Factory farming makes no economic sense

Rod, this is an eye-opener. Frankly, I've admired your "crunchy con" lifestyle as an interesting ideal, but have silently agreed with those who suggest that it is economically impractical for the vast bulk of us living in industrialized societies. This assumption which I've held certainly merits a re-examination in light of this. I'll definitely check the story by Hopkins and try to look at the details of the Pew report.

Ethan C: Good point about the hidden costs of factory farming being borne by the taxpayers and the public in general. Hmmmm, something else to think about.

"economically impractical for the vast bulk of us living in industrialized societies."

Reaganite in NYC, for a good long look at the "economically impractical" take a look at "Peak Oil and Political Theory" over at Patrick Deneen's place. The most disturbing thing I've read in a very long time.

I find it interesting that people are finally starting to incorporate the true costs and benefits into economic analysis. I am a conservative, and believe strongly in the power of free markets. But for some time the argument (most from those who would be considered left of center) for so-called "true cost economics" has resonated with me. In fact, "true cost economics" seems reminiscent of the critique offered by the Southern Agrarians from the 1930s, but perhaps I am not well-informed enough to hold forth on this subject. Anyone with any contrary thoughts on the subject?

Another example of a "true cost" approach might be what I mentioned earlier in the way of considering the harmful long-term impact NPK chemical fertilizers have had on soil and water, even as these fertilizers have boosted "yields." It seems to me that the green revolution yields of monoculture crops are essentially like borrowing on exhorbitant interest rates in order to purchase knick-knacks. Now with depleted, deadened soil, diminished aquifers and contaminated water supply, the "creditors" are coming around for the bill to be paid.

Or consider the "suicide seeds" and other bizarre horrors companies like Monsanto seem to want to inflict on us (not to mention the legal harassment these corporate entities engage in if a farmer inadvertently "saves" patent-protected seeds from one season to the next). What is the true economic cost for growing things in this way, as opposed to the "permanent things" approach of more traditional farming methods?

Something my dad (a small farmer) has always pointed out is that when people talk about how efficient farmers are today, bragging about how many people each conventional farmer feeds, they don't take into account all the support industries: everyone who works for John Deere, Monsanto, ADM, Farm Bureau and so on. Sure, the guy driving the 12-row combine across the field is "producing" more corn than his grandpa who steered a one-row corn picker behind a horse, but he's not doing it alone. It's not necessarily that there are fewer people in the chain of food production; it's just that more of them have moved out of the fields and into factories and labs.

Most people don't realize how much US farming is centrally controlled. (US politicians and ag experts were always big fans of the Soviet system, until the Wall came down and we found out it was starving them.) Some products, like milk, have an absolute floor price set by the feds. Others, like grain, are supported in a more roundabout way with various subsidies. Until the last couple years and the ethanol myth, raising corn wasn't profitable at all, but farmers kept putting it in the ground to collect the LDP and other government payments.

A lot of this came from a theory of chasing market share, where US Ag basically has been acting like Wal-Mart: over-produce your product so it'll be cheap and undersell your competition (Brazil, etc.). The farmer doing the producing isn't making a living then, but that's okay, because of the subsidies.

Subsidies (and other government programs like food stamps) generally don't help the very small farmer, because all those programs are designed to work within the wholesale system, not for the guy who's selling beef quarters or pecks of peaches to his neighbors. Just another way that government helps support large businesses over small.

Mhoram:

As far as agriculture is specifically concerned, also consider the monstrosity called the annual "farm bill". It's basically the annual production plan for the corporatist "food" production system that this country has.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Houghton, I'll admit up front that my observation of the phenomenon is personal and anecdotal. While I'd also be willing to concede that an exceptional case can be valid to the general point, I must stop to consider: within an industry, the company that spends more capital on sustainability tends to generate less profit. I also deliberately omit the long- vs. short-term qualifier for profit. There are many details the require examination.

I will also clarify: I did not intend my usage of "anathema" to imply compatibility or its lack. I worked for a small company that couldn't survive without sustainability practices; I hasten to add that the company was deeply embedded in the local culture as well. As I wrote above, it's too complex to limit comments on the details.

Uncle Chuckie is typing too fast for his brain today. That should have said, "if it stops being cheap..." If it stops being meat, there will be other problems.

The true and complete headline for this would read something like: Factory Farming Makes No Sense for Society, but a Ton of Money for Agribusiness.

The problem is, factory farming is just one of many, many such examples in which the cost to society is huge, but so are the profits reaped by the manufacturer. Strip mining, clear cutting, gold mining, tar sands -- the list goes on and on. The economic phrase for this failure of the economic system to include downstream costs into the cost of the product or its manufacture is "externalities."

More and more the 21st century looks to be an arena in which we will be debating externalities. According to last year's Stern Report, for example, global warming is the greatest "market failure" in our history, because the cost of changing the atmosphere is not included in the cost of energy.

That's a mighty big can of worms!

Forestwalker: bingo. Nicely put.