On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:34:40 -0600, Tom Bri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> A more likely scenario is for highly intensified agriculture, high
> input on small acreage, to gradually replace our current extensive
> style. I doubt this will occur either though, as there is no current
> rationale for it other than the ideology of a small number of people.
As petroleum gets more and more expensive, the costs associated with it  
will
override the current push toward fewer and fewer people farming per acre.
Our present agriculture is efficient only if you count in man-hours.  In
yield per acre it is very far behind more intensive techniques.  Small  
acreages
incorporating animals in the mix are the most efficient in terms of food  
produced
per acre.

> A lot of the less desirable aspects of modern farming came about
> because of government mandates and other meddling. Farmers have always
> used small amounts of grain to finish cattle, but it wasn't until the
> government got into subsidizing grain farmers to overproduce that
> there was such a reliable surplus that it became the norm to
> grain-feed cattle.
Amen!  They've extended the grain-feeding periods as far as they can  
without
the cattle dying from the inappropriate diet before they can get them  
slaughtered.
It's bizarre, if you think about it.  For millenia, if not longer, people  
have avoided
eating animals that are sick or died by themselves.  Now, most of the meat  
we get is
 from sick animals; we just don't know it because they're processed  
thousands of miles away out of our sight.

> I don't see us changing our governing structure any time soon.
I think the changes will come regardless of the governing structure, and
over the "dead bodies", so to speak, of the agribusiness lobbyists.

	Lynnet