Even so, the US ranks high in this respect, unless you take into account the externalities -- pollution, food-borne diseases .... as well as the subsidies. If you ever came to Calif., the most productive ag. state, you would see huge water subsidies that make its "productive" ag. posssible.
Sorry, I have to go.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 12:14:31PM +0100, James Heartfield wrote:
> Michael Perelman:
>
> "But everytime I have looked at the data, the US is not the leader in yield"
>
> But then yield isn't the only measure of productivity. Yield is output per
> acre. Where land is plentiful, like the US, there is less pressure to
> increase yield. In Europe, where land is less plentiful, yields are high.
>
> On the other hand, output per labourer is high in the US. Between 1948 and
> 1994 farm output increased 2.37 times, but labour input reduced by two
> thirds.
> (Agricultural Productivity in the United States. By Mary Ahearn et al U.S.
> Department of Agriculture. Information Bulletin No. 740, p 5
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib740/aib740.pdf )
>
> Application of fertilisers and pesticides sets Americans free to do other
> things, while less developed nations have a greater proportion of people
> tied to the land. It all depends on what you think is important. If people
> are important, then increased productivity is a better thing that increased
> yield. (In any event, new techniques in agriculture are also increasing
> yield, leading to more land being freed from agricultural use.)
>
> ALSO, increased productivity makes food cheaper. In 1995, Britons spend 14
> per cent of their income on food, Americans ten per cent.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu