The USDA is apparently encouraging farmers to plant multiple crops to help deal with supply shortages created by the war in Ukraine, but a couple of options don't seem to be on the table; stop subsidizing grain and stop burning it in our fuel tanks.
If grain were not subsidized, the price of corn would rise, and that would be a far bigger impact for those eating meat and dairy--and all of a sudden, more grain, legumes, and oilseeds would be available for humans to eat.
Leave it to the USDA to skip the obvious and insist on something that could have some pretty big environmental, fuel usage, and capital issues.
3 comments:
I have seen estimates that reducing grain crops would increase health - and NOT substantially increase grocery prices, excepting junk food. There's always meat, as you say... but grass fed meat prices are coming down. Or, at least not rising as precipitously as grainfed!
I don't know that I'd reduce grain altogether, but I'd stop subsidizing it and then requiring the public to use it for fuel and such. My bet is that, along the lines of what you note, we'd get more grass fed meats, less grain byproducts, less cheap calories that hammer the pancreas.
We could save a LOT of money in medical care if we were halfway smart.
Right. It's something you see with the new developments in permaculture and regenerative ag. We SHOULD be pursuing these improvements - however shoving them down everyone's throat all at once is harmful and counterproductive.
Stop the subsidies for grain (and the NASTY way they're done) and start subsidizing multi-crop landscapes. We *could* do better, but it's not a one size fits all approach (it's designed not to be!) and it's definitely not an instant change.
I swear we could put 10 year olds in charge of half of our society, after basic science classes, and see things get better. "Poop is bad for you. Perhaps we should not have ponds of it."
Post a Comment