Whats the secret behind the success of USA farms?

[jacobin1949]

What is the secret behind the success of American agriculture? How is 1% of the population able to feed the entire nation and export? What technologies and economic organizations make American farms so efficient? Why is the technology and org so complex that it has been unable to be adapted to conditions in Latin America and East Asia? To what extent to other parts of the 1st world also use these advanced techniques?

[Demogorgon]

US farms aren't particularly efficient. Indeed, they are heavily subsidised. Most food consumed in the US comes from outside the country.

[Dr Mindbender]

most food produced in the US is either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. That is hardly efficiency in action.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 09:39 pm
most food produced in the US is either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. That is hardly efficiency in action.
It may not be economically efficient, but it certainly demonstrates production efficiency. The amount of production generated is huge compared to the economic inputs like labor, land, and energy. OP probably meant to ask what makes US farming so productive.


Most food consumed in the US comes from outside the country.

Source?

The U.S. has a trade surplus in agricultural products.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think there is confusion between food produced within America and food produced by its companies. Many american companies work offshore.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

So about which one are we talking about then?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 17, 2007 04:32 pm
i think there is confusion between food produced within America and food produced by its companies. Many american companies work offshore.
What confusion? You're saying that if an American company produces something overseas, then ships it into the United States, that it is not "imported?" That's not a standard definition. Ordinarily in economic terms, an import is classified as a good that is not produced locally, regardless of by whom it was produced.

EDIT: And why does it even matter? Even if you were correct that foreign American-operated farms contribute to the trade surplus, the question as to why American farming is so productive still stands - in fact, even more so.

[pusher robot]

As to the answer: it is capitalism that has caused this.

Food production is a commodity market. For the most part, wheat is wheat is wheat. Eggs are eggs are eggs. There's very little differentiation that can be done among producers (though attempts, such as organically-produced or cruelty-free products, have been made.) As a result, the farmer who wishes to increase his profits has three things he can do: increase overall demand, decrease overall supply, or lower costs (since a commodity price is constantly pressured to the cost of production.)
Decreasing the overall supply is almost impossible, because there are too many other participants in the market to be able to have a sizable effect by restricting output.

Increasing the overall demand is more feasible, by researching new ways that existing commodities can be used. For example, the demand for corn has increased as fuel production from corn becomes more practical. This is still relatively difficult, however, and ends up benefiting competitors as much as oneself. Voluntary agricultural sector consortiums are usually the most effective at this kind of work.

The easiest way from the farmer's perspective is to reduce costs so that his own costs are less than the market price. Every edge in efficiency is explored, and new methods developed, so as to use the fewest possible amounts of labor, energy, and land resources (automatically prioritizing areas most valuable to society). Of course, any given innovation in cost reduction will eventually be disseminated to the rest of the producers, and the advantage will eventually be lost as the market price pushes toward the new, lower cost of production, necessitating further research and development. This relentless, unending focus on cost reduction has made farming very efficient and very productive, and it was all done for the profit.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 10:39 pm
most food produced in the US is either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. That is hardly efficiency in action.
I didn't know they dumped it as sea. What about giving it to those in Third World nations? And yes, I know they're capitalists, but surely even capitalists would allow that.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 03:52 pm
The U.S. has a trade surplus in agricultural products.
Well obviously because European wheat isn't very good for making bread so it mostly comes from America. Givent he amount of bread consumed in Europe that alone will account for America's surplus.

But America doesn't produce to that kind of degree in all agricultural fields, does it? Like other Western countries it imports most of its food.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+September 17, 2007 05:18 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ September 17, 2007 05:18 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 10:39 pm
most food produced in the US is either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. That is hardly efficiency in action.
I didn't know they dumped it as sea. What about giving it to those in Third World nations? And yes, I know they're capitalists, but surely even capitalists would allow that.[/b]

It's not hard to see why that could cause more harm than good.

For one, it totally obliterates the ability of their own, local farmers to make a living on their own farms. As a result, they actually lose whatever of their own ability to support themselves that they might already have had, making them even more dependent on the first world and less independent than before.

For two, unless there are safeguards in place to ensure that the food actually gets to the people, all it does is empower and enrich the local authority, which, in many third-world countries, is the most ruthless, brutal warlord. Handing wealth and power to these people can only result in horrible, eminently foreseeable tragedy.

Of course, in some cases food aid is more beneficial than not, and even with the wastage, the U.S. donates about as much food all by itself as every other country in the world combined.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+September 17, 2007 05:18 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ September 17, 2007 05:18 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 10:39 pm
most food produced in the US is either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. That is hardly efficiency in action.
I didn't know they dumped it as sea. What about giving it to those in Third World nations? And yes, I know they're capitalists, but surely even capitalists would allow that. [/b]
THat is done. But when food is given to Third world countries it tends to drive local producers out of business meaning these countries are no longer able to produce food and hunger problems get worse.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+September 17, 2007 05:29 pm--> (Demogorgon @ September 17, 2007 05:29 pm)
pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 03:52 pm
The U.S. has a trade surplus in agricultural products.
Well obviously because European wheat isn't very good for making bread so it mostly comes from America. Givent he amount of bread consumed in Europe that alone will account for America's surplus.

