Farmers: Stewards of the Countryside or Profiteers ?

zidangus

Well I have just been reading an article in the Guardian about, the National Trust setting up Badger TB vaccinations to stop TB spreading to cattle,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/20/national-trust-badger-vaccine-trial
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13121520

this seems a good idea, however, the UK government and the Farmers Union want to do a mass cull of Badgers, even though scientists who have researched this have said that culling is not the answer and it may make the situation worse. Moreover, Badgers are actually a protected species in the UK.
It seems to me from this and a lot of other stories I have been reading, that a lot of Farmers don't actually care about Wildlife or the Environment, they just care about money and profit. Do people think this view is a fair reflection on Farmers ?
What are Farmers like in your country are they similar ?

With Metta

compassionate_warrior

There are farmers, and then there are farmers. The small family farm has been gradually disappearing in the US. Large corporate farms dominate, and they are all about profit. Small farmers are usually happy if they make enough money to feed their family for the year. But all farmers do need to take steps to minimize or eliminate damage from pests. How an issue like the one you present would be handled, I don't know. In some parts of the US, wolves have been culled in the past, to protect livestock, though it's very controversial. Vaccinating the badgers certainly seems more humane than culling, though probably much more costly.

zidangus

Here is some more on this story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_bovis

I don't know CW, in this country, whenever something like this happens, the first response from Farmers is to kill. Anything that affects their profit seems to be vermin and has to be killed. I just don't like this attitude that a lot of farmers come across as having. Your right about the large corporate farms they don't care about the welfare of their own animals never mind that of the wildlife.


With Metta

vinlyn

It seems to me from this and a lot of other stories I have been reading, that a lot of Farmers don't actually care about Wildlife or the Environment, they just care about money and profit. Do people think this view is a fair reflection on Farmers ?
What are Farmers like in your country are they similar ?

With Metta

I don't think it's an easy answer. The few farmers I have known or know of, both back east, and here in Colorado are not the big farm conglomerates. They have smaller farms and they more than make ends meet...but not by much. There is quite a controversy out here now about farmers over-farming some of the High Plains, and worrying if it could become another sort of Dust Bowl (interestingly, a theme of an old Spencer Tracy movie -- "The Sea Of Grass" -- I watched just the other night).

In Wyoming there's a lot of controversy about brucellosis, a disease quite common in bison in Yellowstone NP, and how farmers are adamant about thinning buffalo herds to protect their cattle (I've oversimplified that a great deal). But again, most of these farmers are not doing much more than making ends meet.

I think it's a difficult situation to sort out.

compassionate_warrior

AFAIK, the issue doesn't come up much in the US, except with wolves, as I mentioned. We don't have badger invasions. But the response tends to be the same; predators are regarded as a threat to the farmers' livelihood. I find the fact impressive that England is even considering vaccination as an alternative. Cattle and buffalo (also a popular source of meat in some parts of the US) can be affected by the disease, brucellosis, and have to be destroyed when an infection is discovered. If Buddhists were to raise cows for milk, I wonder how they would handle disease outbreaks.

zombiegirl

i'm not sure that the picture you paint of farmers is incorrect zidangus. in my experience, most farmers don't put that much effort into thinking about the bigger picture. i don't mean to say that they are simple minded, but they tend to have a different perspective of life and death than you or i might. farmers are typically used to killing animals regularly, be it vermin, livestock, or just food from hunting. it's not surprising that they might support such a thing. they also tend to be rather territorial. those of us that live in less rural areas might own a yard and somewhat understand the idea, but it's different for farmers who sustain their livelihood by working their land. living on a farm always made the world seem so much smaller to me, somehow. you might not be as concerned with the world at large when you pour so much of your blood, sweat, and tears into your own little spot on this earth, if this makes sense. but also keep in mind that while it might not be incorrect to say that their focus is on "money and profit," most farmers are very far from wealthy. i think it would be better to phrase it "most farmers just care about sustaining"

zidangus

I hear what your saying zombiegirl, farmers do work hard that I understand, Im not sure about most farmers being far from wealthy, well not in the UK, I think most are wealthy, certainly not what I would consider poor anyway.
To me, since they own a large portion of the countryside, they should take on more responsibility regarding wildlife conservation and protecting the countryside, and also allowing more access to public rights of way through their land (a lot of farmers where I live do not like you walking on their land, even though there are public footpaths which go through it).
Maybe governments could give grants to farmers to be more pro conservation, but I would rather they had a genuine attitude to do this themself, rather than be motivated by money.

