Brilliant analysis. We have paid farmers (through crop insurance and ethanol production) to become dependent on this destructive system; we must similarly incentivize them to wean them off this toxic dependency. It is not just superweeds, but soil and water destruction, that threaten the long-term sustainability of this massive boondoggle.
You write "Banks and lenders fund predictability, not sustainability." Yup, but when the business model implodes due to lack of sustainability, the bankers will be dragged into insolvency with their farmer borrowers: the lending is not sustainable if the underlying methodology is unsound.
James, I was pleased to encounter your article on glyphosate. While trumps order is counter intuitive when considering the harms of glyphosate, the structural dependency on what can only be described as a toxin, explains why the toxin must be protected at least for the time being. Insidious what has been done to mankind by this single infiltration into food production.
It is worth noting that none of this would have been possible in such a short span of time had an artificial market for grain crops not been established by government meddling. Crop subsidies dating back to mid last century established an artificial market in which farmers were guaranteed a price for their yield for corn, soybeans, and wheat. Without the concern of demand will support production, farmers honed in on these three crops, expanding and limiting their fields to just these.
As you know, many consequences to our food supply have come about by short sited policies to “protect farmers” … seed oils and corn syrup and all kinds of mutant stabilizers and texturizers made from artificially abundant (cheap) grains. “Grain-raised” beef and chickens became the norm.
While not food, petroleum ethanol additives are another problem caused by foolish policy. In fact, modern society has been poisoned and crippled by “no farms no food” lobbyists which perpetuate the subsidized foundation of it all.
The most readily available way to undo the harm is for individuals to refuse the output of subsidized agriculture. My own suburban family has shifted our buying patterns in the past few years, avoiding seed oils and seeking out organic dairy and eggs, and grass fed meat.
We is among a growing group of concerned people who are affecting change “with their wallets”.
I am trying to figure out the truth about glyphosate, but I don't think that half the truth is better than no truth at all. I agree with Lyons-Weiler that the 'glyphosate paradigm' has tentacles in much [too much?] of the western world's agricultural systems. I have not seen hard data on how much damage or how many are damaged by glyphosate (directly or exposure to small amounts over time), but without doubt there is enough that "something really should be done". I think this is where the hard work comes in.
I don't think we want x-rays in all our building lights exposing the entire population to x-rays, but that does not mean there isn't a beneficial role for x-rays if used selectively. I sense the same is true of glyphosate. E.g. the benefits if used in non-food applications. I would be willing to bet that gyphosate is preferable to paraquat if many contexts, for example.
Crop insurance was introduced in scale in the 1930's– long before Round-Up® was a gleam in the eye of Bayer's CEO. Glyphosate came into broad use in the mid-70s-mid-80's (pick a year). There were 'symbolic incentives' (one agronomic, the other financial) to farmers to utilize both. I think it is misleading to suggest that glyphosate caused the demand for crop insurance and that crop insurance was designed to increase the integration of glyphosate into the crop production paradigm.
The impact of the 'global warming' and 'climate change' agendas have had serious negative impacts on much of the planet (people, economies, environment, etc.). Decisions made on the basis of the climate change 'religion' created incentives, one of which glyphosate indirectly aligned with. Farmers understand incentives, and chose to grow as much corn as they could [with the help of glyphosate] for ethanol production. Correlation is not causation.
I have spoken to many farmers, among others, that would love to have safer, economically competitive alternatives to glyphosate. I know 'we' have spent billions on a cure for cancer without a solution (that is another vent), but if finding an alternative to glyphosate was easy, I would think someone would have discovered or invented one in the past 40 year.
A diversified, safer, food production paradigm is desirable. A more diversified ownership of food production is desirable. MAGA: physically, agriculturally, environmentally. Lots of work. to do. (James Lyons-Weiler and John Klar are both helping the cause.)
Brilliant analysis. We have paid farmers (through crop insurance and ethanol production) to become dependent on this destructive system; we must similarly incentivize them to wean them off this toxic dependency. It is not just superweeds, but soil and water destruction, that threaten the long-term sustainability of this massive boondoggle.
You write "Banks and lenders fund predictability, not sustainability." Yup, but when the business model implodes due to lack of sustainability, the bankers will be dragged into insolvency with their farmer borrowers: the lending is not sustainable if the underlying methodology is unsound.