But America doesn't produce to that kind of degree in all agricultural fields, does it? Like other Western countries it imports most of its food. [/b]
It depends on what you classify as "food" - for example, the U.S. produces ridiculously large amounts of animal feedstock - is this "food" production or not? Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because that's a red herring. What we're talking about is agricultural productivity and not food production. It would be a fallacy to argue that because the U.S. produces vast quantities of animal feed but imports sugar that capitalism is incapable of feeding its own people. It clearly has enormous production capacity.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 17, 2007 05:51 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 17, 2007 05:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:29 pm

pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 03:52 pm
The U.S. has a trade surplus in agricultural products.
Well obviously because European wheat isn't very good for making bread so it mostly comes from America. Givent he amount of bread consumed in Europe that alone will account for America's surplus.

But America doesn't produce to that kind of degree in all agricultural fields, does it? Like other Western countries it imports most of its food.
It depends on what you classify as "food" - for example, the U.S. produces ridiculously large amounts of animal feedstock - is this "food" production or not? Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because that's a red herring. What we're talking about is agricultural productivity and not food production. It would be a fallacy to argue that because the U.S. produces vast quantities of animal feed but imports sugar that capitalism is incapable of feeding its own people. It clearly has enormous production capacity. [/b]
What has this got to do with capitalism's ability to feed its people? Evidently it does eed a lot of people (not everyone of course). All I was pointing out is that the US brings most of its food in from abroad as most western countries do.

As it happens agricultural subsidies are more about keeping agriculture ticking over in case the countries are unable to import food rather than about producing food for the country at the present time.

Most western countries are not particularly comp[etitive when it comes to agriculture because other countries have a comparative advantage over them. That is all I am saying.

Capitalism's fault when it comes to feeding its people comes down to its means of allocating food. Not producing it.

[pusher robot]

Most western countries are not particularly comp[etitive when it comes to agriculture because other countries have a comparative advantage over them. That is all I am saying.

I know that's what you're saying but you're wrong. You are making an error conflating "food production" with "agricultural production." Food production is only a portion of the agricultural products produced in the United States or most first-world countries, because, frankly, our agricultural output is so large it would be impossible to eat it all. So other things are produced, like fuel oil stock, animal feed, and textile fibers, and are produced in very large quantities. The U.S. is actually fairly competitive in agricultural sectors because our higher labor costs are offset by greater efficiency.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+September 17, 2007 05:18 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ September 17, 2007 05:18 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 10:39 pm
most food produced in the US is either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. That is hardly efficiency in action.
I didn't know they dumped it as sea. What about giving it to those in Third World nations? And yes, I know they're capitalists, but surely even capitalists would allow that. [/b]
They dont because it would set a negative precedence for their paying customers. Say you have country A, who pay x amount, and you have country B who have no money but are starving. After country A has recieved thier share, there is a surplus, so the company decide to humanely airlift the surplus to B free of charge. The likliehood is that A will create a ruckus about being unfairly treated, so to avoid market problems it is in the best interests of the company to dispose of the goods without them changing hands.

here is a source- (i could probably find more if i had the patience)
http://www.nofear.org/Archives/2005/06/food_wastage_so.html

Fair enough it doesnt actually say its literally dumped in the ocean, but the fact remains there is a good 30% unsold surplus accounted for so the disposal means is something of a moot point.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 17, 2007 05:51 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 17, 2007 05:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:29 pm

pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 03:52 pm
The U.S. has a trade surplus in agricultural products.
Well obviously because European wheat isn't very good for making bread so it mostly comes from America. Givent he amount of bread consumed in Europe that alone will account for America's surplus.

But America doesn't produce to that kind of degree in all agricultural fields, does it? Like other Western countries it imports most of its food.
It depends on what you classify as "food" - for example, the U.S. produces ridiculously large amounts of animal feedstock - is this "food" production or not? Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because that's a red herring. What we're talking about is agricultural productivity and not food production. It would be a fallacy to argue that because the U.S. produces vast quantities of animal feed but imports sugar that capitalism is incapable of feeding its own people. It clearly has enormous production capacity. [/b]
It does matter, if the USA is taking credit for those companies production purely on the basis that they are 'American' which I'm sure is a thing that most cowboy tycoons wear on their sleeves.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Erm, A huge amount of arable land, technological advancement and a realatively low population to land area ratio maybe?

[Dr Mindbender]

A large proportion of it though is desert, canyons, mountains and forest so i doubt thats the most significant factor. I put it down to an aggressive economic and foreign policy.

[pusher robot]

It does matter, if the USA is taking credit for those companies production purely on the basis that they are 'American' which I'm sure is a thing that most cowboy tycoons wear on their sleeves.

