Originally Posted by
gerv
Interesting post. It does seem that food prices would rise, but at the same time I wonder what a cheap food policy actually accomplishes. I wonder if more dollars flowed into the hands of local farmers if that wouldn't ricochet throughout the economy. More labor intensive techniques, higher prices... but more jobs, more money staying in the community.
There used to be a lot more agricultural based employment in this area. The near by town where I live has an old industrial section that is almost completely abandoned. About 90 percent of those old businesses were agriculturally related. The biggest blow was when the rail road company decided to rip out the train tracks. Rail is still the preferred method of transporting massive amounts of grain. Also there are small cheese factories that dot the countryside that are now converted houses/businesses. The reasoning behind this was to have places that were close enough by so one could transport milk by horse without spoiling. Also there used to be many local canaries for canning local produce. A lot of older people will tell stories about how when they were a kid how they'd grow a garden to sell to these places.
If you've ever went out to the Dakotas you'll start noticing a lot of abandoned farms and towns. As farming has gotten more efficient it takes less people to do it. Those areas only had agriculture to support them and never had a manufacturing base like Wisconsin does. It's obvious that ag did employ a lot more people at one time.
Originally Posted by
Roody
Good thread! A couple random thoughts on the last few interesting posts:
When I read the statement that "nothing can replace oil," I think that's literally correct. No ONE thing can replace oil. But I expect that a combination of several things can replace oil, or at least someday will.
Replace oil in it's functionality yes, but not in it's convenience. What I find interesting is how farms used to operate machinery before the advent of REA and reliable fuel distribution. There were many "off-grid" farms back in the teens and twenties. They used large wind generators to charge batteries. My friend's farm has remnants of this and the stuff occasionally is up for sale on craigslist or local auctions. Also tractors and stationary engines up until the 30s could be made to run a variety of fuels including alcohol. Alcohol could be brewed up by the farmer. Not very convenient but it was less work than throwing up feed for horses.
Originally Posted by
Roody
The necessity of private cars in rural areas is partially due to the fact that many people living in rural areas are living the same lifestyle they would be living in the city or small town. Only a very small percentage of rural dwellers are actually farmers any more.
True. I've talked to a lot of older people plus my grandparents lived on farms too. Up until the 80s when the farm economy crashed people who lived in town worked in town and people who lived in the country farmed. I used to have a collection of old for sale ads from the 40s and 50s. When I'd look at cars for sale a lot of them had 5000-6000 miles on them, even ones that were 5-6 years old. People used to drive a lot less. I'm thinking part of this is because trains used to have passenger service to pretty much any town you would want to go to. My Great Grandfather used to take the train in the 30s and 40s from his farm to work down in Milwaukee (300 miles away) during the week to help make ends meet on the farm. My friend's Grandpa used to take the train up north during the winter to work as a logger.
When I was in high school I had to interview an older person about what they remembered about the area. It was very interesting. The lady I talked to was in her 90s. She told me that back in the teens and twenties roads were very poor. People started getting cars when she was in her teens but used them very locally or to drive to the train station. The train would go to bigger towns so folks would take them to get things they couldn't get in the smaller community. There were a lot more small towns then too which most have died off. You would have a somewhat larger hub community served by the railroad and then little towns where local farmers could pick up odds and ends or go to the very local bar (a favorite pastime in beer drinking Wisconsin). The car and good roads killed off those small communities because it was no longer an all day buggy ride to a hub community.
Originally Posted by
Roody
Recent studies suggest that most Amish men (and many of the women) work at jobs off the farm. So evidently they are very productive, even using a lot of non-motorized equipment.
That's because their 5-8 kids are doing all the work on the farm.
Originally Posted by
Roody
Sustainable agriculture is sometimes more labor intensive than standard agriculture. In some parts of the world this makes it more expensive, in other areas it's cheaper. It all depends on the local cost of labor versus machinery and other inputs.
It will definitely make things more expensive here. No one is willing to work for a couple of dollars a day in this country. In places that are truly third world where human power is cheaper than machines those areas never really mechanized in the first place.
Originally Posted by
Roody
More labor intensive farming would provide jobs for people in developing countries and help reverse the trend of mass migration from rural areas to the huge new metropolises. Sustainable agriculture is about sustaining the people as well as the land, so we would hope to see better living and working conditions for millions of people if sustainable systems were set up.
I've read that in some cases food aid from the USA caused a lot of issues with rural economies in third world nations. When people got free food it put the local farmers out of business. The focus should have been on better farming practices along with some food aid so people could avoid needing it in the future.