Posted on Tue, 03/18/2008 - 09:02 — by Clayton
One large element of the equation of the food equation that the CCT is deliberately ignoring is the cost of environmentalism. Wildlife preserves, conservations easements, and park expansion is limiting the amount of food that can be produced, thus increasing it's cost as well.
Milk is a very clear example of this phenomena. In recent years enviromentalists have been successful at forcing the closure of more then half of the dairies in California. In fact, there are no longer any dairies in Contra Costa due to the pressure of enviromentalists in government. As a result, less milk is available for consumption and the price is higher. Add to that cost, the expense of shipping milk from the point of it's production to your supermarket, and the price of $4 a gallon seems pretty cheap. So, if the cost of food is starting to hurt, you need to place the blame where it is due, on the environmentalists, and those people who put the enviromentalists in power.
What is more important, that a child has enough food, or that a kit fox has plenty of room to wander?
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 49
I have one of those families that barely scrapes by but makes too much for ANY type of assistance. We can't even get reduced lunches for our kids, let alone WIC. We shop at Win Co though and you can stretch a dollar pretty far there.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 322
A major component of the recent surge in food prices is the price of corn. Farmers across the midwest are now planting corn for ethanol production. I have friends that farm in Iowa that grow over 2,500 acres of corn and soybeans. In the past this was all for food. Last year they switched everything to corn. The local elevator built an ethanol plant and everything in the surrounding areas is going in to ethanol production. The second factor is fuel costs, primarily diesel fuel. Almost everything we use comes to us on trucks. Diesel fuel is at historic highs. In my job selling products manufactured in the rust belt, transportation costs have gone from 11% of our cost of sales to well over 30% in 2 1/2 years. In my house we save by preparing meals from scratch whenever possible. Fruits and vegetables are still relatively inexpensive. Meat is impacted by the cost of feed, again impacted by ethanol production. We'll be planting as big a vegetable garden as we can this year. That's not such a bad thing. Also check out farmers markets and local u pick stands. Peas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl: This place got a pool? Ty: Pool and a pond....... Pond be good for you.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
The numbers do not actually support your conclusion. More farm land, (and food production) has been lost to public land expansion then development. This is a world wide development. Note the food riots in Egypt and the food shortages in Haiti. The food shortage world wide, (which is the biggest factor driving US food prices) is not the result of a swith of US production to ethenol. If that were the extent of the problem it could be easily resolved by a switch back. The solution is not that easy. In the next few years the choice will become very clear and very real--parks and wild spaces for your children, and no food for someone else's child. The solution will be out of our hands, but it will be our fault. People, especially the poor, the young and the old, will die of starvation. A reduction of population will solve the crisis.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
Have you supported efforts to expand open space in the past? Do you really expect food costs to go down in the future, and do you think you and your family deserve lower prices if you supported the efforts to expand open space and destroy local farms and ranches?
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 322
Clayton,
I am not challenging your opinnion. I don't necessarily agree with you but that's fine. I just want to know where the data is to support your contention? You must have come to your conclusions based on something. You are probably much more Worldly than I. I base my observations on what I have observed first hand as well as conversations with friends who are in agriculture. My paying job allows me to work all over the Western US with Agriculture and Horticulture. To a lesser extent I also have to be aware of what is happening in parts of Europe, mainly Holland and Germany. They are more advanced than the U.S. in my particular field dealing with automation in Agriculture and Horticulture. We are at least 5 -7 years behind them. Primarily due to their high labor costs brought on by mandated social programs. China is a whole different scenario. We don't want to believe it but they are making great strides in food production. That's good because ultimately they will become a net importer of goods and materials as opposed to their current status of net exporter. That is my big concern. We think we have problems with costs of food and raw materials now. It will become a critical issue as China's middle class grows and they begin to consume more of their own production. Their demand for metal, concrete, petroleum, and other resources will be a huge problem as we try to compete against them for raw materials. The other two areas right behind China are India and to a lesser extent Indonesia.
Again, I am not challenging your assertion. Only trying to understand how you came to that opinnion. In my world I just don't find the evidence to support all of your assertions. I'm also primarily an optimist. Although I don't believe our National Leaders have the vison to resolve these issues, I do think that the People of the Western World have the ability to pull ourselves up to meet this challenge.
Respectfully, Peas
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
Time constraints today are limiting my answer. Basically the data is from the County Ag Commissioner, who has track land use for quite a few years in Contra Costa and East Contra Costa--and from the agency once known as ASCS. Both contributed to a report on open land use for te last fifty years to the Habitat Conservation Program. It is part of a 500 page document, (do not open it if you access it on the web, it has overloaded and crashed computers). The HCP is a perfect example aof the forcible conversion of ag land to "conservation easements" that will eventually restrict agricultural production.