Nobody except apparently you cares about who "takes credit" for American food production. The issue is agricultural productivity, which is demonstrably higher in the United States than most other countries, especially other non-first-world countries. The exception may be American owned and operated farms overseas, which would of course be operated for profit and make efficient use of technology.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 05:51 pm

It does matter, if the USA is taking credit for those companies production purely on the basis that they are 'American' which I'm sure is a thing that most cowboy tycoons wear on their sleeves.

Nobody except apparently you cares about who "takes credit" for American food production. The issue is agricultural productivity, which is demonstrably higher in the United States than most other countries, especially other non-first-world countries. The exception may be American owned and operated farms overseas, which would of course be operated for profit and make efficient use of technology.
I thought the question behind this thread is ''why are american farms more successful?'' Is geographic location such a prerequisite for americanism, or the nationality of the owner?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+September 19, 2007 06:02 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ September 19, 2007 06:02 pm)
pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 05:51 pm

It does matter, if the USA is taking credit for those companies production purely on the basis that they are 'American' which I'm sure is a thing that most cowboy tycoons wear on their sleeves.

Nobody except apparently you cares about who "takes credit" for American food production. The issue is agricultural productivity, which is demonstrably higher in the United States than most other countries, especially other non-first-world countries. The exception may be American owned and operated farms overseas, which would of course be operated for profit and make efficient use of technology.
I thought the question behind this thread is ''why are american farms more successful?'' Is geographic location such a prerequisite for americanism, or the nationality of the owner? [/b]
Neither - it's the economic system under which the farm is operated.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:47 pm
US farms aren't particularly efficient. Indeed, they are heavily subsidised. Most food consumed in the US comes from outside the country.
The only "efficient" American farms there are nowadays are the big ones (although split between the large-family-owned farms and the corporate farms), as I've said before. Actually, the same inefficiency problem can be extended to Europe, as well.

[Comrada J]

Interesting thread actually - after learning about the depression last century you've got to wonder why these days so much fresh produce is thrown out.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+September 17, 2007 12:18 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ September 17, 2007 12:18 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 10:39 pm
most food produced in the US is either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. That is hardly efficiency in action.
I didn't know they dumped it as sea. What about giving it to those in Third World nations? And yes, I know they're capitalists, but surely even capitalists would allow that. [/b]
I don't know how they go about destoying the stuff but it happends all the time and not just in the US. Last summer the France detroyed 200,000 gallon of wine, if i remember correctly, to keep prices up. I think they could of found plenty of people who would have took it for free. Same goes with food.

Edit...and Oil. Maybe they won't burn it all the time but they will make "shortages" just in time for summer driving season.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 19, 2007 07:52 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 19, 2007 07:52 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 19, 2007 06:02 pm

pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 05:51 pm

It does matter, if the USA is taking credit for those companies production purely on the basis that they are 'American' which I'm sure is a thing that most cowboy tycoons wear on their sleeves.

Nobody except apparently you cares about who "takes credit" for American food production. The issue is agricultural productivity, which is demonstrably higher in the United States than most other countries, especially other non-first-world countries. The exception may be American owned and operated farms overseas, which would of course be operated for profit and make efficient use of technology.
I thought the question behind this thread is ''why are american farms more successful?'' Is geographic location such a prerequisite for americanism, or the nationality of the owner?
Neither - it's the economic system under which the farm is operated. [/b]
The free market system is pretty much pan global, so that point is more or less null and void.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+September 20, 2007 11:10 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ September 20, 2007 11:10 am)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 07:52 pm

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 19, 2007 06:02 pm

pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 05:51 pm

It does matter, if the USA is taking credit for those companies production purely on the basis that they are 'American' which I'm sure is a thing that most cowboy tycoons wear on their sleeves.

Nobody except apparently you cares about who "takes credit" for American food production. The issue is agricultural productivity, which is demonstrably higher in the United States than most other countries, especially other non-first-world countries. The exception may be American owned and operated farms overseas, which would of course be operated for profit and make efficient use of technology.
I thought the question behind this thread is ''why are american farms more successful?'' Is geographic location such a prerequisite for americanism, or the nationality of the owner?
Neither - it's the economic system under which the farm is operated.
The free market system is pretty much pan global, so that point is more or less null and void. [/b]
Not on the microeconomic level, which is what is relevant to the incentives that I talked about.

[ichneumon]

in essence, our technology allows us to indirectly convert the energy stored in petroleum into food energy. fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, powered farming equipment, irrigation, etc are all powered by oil.

american technology is VERY efficient at this. also, we do have a huge amount of arable land, which is underpopulated compared to the rest of the 1st world. likewise, it has been under cultivated for less than 500yrs, as compared to the rest of the world.

considering the degree to which agriculture is subsidized, i'm not sure that "capitalism" would describe the system. pure capitalism tends to lead to famines, as there is no built in ability to compensate for food shortages - shortages that are caused by internally generated market fluctuations.

you don't have to have miserable collective peasant farms to have socialized agriculture - you can do it just as well with robots and GMO crops. the point is that it is *managed*, which is a very accurate description of agriculture in this country. dirt farming=socialized agriculture????

there are many reasons to criticize american style agriculture, but the ability to feed people cheaply isn't one of them.