24.5 C
Belize City
Friday, March 29, 2024

World Down Syndrome Day

Photo: Students and staff of Stella Maris...

BPD awards 3 officers with Women Police of the Year

Photo: (l-r) Myrna Pena, Carmella Cacho, and...

Suicide on the rise!

Photo: Iveth Quintanilla, Mental Health Coordinator by Charles...

Kirby Salisbury to Colin Hyde

LettersKirby Salisbury to Colin Hyde

October 18, 2014

Dear Mr. Colin Hyde,

Your good piece in the 19th October Amandala has prompted the thinking of this reader (the goal of the columnist, “no true?”)

From what I’ve read and experienced, American corporate farming has replaced the family farm because it can produce more food per dollar. It accomplishes this because US government subsidies favor the large operator and most importantly, because presently the oil needed to produce machinery, agricultural inputs and transportation is readily available and relatively cheap. This allows a farming corporation to spend far more energy units in producing and transporting the commodity than the commodity itself contains. Despite the energy inefficiency of putting more in than you get out, the system works if what you put in is cheap and what you get out is dear.

If, as many experts predict, oil becomes less available in the near future and therefore more expensive the smaller family farmer who sells locally will become more competitive because he is more efficient in fossil fuel usage. In addition, as populations increase and agricultural land per person decreases the smaller farmer will be favored because he can intensify his methods and produce more food per acre than a farming corporation. He can also more easily adapt to changing environmental conditions.

With the expectation that fuel and farm land prices will increase and the present production methods will no longer be economical, the corporations that have specialized in producing food, e.g. Con-Agra, are branching out into food processing, distribution and retail sales. Already the increase in oil prices has cut the margin of profit for corporate farming to less than 10 percent.

Food production along with manufacturing has contributed greatly to America’s wealth but the reality is that the biggest gains were achieved before the advent of widespread corporate farming and during a period where a significant portion of the country’s population was still on the farm. Statistics indicate that the buying power of the average American peaked out sometime in the late 1970’s and has been declining ever since. Corporate farming, which was blooming about then, contributed to this decline by causing migration to the cities and the resulting collapse of rural communities.

Contributing greatly to the wealth of America has been its abundance of natural resources including fertile agricultural land, natural gas, coal and oil. Often unstated are the personality characteristics of the Europeans settlers. Driven by their desire to “own” and employing their aggressive natures they took the land away from the people who had occupied it for centuries. Driven by innate ambition they “developed” the land into a wealthy empire, one rich enough to support a military that can assure that its worldwide need for markets and resources is not disrupted.

Corporate farming is not viable unless there is a supply of good soil and cheap fuel. The slowness of Belize to embrace corporate farming results from the lack of these resources and the fact that its people are neither acquisitive nor aggressive by nature. Ironically this has left the traditional small Belizean farmers who sell locally in a position to thrive even while larger corporate farmers struggle as their inputs become prohibitively expensive or unavailable entirely.

I was born and raised on a small farm in Montana and though I chose a different route which brought me to British Honduras as a young man, I still retain a strong personal interest and emotional ties to the “family farm.” My daughter and her Belizean husband and children now operate that Montana farm. They survive economically by producing organic grains and cattle for a niche market. Their inputs are much lower than their corporate neighbors and they receive premium prices for their products. With a significantly greater profit margin they have a better chance of surviving the looming oil crisis and with a small unit they have greater flexibility to adjust to the impacts of climate change. But perhaps more importantly they reap the benefits of working together, each knowing that their input is essential for the welfare of the family unit and that they are producing healthy food for themselves and their customers. We always enjoy your column.

Kirby Salisbury

P.S. My wife and I raised our family here and I believe the Belizean experience has enriched our lives and those of our children in ways far more important than mere economics. We hope our gratitude is apparent to those who read our memoirs: Treehouse Perspectives: Living High on Little and Chance Along: A Wind Worth Waiting For.

send letters

Check out our other content

World Down Syndrome Day

Suicide on the rise!

Check out other tags:

International