An excellent article. The issue of world hunger is not about to go away. On the contrary it is destined to get much, much worse. The breakdown of rural communities and elimination of subsistence or self sufficient farming has been deliberated and continues. Big business and governments need people to be dependent on them. They have done an excellent job of driving people off farms and into cities where they consume more and are reliant on government in a multitude of ways.
At the time of the Great Depression many people had some idea on self sufficiency and were practicing it to some extent. Many still had relatives on farms and they were used to growing their own vegetable and keeping chooks. Perhaps there was a pig being fattened in a pen at the bottom of the garden. The pig and chooks were being fed on food scraps from the house - something that is illegal to do now. Life was simpler and driving a car to work was a rarity. The next (and looming) Great Depression will be much more difficult for just about everyone

Not only has this crisis been entirely predictable, but it’s also been stage-managed. For centuries, mass starvation has been both a tool of imperial power and a manager of populations. The British Empire, for example, routinely used famine as a means of imperial control and punishment – especially in Scotland, India and Ireland.

Ironically, one of the catalysts of the food crisis may end up being one of its saviours – i.e. peak oil. Global free trade, and its destruction of worldwide agricultural and industrial self-sufficiency, was only made possible through accessibility to cheap oil. Without cheap oil, the economics of global cheap labour is no longer feasible. So too, the viability of the military machine for controlling the irate, hungry masses will also dwindle – as all modern armies must run on oil.

We are moving into interesting times, where it’s unlikely that the affluent Western countries will be immune from global famine. Indeed, because these countries have long since lost their self-sustainability mechanisms, they are probably the least likely to make the vital adaptations needed to survive.

What a silly article. There was a global food crisis in the 1970s and small peasants were leaving the land in Colombia. What happen, did millions across the world starve following this global food crisis? No of course they didn’t. Was the global food crisis averted by giving land to the landless? Of course this didn’t happen.

More and more people are leaving the land for precisely the reason given by the author from his experience in Colombia: “the peasants growing little food in tiny strips of land”. Anyone with any knowledge of agriculture would understand that larger mechanised farms are far more efficient and can grow more food per area than small inefficient farms. The evidence is apparent from production figures. In the 30 years since the 1970s, agriculture production has increased despite a reduction in the amount of land farmed. All of this on the back of people leaving the land in droves.

This is simply more misguided Marxist philosophy that has done more to engineer hunger than anything else in the past century, population growth included. Marxist “back to the land” movements have resulted in hunger in the former USSR following the collectivization of farms, in China during the cultural revolution and today in North Korea and Zimbabwe.

"Give land to the landless and hunger will diminish; perhaps cease"

They did that in Zimbabwe, how did that work out again?

Agronomist is correct in one sense. It is true larger mechanised farms are more effcicient. That was in part what drove the Stalinist regime in the USSR - who were not in any sense marxist - to collectivise, with the resultant starvation that their action imposed. Trotsky wrote about this in terms of the scissor hands of the working class and the peasantry cutting against each other and suggested ways to address the problem. Forced collectivisation was not one of those solutions.

To describe North Korea or maoist China as marxist is itself nonsensical. Where for example is the working class revolution that led to the supposed working class state in either of these two monstrosities? Where is the withering away of the stae? Where is the democratic rule of the majority (ie of workers) in the interests of workers? Nowhere. These regimes, like all stalinist regimes, are state capitalist. They are a mirror of the West, not its antithesis.

In saying that large mechanised farms are more efficient, agronomist misses the truth in the article, namely that by forcing small farmers into a global market or off the land the ability to feed the poor diminishes. This is highlighted by the fact the gains in bringing people out of malnourishment or starvation made in the last twenty years through market forces and a form of market imposed collectivisation have been wiped out by the rising price of staples around the world in less than twelve months.

The ‘big farms are better’ paradigm has been disproved over and over again by many studies, which have been pointedly ignored by mainstream agricultural ‘wisdom’.

