Canada-Europe free trade agreement could be final in 6 months

[Kuciwalker]

No I'm not. I'm calling rural disenfranchisement an externality of optimal produce pricing.

Yes, and that is begging the question! You have to actually establish that it is an externality, that is a cost or benefit not represented in prices. The first step there is establishing that it is a cost in the first place! You haven't presented anything to show that.

Large corporations that transform milk suffer very little from price variations; producers take all the shots, and should get some help.

1. That is utterly untrue. Large corporations involved in commodity production, distribution, etc. are tremendously exposed to fluctuations in commodity prices. You are Just Wrong.

2. This is why commodity futures markets exist. Producers are completely capable of hedging their exposure to price fluctuations, for a fee.

And I'm sure that if people want to buy fries made of non-hydrogenated oil, someone will sell it to them.

I'm pretty sure you can, in fact, buy that sort of food at the supermarket.

There is no lack of transformed product diversity, but there is a clear lack of brute resource diversity. Read more on agriculture.

Who cares about the latter?

Better products are available in Quebec too; we're just keeping a minimum quality level for large scale supply.

Weren't you the one going on about choice? Why not let consumers choose to pay less for less quality or more for more quality?

And yes indeed, I suspect in this case that the division of benefits into a high number of smaller actors preserves a check of power.

You're an idiot. You are putting a check on the power to defraud consumers by... giving out the power to defraud consumers! Without the quota MAYBE a large corporation would be able to lobby for a handouts; therefore we must PREEMPTIVELY give away those handouts!

[Fake Boris]

I tried to remain civil with you, but you're a piece of ****. Do you think that I don't understand that prices will be lower without quotas?

I've had enough of ***** who don't do their homework, don't read stuff from alternative sources.

Industrial agriculture pollutes more than family agriculture. More cows per acre, lower quality fodder, more antibiotics, more of just about any bull**** you can think of. MBAs don't care about animals, people who call them by their names do. And people who call their cows by their names won't feed them with their own **** until they develop mad cow disease.

You want a proof that industrial agriculture hurts rural areas. Do you live under a ****ing rock?

[Fake Boris]

Some numbers, if you really need them:

Industrial farms have 8x the cow/acre ratio.
Family farmers work 3x as much time per cow. Hint: it's not just efficiency.
Family farmers spend 50% more on feeding their cows. Hint: it's not just economies of scale.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Industrial agriculture pollutes more than family agriculture. More cows per acre, lower quality fodder, more antibiotics, more of just about any bull**** you can think of. MBAs don't care about animals, people who call them by their names do. And people who call their cows by their names won't feed them with their own **** until they develop mad cow disease.

This is wrong on so many levels.

[Fake Boris]

It's true in Quebec, where small farmers don't have to compete agains the big ones.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Some numbers, if you really need them:

Industrial farms have 8x the cow/acre ratio.

This is acutally a good thing considering idled pasture land of the family farmers are more often than not completely destroyed by the livestock and are subject to erosion far greater than the feedyard approaches of the larger farms.

Family farmers work 3x as much time per cow. Hint: it's not just efficiency.

In fact it is primarily inefficiency. Take it from me, most of the time is spent on fence maintenance and animal tranpsort to and from auxiliary feed lots, milking parlours, or fresh pastures.

Family farmers spend 50% more on feeding their cows. Hint: it's not just economies of scale.

In fact it usually is. Furthermore the choice of feeds for smaller herds is more often than not what is available. Be it low nutritional value grasses and the like raised on the farm or corn etc. Only when a concerted effort is done to understand the best nutritional input to maximize outputs (god forbid science come into play) does the augmentation of protein and other nutritional supplements come into play. And yes, as a result the animals are indeed healthier. One could argue that housewives of the 18th century spent 12 hours a day preparing meals and yet the nutrional value of those meals still didn't prevent nutritional diseases of the time.

Your posts give indication that you have never experienced operations at the farm level.

Somehow you have the romantic notion that the farmers who have named their cows Bessie will be a kinder gentler farmer. That is purely a crock.

[Fake Boris]

I know you were going to say this; hence you ignored my previous post.

I don't have a romantic vision, I just happen to think it's not as bad.

EDIT:

1) You are begging the question on the issue of cows/acres. Surely reducing the ratio would curb erosion.

2) I take your word for it on the issue of time spent (i.e. "Primarily inefficiency"); then I think it would be normal for someone who has less cows per acre to spend more time on fence maintenance.

3) Quebec fodder has a specific reputation for being high quality.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I don't have a romantic vision, I just happen to think it's not as bad.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, wrong as it may be.

[Fake Boris]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, wrong as it may be.

Ironically, your experience might demonstrate that quotas do make farming slightly different.

[The Mad Monk]

The quota system is on a production basis, not attached to cows.

I would presume that there is a capital investment that depends on your number of cows. If you have to reduce your number of cows, you are under-utilizing your capital and you might want to find a buyer that can afford to use it optimally (he has better margins than you do).

Apparently another significant factor is inheritance. Since quotas have such a high value, children don't have the cash to pay the taxes and decide to sell.

That sounds like quotas are indirectly damaging family (small) farms through the tax system.

[Fake Boris]

That sounds like quotas are indirectly damaging family (small) farms through the tax system.

Of course nothing is perfect.

[The Mad Monk]

Perfect is one thing, but this is looking more like reversing the intended effect.

[Fake Boris]

Before I go to my long week-end and leave this discussion, some final thoughts:

1. Kuci, I don't think you're a piece of ****, but you're annoying as hell sometimes.
2. I didn't know much about this topic, but seeing some posters' insistence, I downloaded 2 academic articles and consulted agricultural newspapers.
3. Ogie: your point about erosion seems wrong to me, for the reason I expressed in post #187, and also because feed-yards IIUC just shovel away erosion to the fodder provider.

[Kuciwalker]

I tried to remain civil with you, but you're a piece of ****. Do you think that I don't understand that prices will be lower without quotas?

Where have I ever accused you of not understanding it?

For that matter, have I even appealed to that point in this thread? I don't think I have. I've been rebutting your ridiculous claims about consumer choice and the virtues of small producers.

Industrial agriculture pollutes more than family agriculture.

1. Not always true.

2. It's actually EASIER for the government to regulate pollution caused by large producers than by small ones. Regulation has economies of scale.

More cows per acre

What's wrong with that?

lower quality fodder

What's wrong with that?

more antibiotics

What's wrong with that? I can think of some reasons for myself, but none where the best solution is "oh, we should just get rid of all the large producers".

MBAs don't care about animals, people who call them by their names do.

Wait, you are appealing to my sympathy for my dinner?

These animals exist to be killed and eaten. This is a good thing, because they are ****ing delicious.

And people who call their cows by their names won't feed them with their own **** until they develop mad cow disease.

This seems like another problem that has a simpler solution than "get rid of all the large producers". And what do you do when the next disease comes along, and it turns out that the techniques small farmers employ make it worse?

You want a proof that industrial agriculture hurts rural areas. Do you live under a ****ing rock?

No, I want a proof that there is a cost not reflected in prices.

[Tupac Shakur]

2. I didn't know much about this topic

Obviously. Your problem is that you don't seem to know much about any topic, but always argue as if you do.