Gary mentions Norman Borlaug in this post, which reminded me that I wanted to repost something from facebook.
The other day, Evan shared this link. My response was:
"Statements like this in the article worry me: "Of 57 impoverished countries surveyed, for example, yields had increased by an average of nearly 80 percent when farmers used methods such as placing weed-eating ducks in rice patties in Bangla...desh or planting desmodium, which repels insects, in Kenyan cornfields"
What practices were used in these fields before they introduced these (by all indications) intelligent practices? Were green-revolution techniques used before, or was this an 80 percent increase over mixed prior practices on small farms? Green revolution yield increases ranged from 100 to 1,000%, so this distinction makes an enormous difference. And how scalable are some of these practices? They can be done on "Kenyan cornfields"... can they feed a highly urbanized Nigeria? It's not clear to me precisely what scale this is.
If this is really more cost effective and more productive we should expect to see it spread rapidly. There is no good reason not to see it spread rapidly. After all - that's how the Green Revolution happened. It worked and it was profitable (i.e. - lower cost, more productive). If organic agriculture can do this, there is no obvious reason why it can't beat out Green Revolution technology. I have serious doubts about whether it can.
Unfortunately, I think the choices are tougher than this: and the big one is in preferences. We are demanding more meat and that is putting a big strain on our food system. That will require changing the way people live their lives, though,... and that's not going to be easy. That's about changing culture.
But if you're interested in providing ample low cost food, that's not hard. Monsanto will do that. If you have a strategy that is really going to be less expensive and more productive Monsanto has EVERY INCENTIVE IN THE WORLD to drop its GM crap in a heart-beat and start doing that. The fact that they are NOT dropping GM crops raises doubts for me that these sorts of practices can really deliver. But we'll see... perhaps it'll take a little longer for this to play out.
The point is, there is no real obstacle to adopting cost effective, productive technology. Profits provide more than enough incentive to do that if it can truly deliver. The obstacle is in changing people's eating habits (regarding eating meat, overfishing, too much corn, yadda yadda yadda). That's much harder."
And to anticipate some comments - no, just because I see an ecological problem associated with rising meat consumption, that does not mean I support the government restricting people's meat consumption. Just like George Akerlof never called for nationalizing the used car industry, I'm not calling for a government solution every time I talk about a problem.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think whatever environmental problems that exist with meat will be solved by the development of in vitro meat. It has already been grown in the lab, though it has not been produced for human consumption.
ReplyDeleteThere have been proposals in Europe to create something of a sin tax for meat.
The thing about meat is that provides an individual with so many benefits healthwise; developmentally, nutritionally, etc. it is just very good for you. Indeed, for me, as a distance runner, my body would fall apart without meat for a bunch of different reasons.
Meat is essential. I started a Paleo Diet Jan. 1, giving up sugar, enriched carbohydrates, grains (gluten), and food toxins (high fructose corn syrup, long chemical names). I eat real food, fruits, vegetables, and lots of meat. I feel better than I have in decades, and I've lost 61 lbs. Restricting meat is like restricting how much water we drink... insane!
ReplyDeleteDennis Baker
On the subject of meat being bad for the environment, here's a book worth taking a look at: Meat - A Benign Extravagance by Simon Fairlie. Or, simply check out this review by well-known environmentalist George Monbiot, who essentially recanted his views after reading Fairlie's book.
ReplyDeleteGary (and Dennis), I agree on the biological importance of meat consumption (this post may interest you...) But I always found it interesting that Dave Scott -- the most successful ironman/triathlete of all time -- achieved the bulk of his success while following a vegan diet.
stickman,
ReplyDeleteThere are always exception to the rule. Muscle repair basically requires three things: water, protein and carbs. I run marathons and halfs all the time and train for them; as a dedicated runner I notice how my diet effects me and if I cut down on the moderate amounts of meat I eat while saying trying to bump up my intake of peanut butter I notice it. Of course it could be that I am the exception to the rule.