Small farms use more labour (usually family members) per hectare than big farms and thus minimise labour costs and maximise work quality through closer supervision. Compared to large farms, small farmers can cultivate their land more intensively, use more natural fertilizing methods and irrigation systems, vary their range of crops and create less ecological impact.

Just because agriculture production since the 70s has supposedly increased despite a reduction in the amount of land farmed, this does not mean that the outcome has been equitable – quite the opposite. Large farms are much more capital intensive, creating larger revenues for smaller numbers of people, while more and more people are forced to become food consumers, rather than food producers.

Estimates of agribusiness productivity do not take into account the hidden costs to the rest of society by the mass dislocation of existing farmers. As big farms buy out small farms, the displaced workers then move either to the cities, where they put further strain on jobs, resources and social infrastructure, or to other land areas where they displace local agricultural workers.

The ‘big farms are better’ paradigm is just the modern incarnation of feudalism, which assumed that peasants could only be ‘productive’ if a lord and master owned their land, ruled their lives, told them what to produce and regularly extracted the fruits of their labours.

Which studies, SJF? I'd be interested in reading some of them.

Passy:
"....by forcing small farmers into a global market or off the land the ability to feed the poor diminishes. This is highlighted by the fact the gains in bringing people out of malnourishment or starvation made in the last twenty years through market forces and a form of market imposed collectivisation have been wiped out by the rising price of staples around the world in less than twelve months."

Forcing farmers off their land is clearly a bad idea, or forcing them to grow crops they don't want to is also a bad idea. All governments, Marxists or otherwise, should get off the farmers' backs.

The current food problems are largely caused by govt interventions such as the criminally insanse biofuel subsidies and the equally insane agricultural subsidies in the USA and Europe. But some of the poorer countries have also implemented bad policies such as export bans.

SJF:
I don't know whether big is better in relation to agriculture, but I suspect that in some cases it is, and in others it isn't. Ultimately, it is through the experimentation of the market that the right balance can be found, not through bureaucratic decree.

"The 'big farms are better’ paradigm is just the modern incarnation of feudalism, which assumed that peasants could only be ‘productive’ if a lord and master owned their land, ruled their lives, told them what to produce and regularly extracted the fruits of their labours."

I agree, if the 'big farms are better' is forced by govt. However, if farmers are voluntarily leaving their land because they cannot compete with more efficient agricultural methods, then this process should be allowed to happen. This has happened in the past in many other countries, starting with the UK, and to some extent continues to happen everywhere. Its called progress.

Passy, I didn’t describe the countries as Marxist (that is a strawman), just the philosophy.

Secondly, Passy I fully noted the point of the article and described it as “silly”. The efficiency of agriculture over the past century has patently not resulted in a decreased ability to feed the poor. Our ability to feed the poor has hardly ever been better than it is today, despite the massive population increases that have occurred. Greater efficiency in agriculture has allowed this to occur.

The current hiccup in prices is partly the result of poor policy implementation in the EU and USA, but also has other drivers including poor policy decisions in poor countries.

SJF, when did you last work on a farm? Most small farms do none of the things you describe. Because small farms are unable to appropriately reimburse family members for their labour, they consign families to poverty. You see this throughout the Third World and even in the First World. Try making a living farming 10 acres in South Dakota. Because they have fewer funds, they are unable to invest in better equipment and the quality of the operation deteriorates. Have a look at intensively cultivated small farms across much of the third world and you will see declining fertility and soil erosion – hardly an advertisement for lower ecological impact.

I am not particularly against small farms, some I know are run very well, but most small farmers I meet want to get bigger, so they can be more efficient with labour, more productive and make a better life for their families.

Passy

‘Which studies, SJF?’