With Metta

zombiegirl

I hear what your saying zombiegirl, farmers do work hard that I understand, Im not sure about most farmers being far from wealthy, well not in the UK, I think most are wealthy, certainly not what I would consider poor anyway.
To me, since they own a large portion of the countryside, they should take on more responsibility regarding wildlife conservation and protecting the countryside, and also allowing more access to public rights of way through their land (a lot of farmers where I live do not like you walking on their land, even though there are public footpaths which go through it).
Maybe governments could give grants to farmers to be more pro conservation, but I would rather they had a genuine attitude to do this themself, rather than be motivated by money.

With Metta

i honestly have no idea what it is like in the UK, this is coming from a midwestern american experience. i went to school in a farming community and my grandfather was a farmer. we still own the land, but since he passed, we don't do much of anything with it. most farmers i know are "okay" financially. they make a decent living and aren't exactly poor, but i don't think i know any that i would consider "wealthy". and of course, all of this could change with one bad season because it is their income. perhaps the reason that they are so protective of their land is because nothing is secure. you can only depend on your crops so much, if you know what i mean.

and you don't need to tell me about how territorial they are. we used to get in so much trouble for running around through other farmers' lands, lol. i never could figure out how they knew though...

i understand your perspective, but i think it would take a lot of education to be able to implement it. but as far as america, we're so broke i really can't see anything like that happening in the near future.

zidangus

but as far as america, we're so broke i really can't see anything like that happening in the near future.

Same here, If you listen to the UK government , were on the breadline. I'm not so convinced about it tough.

:scratch:

Dakini

The US is washed up, gang. It's over. It's keeping the dollar afloat by bluffing, there's absolutely nothing backing it but astronomical debt. And the gov't still allows the corporations to call the shots, therefore tightening the noose they're strangling the country with.

Lots of small farms have gone under; this process started around the middle of the last century. Interesting that small farms are still the norm in England. In the US, farmland is all private property, there's no public access, you can't go walking through people's property.

hermitwin

There is too much politics in farming.
Farmers are caught between the rock & a hard place.
Huge corporations are only interested in profit.
I will make a distinction between corp & individual farmers.

Dakini

An uncle of mine was a farmer. He said it's way too expensive for individual farmers to buy the farm equipment, harvesters, etc., so all the farmers in one neighborhood contribute to buy equipment and share it. This is why corporate farms are more cost-effective. But it seems like there needs to be a "middle way" between the extreme of huge farms and their chemically-oriented practices, and small family farms that struggle. The organic farmers seem to be doing ok, but that's because they're able to sell their produce for higher prices.

zidangus

The UK farmers, well at least where I live, seem wealthy, I wonder if its because of all the EU subsidies they get, as it sounds like US farmers are not so well of, which is surprising to me.

With Metta

Dakini

Well, like we said, zid, the corporate farmers rake in the subsidies (they get paid for not growing certain crops that are in surplus, they get water subsidies, they get all kinds of stuff), and because they grow in huge quantities, it's more cost-effective for them, so they're rich. The family farmers just hope to make a decent living. Some succeed, some don't. They also get subsidies, but I suppose since they have much less acreage, they don't get as much, plus they have all that expensive equipment to deal with, they take out loans they're at risk of defaulting on, if there's a bad harvest, bad weather, whatever. It's a marginal existence for small farmers.

zidangus

A lot of farmers in the UK hire out their equipment also, to cut hedges for the local government, to plough snow in winter that kind of stuff.

Dakini

Your concept of farmers as stewards of the countryside is interesting, zid. Native American farmers always operated as stewards of nature. I don't know what they did to keep wild animals out of their cornfields. But their farming practices were much more healthy for the soil than European practices. When Europeans arrived, they'd do monoculture, and deplete the soil in no time, then would require new land from the Natives, who after a while would get annoyed that these foreigners were coming in and trashing their fertile land, then demanding more and more, to trash it all over again. The concept of stewardship was beyond any of the Europeans at the time.

vinlyn

Your concept of farmers as stewards of the countryside is interesting, zid. Native American farmers always operated as stewards of nature. I don't know what they did to keep wild animals out of their cornfields. But their farming practices were much more healthy for the soil than European practices. When Europeans arrived, they'd do monoculture, and deplete the soil in no time, then would require new land from the Natives, who after a while would get annoyed that these foreigners were coming in and trashing their fertile land, then demanding more and more, to trash it all over again. The concept of stewardship was beyond any of the Europeans at the time.

But keep in mind that American Indians were also primarily subsistence farmers who grew just enough crops for their own village. The white culture was more about some people being farmers and supplying food to the rest...therefore farming being on a much bigger scale.