And of course the older I get the more I have to use my diet as a means to defend myself against injury, etc. When I was twenty I could eat anything and get away with it, now I have to be more careful. Disciplined dietary regulation is sort of the cost associated with the joy of running.
ReplyDeleteOh ya, I agree that there are interesting exceptions and variations to the "norms" of physical activity. And you can obviously substitute for animal protein using a number of innovative, vegetarian sources nowadays. Still, the fact that Scott managed to achieve such success at the pinnacle of his tremendously demanding sport while on a vegan diet, is certainly food for thought. (An unavoidable pun, I'm afraid.)
ReplyDeleteSide note: I'm into long-distance running myself, though a recent knee-injury has forced me to put things on the back-burner. My most interesting dietary experience in this regard, however, came when I cycling through Africa. At one stage I was in Ethiopia for about a month, which coincided with Lent. Ethiopia has rather strict religious practices and many people give up all manner of animal products during this time. I seriously doubt that I'll ever crave a cheese sandwich as much as did during that period.
ReplyDeletestickman,
ReplyDeleteKnee injuries are a constant threat for any runner I'd say. I tend to turn my ankles a lot because I love trail running; it can be hard trying to nurse a twisted ankle back to health.
Re: Ethiopia - I think I would have just given up the ghost.
I'm still no good at predicting what I'll get slammed for.
ReplyDeleteYes, I like and eat meat and think it is good too.
Meat does put certain strains on food supply that we need to consider, though. That's all I'm saying.
What strains are those exactly? It seems to me that most of the claimed strains are anti-capitalist, anti-technology (and therefore luddite) agitprop.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmental and distributional consequences of livestock food consumption.
ReplyDeleteThe market works, but when rising food prices bump up against severe poverty in the developing world, this assumption that "willingness to pay" is efficiently communicated by the price mechanism and we can just ignore "ability to pay" becomes far less tenable. In situations of severe poverty, prices are signaling ability to pay as much as they are willingness to pay.
The environmental concerns about large scale livestock production and overfishing I think are fairly well known. These are standard externality points.
Nothing I have in mind has anything to do with "anti-capitalism" or "anti-technology". I am neither, and you should know that.
What environmental consequences?
ReplyDeleteRising food prices? That is caused by government policy - including things like ethanol subsidies. In fact, much of America's, Europe's, etc. agricultural policy is based on keeping food prices artificially high so as to protect domestic farmers (and make the French countryside look nice).
Overfishing? Again, that can be attributed to government policy where states take on the role of managers of fish populations (both in river, in estuaries, and in coastal and open waters). There really isn't a clearer example of government managerial screw-ups than the overfishing associated with cod, etc. And of course there is a lot of resistance to fish-farming on land and at sea - the very thing that is probably the brightest hope for fish production in the future (see Congress' meddling on GMO salmon). Full disclosure: I used to work for a state fisheries agency. I have also worked as a commercial fisherman. So make of my biases what you will.
What environmental consequences of large scale livestock production? The vast majority of the claims associated with this are (a) overblown and (b) based on irrational fears. About half of world meat production is via factory farming (which is what you're really talking about here) and it has allowed for far less environmental degradation than traditional methods of cattle raising, etc. The reasons why this is the case ought to be obvious. People tend to forget just how incredibly destructive traditional farming methods are - if you had ever visited Haiti you'd know what I mean. So yeah, there may be some issues, but in comparison to the past, factory farms are enviromental wunderkinds. Now perhaps in the future they'll be replaced with vertical farms or some other way of managing how we get meat and grains and fruits to market (in vitro production of meat, etc.), as for now, the claims regarding the environmental damage associated with them are way overblown and ignore how much of an improvement they are over past practices.
re: "Rising food prices? That is caused by government policy - including things like ethanol subsidies. In fact, much of America's, Europe's, etc. agricultural policy is based on keeping food prices artificially high so as to protect domestic farmers (and make the French countryside look nice)."
ReplyDeleteGary, price changes don't have one cause. You know what I think about developing world agricultural studies. I've featured my opposition to them here far more often than you have on your blog, for example. Raising an additional driver of prices doesn't change the argument that I raise.
Someone else is liable to chime in that the Fed raises food prices too. That's not entirely clear to me - not as clear as Gary's point about ag subsidies, at least. But again - if the Fed did play a major role in increasing food prices that's not a counter-argument to my point.
On the livestock production - you seem to be focusing on the livestock producers themselves. This wasn't primarily what I was talking about. Per head of livestock, I have no doubt at all that factory farms are more efficient than traditional methods. My point is that the sheer scale of meat production and consumption puts pressure on crop production that didn't exist when less efficient but also less expansive livestock production existed.
In a lot of ways the market solves this trade off - to get cheaper meat, we pay more for grains and other inputs to meat production. But when you consider the impact on regions suffering from severe poverty, these market signals are somewhat more confused - they reflect ability to pay as much as willingness to pay (in Keynesian lingo - "effective demand" rather than actual demand).
re: "Per head of livestock, I have no doubt at all that factory farms are more efficient than traditional methods"
ReplyDeleteThis was my point to Evan, after all. Factory farming, GM, Green Revolution, etc. are far more efficient than these "eco-friendly" methods.
I might raise compositional and distributional concerns, but you don't have to tell me these methods are more efficient, Gary. I made that point before your first comment.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteWhen agricultural subsidies are ended (and other government programs that raise the price of agricultural products - many of those programs being ostensibly in place for consumer safety, though really serving other purposes) I'll be amenable to talking about other things. As of now the glaring problem is government measures which increase the price of food for the poor.
"My point is that the sheer scale of meat production and consumption puts pressure on crop production that didn't exist when less efficient but also less expansive livestock production existed."
I guess I disagree. Much of what livestock eat are crops that people do not consume (often because of cultural issues related to eating such - and in a lot of countries this includes things that Americans normally eat - corn, potatoes, etc.); but what they want to consume is meat. That choice isn't by accident; substituting animal protein for carbohydrates or even protein from non-animal sources tends to be a very good trade-off for a number of good reasons (not the least of which is human health). Plus, if anything, we've got a more diverse, less one-crop specific system of food production than has ever existed - so to me there is less pressure than was in societies even a few hundred years ago.
As for living in an impoverished country, well, that of course sucks. At the same time though we have to acknowledge that the problem of that sort of poverty is diminished more and more every year and every decade, despite claims that this wouldn't happen. And it isn't because of austerity programs or because people stopped eating meat (ending meat consumption is a big, big hobby-horse of a lot of people in this area).
re: "Much of what livestock eat are crops that people do not consume"
ReplyDeleteProduced on land and with capital that could be used to produce crops that humans do consume.
Come on Gary, this is getting to be increasingly weak fare from you.
re: "That choice isn't by accident; substituting animal protein for carbohydrates or even protein from non-animal sources tends to be a very good trade-off for a number of good reasons (not the least of which is human health)."
ReplyDeleteRight. Nobody really disagreed the first time you said this.
My impression is that you often have your own axes to grind that have very little to do with the claims I'm making, but you try to shoe-horn them in anyway. It's fine for you to have these concerns but I wish they wouldn't be expressed as if they're some kind of counter-argument to what I'm saying.
ReplyDelete"Produced on land and with capital that could be used to produce crops that humans do consume."
ReplyDeleteNo, if they wanted to consume they would plant those crops. What they want to eat is meat. There is nothing "weak" about anything I've written.
"My impression is that you often have your own axes to grind that have very little to do with the claims I'm making..."
The claims that you are making are (a) pretty damn vague and (b) kind of sort of go along with a lot of the rhetoric I hear out of people who really dislike the way food is currently grown and want to change it to something they find ideal whether other people like that or not.
All this talk about food is making me hungry (especially after my hour run this morning). Might need to go for an early lunch.
AEI has a series of white papers on how to reform the 2012 Farm Bill: http://www.aei.org/aei-website/managed-content/site-pages/agweek-2011/agweek-2011.html
ReplyDelete