This article by George Monbiot has a very comprehensive reference list at the bottom: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/06/10/small-is-bountiful

And this provides a good overview of small-farm research:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/smallfarmsbetter.cfm

I also found this article helpful, especially the quote below: http://www.noble.org/Ag/Horticulture/SmallFarms/Index.htm

‘The higher returns to management from intensively managed farms come from the efficiency with which the various methods and enterprises on the farm are integrated, not necessarily from the efficiency of each method or enterprise.’

Bro

I agree with some of what you say. And Passy has already addressed many of the points you’ve made that I don’t agree with. However …

‘… if farmers are voluntarily leaving their land because they cannot compete with more efficient agricultural methods, then this process should be allowed to happen […] Its called progress.’

It may be called ‘progress’, but that doesn’t mean it IS progress. Also, if farmers are leaving their land because they cannot compete, then it’s not ‘voluntary’. And ‘efficiency’, in terms of unit costs per farm, is not a very adequate measure of wholistic social benefits.

SJF:
"if farmers are leaving their land because they cannot compete, then it’s not ‘voluntary’."

Fair point. What I meant was that being forced off their land by force is different from leaving land because of an inability to compete in the market place. The former is clearly not acceptable, but the latter is.

"And ‘efficiency’, in terms of unit costs per farm, is not a very adequate measure of wholistic social benefits."

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Seems that many of you are concerned about the conditions we see worldwide. Many are hoping for something better. Some even hope that the election of new government officials will change things. But, who really is to blame for the suffering we all experience? Mankind in general is responsible...wars are fought by men, it is humans that commit crimes, pollute the environment, often carry on business in a manner motivated by greed rather than concern for their fellow man. They sometimes indulge in habits that they know can be harmful to their health. When they do these things they hurt not only themselves but others as well. Should it be expected that humans would be immune to the consequences of what they do? In the Bible, God tells us how we can avoid much suffering. If we ignore his help, is it fair to blame God for the trouble that we bring upon ourselves and others? We can have a happy and successful life but we must take advantage of the provision God has made possible for the human family through his Son, Jesus. It is through his administration that lasting changes will take place....no more war, crime, sickness , hunger, housing problems, natural disasters and even death itself will be eliminated. And just think....we've all prayed for it to come-Matthew 6:9,10.

There are two sides to starvation: demand and supply.

This artical is about Supply: Farming

But the big half of the problem is demand: the rapidly growing number of mouths to feed.

Across the poorest countries, the fertility rate is the world's highest... even up to 7 children per woman...

Unless we can increase food production by 700% every 20 years, starvation is the inevitable result...

Population management, by providing incentives and free contraception to nations struggling to provide resources for their growing populations is the only sustainable soution top mass starvation.

It saves lives, lift the poor from poverty and saves the environment.

Hello:

It would be interesting to know the numbers behind the 98% and 60% of farmers.

I don't think the madness has anything to do with being able to compeat thus being driven from the ground. I believe it has everything to do with a government being able to control the people from which it is far easier to control a large known group than a bunch of "peasants" if you will.

It is interesting that all of a sudden our government wants to invest in rural america when for how many years, it has been ignored as the system was designed for the greator good.

Today as the 30% age gap is not entering the profession to replace the older gap, our government knows there is a serious problem that millions have been spent trying to fix a situation it created in my opinion.

Maybe better equipment, etc... moderization was better for a time but as time catches up, I question at what point in time does failure occurr to the system because the peasants were forced out for what ever excuse valid or not.

I contend as in my case, it is about control and when wrong is being done, excuses are made in knowing who will ever find out who is right or wrong, the greator good is "fat" if you will. We see the arguements today because the scales are tipping because what happened to the peasants. Agri business, serious money etc...

What will be interesting if the bread basket in India, etc... is hit by disease, if the world food supply can recover because the lack of peasants.

I agree with Gary Grant, the article was worth reading and I question is the underlying problem to peasants in America due to the Secretary of Agriculture not monitoring nor complying with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act for decades thus the 98% and 60% respectively justified because of excuses of the system for not doing its job?

the unemployed white farmer