*Cost Process*

Post Reply New Topic

Imagine that you had a farm, with arable land, ( on which you grow crops ), and pasture for 200 dairy cows, and that after years of using a standard fertiliser you begin using a new enhanced spray fertiliser on your fields and the following spring you notice that 5% of the calves are "different".

Some of them need huge amounts of care, often seem distressed, and turn out to be unable to breed or produce milk, some of them seem very depressed and are only semi-productive, and a few seem fairly happy, if a little odd, and produce especially good milk, or have remarkable hides for top quality leather goods.

The following year, after continuing to use the new enhanced fertiliser, even more of the calves are "different". And so it goes on until 10% of the calves born are different, and you have a lot of animals to care for that will never breed or produce milk, and others that seem very miserable, aswell as the small minority which produces exceptional milk and high quality leather.

You have realised that it is the new enhanced fertiliser which is having this effect. The cost of looking after the unproductive cows keeps rising. NB. The fertiliser has increased your crop yield enormously but you have noticed field-erosion as a result of mineral leaching.

What do you do?
.

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Mar 2009, 11:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

I spin in circles in my office chair.

Odd, so would I!

.

As CEO of the fertilizer company, I fund research that proves my product is safe.

Then I look for a sneaky way to sell my shares and invest in mobile phone technology....and repeat the above.

Anybody who raises animals for commercial use has no qualms about eliminating any that are not profitable. That's what commerce is all about.

Quite a few organic/small-scale farmers care about their animals, while still using and selling the animals' milk, eggs, etc, ( and their hides, etc when they die ), and would not agree with that assessment.

Imagine you were that kind of farmer; what would you do?

Edit: I will amend my OP to make it a smaller farm

.

I do not eat meat as I cannot excuse myself from being aware of the business of meat. But no business, whether it deals with humans or animals, can exist without hewing to the profit motive. That's what business is all about.

Yes, I agree that farmers in the current system are driven to maximize productivity and profits, not nutritional quality of the product. The same is true (but even more so) for food processing and manufacturing companies. It is only when a producer defines a niche related to nutritional quality, sustainability, organic standards, or some other concept that they can make money without making junk.

"Olive oil? Whatcha wanna waste all that money on olive oil for? Just buy a bucket of lard. That'll last ya a long time and don't cost so much!"

I think that a farmer that cares about their animals might prefer to stop using the fertiliser, lose some profits on crops, rather than see more calves born which s/he knows will be unproductive, need lots of looking after, and apparently suffer frequent distress, and which s/he will have to send to the slaughter house almost straight away if s/he is not to pay for their care.

.

Perhaps some farmers are willing to pauperize themselves for emotional reasons. I sincerely doubt that is the norm or even a reasonable percentage of farmers. Farmers, after all, are in competition with each other and their own survival is rather important. A farm is not a charitable institution.

How much does the increase in yield of the crops offset the expenses + loss of the 'mutant' cows? Also, is the 'mutant' cows' milk salable at a price such that the revenue from it exceeds the revenue they'd produce as regular cows producing a greater volume of regular-quality milk? (and etc. for the higher quality leather and such)

Hmm, offhand without that information, I guess I'd want to stop using it. ...But then maybe going bankrupt and have to shoot all the mutant cows...

...but, I could start a media campaign promoting my "un-mutated" beef/uncontaminated milk, and demonize my competitors as endangering the country's children, while subtly suggesting that they're socialists, and gay. That might even things up for a while.

Ahh ... but you miss the point! The situation described implies a threat to human health, which the market is oblivious to. The real question is not will the farmer sacrifice animal health to profit ... it is whether he will sacrifice human health to profit. The farm animal system is an extension of our own bodies; we ultimately eat the animals that are grazed on the toxic pasture.

So the question is not whether the farmer is a charity, but whether the ag system is willing to degrade and possibly destroy human life to maximize short term return on investment.

Only if it i sustainabe which this does not seem. Therefore I voted to get rid of the fertilizer