Here is a simpler exercise--look on a property map that seperate urban and rural property. Is most rural,(non-incorporated ) acreage in Contra Costa in private or public lands? The answer is public. Higher food prices are just one of the prices we are paying to take that property out of private ownership.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 529
The enviromentalists are only a small part of the rise in food prices. Development is a much larger problem. Just look at the east county, Oakley and Brentwood used to mainly agricurtual but now due to the housing boom all the old farm land is covered with houses. It's the same way all down the valley. But right now the biggest cause in the rise in price is the high cost of fuel. A few years ago desiel fuel was cheaper than regular gas now its more expensive than premium. And then there's the factor of normal inflation. But of course this is just my humble opinion.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
East County is a perfect example of precisely what I am talking about. Are you aware of the fact that most privately held open land in the east county for the last thirty years has been converted to parks, (73%) not housing(18%). The push for open space, not development has destroyed agriculture in Contra Costa. Current efforts to extend the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will put 90% of all open land in East County in public hands and eventually out of agriculture. It will cost Contra Costa Taxpayers about $300 million in current dollars, and probablly result in even higher food costs localy. In the recent past, East County made Contra Costa self nearly sufficient. In fact until 30 years ago our county was a net exporter of food stuffs. Now we are an importer of food, and that of course means we pay higher prices. Currently there are no dairies, no auction yards, and no processing plants in East County. Even the limited food produced here must be exported to be inspected and processed elsewhere.
The cause and effect is clear--more parks less food; more environmental restrictions less food; more "sustainable" agriculture less food, more people less available food per person. The observable result is clear, ever increasing food prices.
If you are a Cowboy, answer one question, in the last thirty years has the number of ommercial ramches in Eastern Contra Costa increased or decreased? Have most of them become new housing developments or new parks?
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 322
Clayton, I am aware of rangeland that has been turned into parkland. My family had cattle for a number of years on some of the non irrigated land at the South end of Morgan Territory Road. We had neighbors who grew crops of non irrigated wheat, barley and sorghum. A couple of points here. The soils are especially poor with high levels of alkalye and boron. You can see evidence of it very clearly where Vasco Road enters Livermore. The first open land to the West where Vasco narrows to one lane at the Livermore City limits. You can see very bright yellow flowers growing at the base of the sandstone hill. This is a plant (sorry can't remember the name) that only grows in very poor conditions. The ground water is very high in boron. This is true for much of the areas around the flanks of Mt. Diablo. All of my parents neighbors stopped farming those lands because they were very marginal soils, even for grazing. Eventually high fuel prices (diesel) and feed prices drove them out of ranching. I'm not saying you are wrong. But there is a big difference in the quality of soil, water, and access to most of the pieces of grazing land that have gone into parks. I can't think of any productive pieces of ag land in East County that have been converted into parks. I could be wrong.
Agriculture, Dairy and Ranching are businesses like any other. They are impacted by rising costs of fuel, insurance, electricity to run the irrigation pumps, fertilizer which is made primarily from natural gas. It is also much harder to get crop financing with fewer lending institutions offering it. Most families I know quit because they could no longer make money. They could not in good conscience, hope their kids would follow in their footsteps. The risks from a bad year became greater than they could withstand. They did for me. We are all for local farms. But most people don't want to pay a premium to buy from the local farmer or dairy simply because they produce in the County. That is a shame. It is something we are losing. I just don't see it as environmentalists as the problem in our area. If you said Government I'd agree completely.
The good news is that with food prices rising it is creating new viable markets for local growers specializing in locally grown produce. There is a real ground swell for "Buy locally grown". We do have local growers making a comeback. It is smaller, more specialized crops. As for Dairy, go to the World Ag expo in Tulare in January to get an idea of what it costs a farmer, dairy or rancher to operate. It is astounding. http://www.worldagexpo.com/ . Shop your local farmers markets. Go to the U pick stands. Talk to the people that are making it work. Remember, Farmers were the first environmentalists. They were good stewards of the land by necessity.
What do you think? Peas
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 529
First off no I am not a "cowboy" other than playing around on a friends cattle ranch many years ago. As for my stated opinion I can only go by what I see in the east county. As I drive around the Oakley/Brentwood area that was all orchards and vegetable fields in the past all I see now are houses. The only parks are the neighborhood parks the developers had to put in as conditions of their building permits.
I realize that I might not be as well read as you but from what I have seen most of the large blocks of open land turned into public space are the foothill areas surrounding Mt. Diablo and other established parks. These are areas that food crops were not grown and were used in the most part for cattle grazing. Now the question is.. was the turning of the land to public use the cause of the decrease in cattle production or was the decrease in cattle production a catalyst for the land to be sold for public use? It's the old story of the chicken or the egg.
Now it is also my OPINION that if the builders could have found a way to get the land and building permits on those foothill areas and were able to economically build we would be looking at houses instead of green hills today. I am a supporter of the Regional, State, and Federal park systems. Just because there are no 1000 year old trees doesn't mean the land has no value. I spend a lot of time walking the trails at Contra Loma/Black Diamond Parks and enjoy that fact that even though I am only a short distance from the "big city" I can look around and see only nature.