I discuss the interaction of these problems with globalist efforts to dominate food production, supply chain risks, and the lurking threat of runaway inflation in my new book, out today: https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Food-Crisis-Corporations-Activists/dp/1631441027/ref=sr_1_1?crid=8HURZ2XUZ2TB&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.f97JeoLu294BT09Oqnaiu_OkYo11E_6YjTA4gK8L27SSr1tEXkm-jSZ1GbPFFpUDuSDm3UsMxyyQ0EgZ2lDS4raqSumJ-w4xKypmDYDETEkPA9dURrE3Sq88yhgrqH7E.3U8xcQkv4lO9FWYhLBlHAWMfKxRm29jh0hoHU3djBmk&dib_tag=se&keywords=john+klar&qid=1773678699&s=books&sprefix=john+klar%2Cstripbooks%2C896&sr=1-1
Much of the world is headed for a cliff: America's industrial crop farmers are at the front of the queue!
James, I was pleased to encounter your article on glyphosate. While trumps order is counter intuitive when considering the harms of glyphosate, the structural dependency on what can only be described as a toxin, explains why the toxin must be protected at least for the time being. Insidious what has been done to mankind by this single infiltration into food production.
It is worth noting that none of this would have been possible in such a short span of time had an artificial market for grain crops not been established by government meddling. Crop subsidies dating back to mid last century established an artificial market in which farmers were guaranteed a price for their yield for corn, soybeans, and wheat. Without the concern of demand will support production, farmers honed in on these three crops, expanding and limiting their fields to just these.
As you know, many consequences to our food supply have come about by short sited policies to “protect farmers” … seed oils and corn syrup and all kinds of mutant stabilizers and texturizers made from artificially abundant (cheap) grains. “Grain-raised” beef and chickens became the norm.
While not food, petroleum ethanol additives are another problem caused by foolish policy. In fact, modern society has been poisoned and crippled by “no farms no food” lobbyists which perpetuate the subsidized foundation of it all.
The most readily available way to undo the harm is for individuals to refuse the output of subsidized agriculture. My own suburban family has shifted our buying patterns in the past few years, avoiding seed oils and seeking out organic dairy and eggs, and grass fed meat.
We is among a growing group of concerned people who are affecting change “with their wallets”.
In the list under subhead "Concrete Redesign Sequence: Updated", the end of item 5 should read "...herbicides and pesticides."
Systems thinking clarifies everything. It's the way Ai thinks. Solutions that work fall out naturally.
I am trying to figure out the truth about glyphosate, but I don't think that half the truth is better than no truth at all. I agree with Lyons-Weiler that the 'glyphosate paradigm' has tentacles in much [too much?] of the western world's agricultural systems. I have not seen hard data on how much damage or how many are damaged by glyphosate (directly or exposure to small amounts over time), but without doubt there is enough that "something really should be done". I think this is where the hard work comes in.
I don't think we want x-rays in all our building lights exposing the entire population to x-rays, but that does not mean there isn't a beneficial role for x-rays if used selectively. I sense the same is true of glyphosate. E.g. the benefits if used in non-food applications. I would be willing to bet that gyphosate is preferable to paraquat if many contexts, for example.
Crop insurance was introduced in scale in the 1930's– long before Round-Up® was a gleam in the eye of Bayer's CEO. Glyphosate came into broad use in the mid-70s-mid-80's (pick a year). There were 'symbolic incentives' (one agronomic, the other financial) to farmers to utilize both. I think it is misleading to suggest that glyphosate caused the demand for crop insurance and that crop insurance was designed to increase the integration of glyphosate into the crop production paradigm.
The impact of the 'global warming' and 'climate change' agendas have had serious negative impacts on much of the planet (people, economies, environment, etc.). Decisions made on the basis of the climate change 'religion' created incentives, one of which glyphosate indirectly aligned with. Farmers understand incentives, and chose to grow as much corn as they could [with the help of glyphosate] for ethanol production. Correlation is not causation.
I have spoken to many farmers, among others, that would love to have safer, economically competitive alternatives to glyphosate. I know 'we' have spent billions on a cure for cancer without a solution (that is another vent), but if finding an alternative to glyphosate was easy, I would think someone would have discovered or invented one in the past 40 year.
A diversified, safer, food production paradigm is desirable. A more diversified ownership of food production is desirable. MAGA: physically, agriculturally, environmentally. Lots of work. to do. (James Lyons-Weiler and John Klar are both helping the cause.)
That's what happens when you centralized the regulation of agriculture.
Imagine Life Without Glyphosate
https://www.lancasterfarming.com/imagine-life-without-glyphosate-opinion/article_03a4b7c2-c30f-507a-8c95-016a434abc1c.html
The Big Fat Surprise, Why Butter, Meat, & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. By Nina Teicholz
Page 337. “What if we returned to eating tallow, and lard again, thereby reducing the demand we place on our land to grow soybean…”
Seed oils web site: https://www.seedoilscout.com