 17:37
> > > To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [PEN-L:21031] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the
> > > World-System and National Emissions of]
> > >
> > >
> > > Louis Proyect wrote:
> > >
> > > >Doug:
> > > >>Does the revo also mean there won't be modern transportation,
> > > >>chemical fertilizers, mechnized plowing and reaping, etc.? Then
> > > >>there's truly no way to sustain a world population of more than, say,
> > > >>a billion people, maybe fewer - meaning that at least 80% of us have
> > > >>to go.
> > > >
> > > >You don't seem to be aware that smaller farms are more productive than
> > > >large agribusiness type concerns.
> > >
> > > Where did I endorse large agribusiness? If small farms are more
> > > productive, then let's have more of them; I'm all for separating the
> > > imperatives of capital from those of real social efficiency and
> > > humaneness. But even small farms use modern transportation and
> > > machines.
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
>