And, one might be able to make a case that a life of subsistence farming resulting in the lack of a culture which could go up against what was coming.

But I do agree, mass farming certainly hasn't always sustained the land, and involves a great deal of carelessness. On the other hand, what used to be the wheat belt (western NYS...that's a major reason why the Erie Canal was built) has now mostly reforested.

Dakini

But keep in mind that American Indians were also primarily subsistence farmers who grew just enough crops for their own village. The white culture was more about some people being farmers and supplying food to the rest...therefore farming being on a much bigger scale.

Good point. Even when the colonists arrived, most were required to produce excess to send back to their sponsors in Europe; the colonies were expected to be profitable for their investors.

vinlyn

But keep in mind that American Indians were also primarily subsistence farmers who grew just enough crops for their own village. The white culture was more about some people being farmers and supplying food to the rest...therefore farming being on a much bigger scale.

Good point. Even when the colonists arrived, most were required to produce excess to send back to their sponsors in Europe; the colonies were expected to be profitable for their investors.

I think that MAYBE we have some ideas about the Indians that are a bit too generous. For example, there's no question that the White Man plundered the buffalo for the fur. The Indians took only what they needed...or was it that they didn't have the capability of large scale killing of the buffalo and a system of trade?

I don't know the answer...just wondering.

Dakini

This raises a larger question about Indigenous people in general. Here's a nutshell encapsulation of how things work: often when they enter a new ecosystem for the first time, they don't understand how it works (Easter Island is a good example). They can over-hunt and do real damage, especially if it's a limited land-base, like an island. If they live in a place long enough to observe and learn, then they realized that the way to survive is via prudent culling of animals, rather than complete eradication. The settlers in N America often took the buffalo for meat, sometimes just for the skins, sometimes just for the tongue, a delicacy (think: Chinese Shark Fin Soup). Native people took what they needed only, said a prayer of thanks before killing the animal (that a psychological set-up for not over-hunting), and thought in terms of the next 7 generations.

juanorellana

Yes you are right to assume that farmers are just business man.
most small farms dont exist anymore. most farms are run by big companies that only care about making a profit.
so,
what are you going to do about it?

Dakini

I heard that part of the problem is that the US has been pressuring the EU to adopt corporate farming practices and stop subsidizing small farmers, that those subsidies represent "unfair trade practices". This has been going on since the Uruguay Round of GATT, which lead to the formation of the WTO. Can we get a perspective on this from our European members?

zidangus

Regarding the history of farming in the UK, The Romans used a three-year rotation of winter wheat, spring barley and fallow, while the Danes and Saxons pursued strip farming. Interestingly the monastic traditions from about 540AD used a garden cultivation approach where for instance St Benedict’s followers seen earth as common heritage to be nurtured instead of the view held by most farmers today in my opinion, that earth is an economic utility to be exploited, bought and sold.
I think the Franciscans even maintained ‘that owning a private property itself was against the law of Christ’

How things have changed :rolleyes:

With Metta

Dakini

Have you ever heard of "French intensive farming"? It became sort of a fad in the US back around the 1970's or 80's. It's more like Native American farming, where all the veggies are grown on the same plot, together. Beans grow winding up the cornstalks, and the like. The nitrogen from the beans replenishes the soil. Problem is, it's very labor-intensive. You can't use a harvester when the crops are all jumbled up like that. But it's great for the soil.

Dakini

So a main reason for the "efficiency" of corporate farms is that it reduces labor costs. So maybe the crux of the problem is labor costs for picking crops. If we could solve that, we might be able to change the system. Who does the crop picking in Europe? I know in New Zealand, young people from Europe flock in to live on farms and pick crops in exchange for room and board. We don't have that system here in the US.

zidangus

I heard that part of the problem is that the US has been pressuring the EU to adopt corporate farming practices and stop subsidizing small farmers, that those subsidies represent "unfair trade practices". This has been going on since the Uruguay Round of GATT, which lead to the formation of the WTO. Can we get a perspective on this from our European members?

Small farmers in the US get subsidies off the US government don't they ? so I don't know why they would tell the EU to stop doing this, if they are doing it themself.

I thought it was third world countries that think its unfair that rich farmers in the west get subsides, as they do not get it.

This was a good paper I came across

http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=315&archive=1

With Metta

compassionate_warrior

Great article, zidangus! About your question: the US always works to negotiate (or push) terms and conditions that favor it. In other words, the rules don't apply to the US, the US gets to do what it wants, is the attitude. So Europe isn't supposed to subsidize its small farmers, because that would be an unfair trade advantage. But in its arguments, the US never mentioned that it subsidized its farmers.