We are coming to a point that the population is going to out strip food production but there is a lot more to blame than enviromentalists.
Thats just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
The issue is complex, and not one that can be boiled down to a single issue. Responses posted in this topic indicate this to be the case. Besides blaming loss of farmland on "environmentalists" and the expansion of public land ownership, people have suggested a few other factors that are equally sensible: the high price of attempting to maintain a farm in the face of corporate competition, loss of already marginal productive land to worsening environmental conditions, intrusion of housing and infrastructure into once productive land being just three. I think those three alone are equally valid explanations, and certainly as valid as the effort to blame "environmentalists".
Now, if Clayton could provide evidence of a political body using the power of eminent domain to take over an operating ranch or dairy, or of a park developing after the purchase of the land for less than its market value over the protests of the owners and/or operators, there would be more merit to the argument. My guess is that what has happened is some variation on what is happening everywhere (and already alluded to in an earlier post): the price of maintaining the farm, ranch or dairy approaches (or reaches) a point of zero return and mom and dad (or young adult child inheriting the property) decides there is no use in continuing to operate the business. In the past, developers backed by local (or distant) money gobbled up these properties ... but usually did not pay top-dollar for them. More recently, governments and organizations (like Land Watch) have been able to offer a higher price for the land, because they are guided by a vision that suggests urban life (and possibly planetary life) is best balanced by green and open spaces. And where they cannot offer a higher price, a new phenomena is developing among land-owners ... they, too, believe in open space rather than urban sprawl, and will sell to those promising to keep the land open before selling to a developer.
Just a theory, and I have no data to back it up. However, I have lived in rural areas (since 1977) that are not adjacent to major urban centers, and seen what I have described happen amongst people that I know.
"Blame the environmentalist" also masks a bigger problem ... one that is surfacing world-wide and not just in the comfy confines of the Bay Area. There are too many people! People need a place to live, and unless they build up (taller buildings) or down (underground), new housing must be built on land that once served some other purpose. There are only so many old land-fills or abandoned industrial/warehouse areas that can be built over ... most new construction expands out to what was once productive farmland, and the farmland shrinks or is pushed to more marginally productive land -- requiring more expense to make it productive.
This, incidentally, is not a new problem. Take Egypt, for example. The New Kingdom of Egypt ... for non-Egyptologists, this would be the 450-year long period that included such luminaries as Amenhotep, Haphseptet, Tut, etc. and lasted from roughly from 1550-1100 BC ... collapsed into an equally long period (about 350 years) of internal dispute and power struggles between warring claimants to the Sun Throne that ended, first, in about 750 BC when a Black Kingdom from Kush (modern day Sudan and Darfur) over-ran Egypt and ruled from the Mediterranean past the town of Khartoum, until it in turn was overrun by Assyrians spreading westward (who later got whomped on by Persians, then Greeks and Alexander -- you know, the Ptolemy Pharoahs, including Cleopatara -- and then the Romans ... end of History IA ... and the context is set!). During the height of the New Kingdom, there were roughly 4,000,000 people trying to eke a living out of the narrow band of floodplain (and Delta) known as the Nile. The problem for Egypt was that those people all had to live somewhere, and they tended to congregate in the cities but had to build there houses on what originally had been farmland feeding a smaller population. Improvements in irrigation strategies made some stretches of the Nile more arable than in the past ... but ultimately the New Kingdom collapsed because the people of Egypt starved to death and the mandate given to Pharaoh seemingly was revoked. Other members of the royalty and priesthood rose up to challenge the power of Pharaoh, civil war and power struggles ensued, and chaos resulted.
In 1960, Egypt completed the High Aswan dam. Never mind that it flooded out a couple hundred thousand Nubians living in the space that Lake Nasser flooded (causing some of the tremendous unrest still plaguing the Sudan), it performed a "miracle" for Egypt. The irregular flooding of the Nile (well, the timing of the flood surge is one of the most predictable in the world, what is "irregular" is how much water will come down the river, and how far it will spill its banks) ended. Electricity was generated. Water was now more controllable for modern irrigation methods. A "Green Revolution" occurred in Egypt. The population of Egypt in 1958 was roughly 25,000,000. The population of Egypt in 2007 was about 80,335,036. Fifty-five million more people now have to live on land that once fed 1/2 that number.
Go to Egypt (I did). You will have no trouble understanding why there are food shortages there. And it has nothing to do with "environmentalism". Go to Haiti. Try to understand how burgeoning population and severe weather combine to reduce arable land, and how the land that is arable cannot keep up with the number of mouths to feed. And if that is not enough, visit some of the other countries currently facing food shortages, or who have placed tight controls on the price (or even the selling) of staple crops -- mostly rice and wheat, but also milk and eggs -- in the last year. There is another topic on this board somewhere that describes this worldwide food shortage.
Until we address the issues raised by unchecked population growth, nothing is going to get better (and the pace will only worsen if the environment changes too much more drastically ... including pressures on land besides just the space issue, such as climate, water, clean air, foods not exposed to chemicals and disease).