4 ms·

> So from that perspective, the economics between the computer world and farming world are probably the same This totally leaves out the risk factor of not fin

by wglb 8y ago

> So from that perspective, the economics between the computer world and farming world are probably the same This totally leaves out the risk factor of not finishing harvest in time. In northern climates, if you don't finish, for example, by early September, the remaining crop may be unharvestable. Thus you could lose half your crop, totally. So the economics are not at all the same.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago
Farming has to scale down. Big Ag which includes tractor companies, input companies, pesticides/herbicides companies and GMO seed companies are like a cartel. They completely control the market. When you have 2000 acres and it’s a single narrow harvest window, it’s not possible unless you use herbicides and inputs and reliable traited seeds and even harvest is time by desiccating with..surprise!..glyphosate, one realized with depressing clarity that the real farmer is Big Ag. It’s their world. And the rest of us belong to them.
- wglb 8y ago
  The reality is a bit more complicated than that. >Farming has to scale down. Then how are you going to feed everyone? By the time I left the farm for college, the productivity of the American farmer had increased by almost two orders of magnitude for the 50 years beginning when my grandfather homesteaded in 1911. Improvements in technology, from using tractors instead of horses, modern cultivating techniques (strip farming, idle land cultivating), fertilizer increased yields and cut prices substantially. When I was 3, my dad and uncle, who were partners in the farm, purchased a tractor for the equivalent of 1200 bushels of wheat. 15 years later, that same tractor would have cost 9500 bushels of wheat. It isn't so simple that giant companies, whether it be oil, big ag, energy want to make profits. Clearly they do. But when we all insist on buying and driving cars and complain when gasoline prices are too high, there are overall economic forces at work that tend to create opportunities of scale, resulting in Big Ag and Big Energy. The consumer and the hungry mouths are all part of the equation.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    I see it as a sign that we are way past our carrying capacity. Automating Ag would help secure food supply but when automation takes over, economies of scale don’t matter. Most of the commodity crop isn’t food but feed and fodder. Shifting to a predominantly vegetarian diet would also help. We have a myth of abundance due to economies of scale. It is very costly and is really not working out. Ditto with subsidies. All this is possible because of other enormous powers working invisibly. When goods reflect true cost of production, then consumption will come down as will wastage. Time for a reality check. Your parents and grandparents probably could make a living out of land and farming. But most farmers today need credit to buy high tech equipment and likely hold second jobs. What’s wrong with this picture?
    - tptacek 8y ago
      It is really hard to follow this argument. Smaller-scale crop farming doesn't just feed fewer people; it may also make poorer use of the land. It's hard to see how going backwards would help anyone.
      - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        It will make people pay more for food. Is that such a bad thing? There is no such thing as a free lunch.
        tptacek 8y ago
        Yes, it will do that (which is bad) and also it will probably make poorer use of the land itself. What exactly is the goal of doing this? Immiseration for its own sake?
        jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        1. Why is paying more for food a bad thing?...the true cost of growing food..a bad thing? 2. Soil gets depleted. Water is wasted. Inputs and tillage destroy soil structure. Pesticides and herbicides destroy habitat and bio diversity. These are the other costs of cheap food. 3. Please explain to me what you mean by ‘poorer use of soil’? What is your metric for best use of soil and sub optimal use of soil? 4. The goal is regenerative ag so that we can keep growing food for a long time and presence habitat and biodiversity. When you kill the golden goose, you can have roast goose for one day. And that’s that. What’s the use of that?

by wglb 8y ago

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

Farming has to scale down. Big Ag which includes tractor companies, input companies, pesticides/herbicides companies and GMO seed companies are like a cartel. They completely control the market. When you have 2000 acres and it’s a single narrow harvest window, it’s not possible unless you use herbicides and inputs and reliable traited seeds and even harvest is time by desiccating with..surprise!..glyphosate, one realized with depressing clarity that the real farmer is Big Ag. It’s their world. And the rest of us belong to them.

wglb 8y ago
The reality is a bit more complicated than that. >Farming has to scale down. Then how are you going to feed everyone? By the time I left the farm for college, the productivity of the American farmer had increased by almost two orders of magnitude for the 50 years beginning when my grandfather homesteaded in 1911. Improvements in technology, from using tractors instead of horses, modern cultivating techniques (strip farming, idle land cultivating), fertilizer increased yields and cut prices substantially. When I was 3, my dad and uncle, who were partners in the farm, purchased a tractor for the equivalent of 1200 bushels of wheat. 15 years later, that same tractor would have cost 9500 bushels of wheat. It isn't so simple that giant companies, whether it be oil, big ag, energy want to make profits. Clearly they do. But when we all insist on buying and driving cars and complain when gasoline prices are too high, there are overall economic forces at work that tend to create opportunities of scale, resulting in Big Ag and Big Energy. The consumer and the hungry mouths are all part of the equation.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  I see it as a sign that we are way past our carrying capacity. Automating Ag would help secure food supply but when automation takes over, economies of scale don’t matter. Most of the commodity crop isn’t food but feed and fodder. Shifting to a predominantly vegetarian diet would also help. We have a myth of abundance due to economies of scale. It is very costly and is really not working out. Ditto with subsidies. All this is possible because of other enormous powers working invisibly. When goods reflect true cost of production, then consumption will come down as will wastage. Time for a reality check. Your parents and grandparents probably could make a living out of land and farming. But most farmers today need credit to buy high tech equipment and likely hold second jobs. What’s wrong with this picture?
  - tptacek 8y ago
    It is really hard to follow this argument. Smaller-scale crop farming doesn't just feed fewer people; it may also make poorer use of the land. It's hard to see how going backwards would help anyone.
    - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
      It will make people pay more for food. Is that such a bad thing? There is no such thing as a free lunch.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Yes, it will do that (which is bad) and also it will probably make poorer use of the land itself. What exactly is the goal of doing this? Immiseration for its own sake?
        jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        1. Why is paying more for food a bad thing?...the true cost of growing food..a bad thing? 2. Soil gets depleted. Water is wasted. Inputs and tillage destroy soil structure. Pesticides and herbicides destroy habitat and bio diversity. These are the other costs of cheap food. 3. Please explain to me what you mean by ‘poorer use of soil’? What is your metric for best use of soil and sub optimal use of soil? 4. The goal is regenerative ag so that we can keep growing food for a long time and presence habitat and biodiversity. When you kill the golden goose, you can have roast goose for one day. And that’s that. What’s the use of that?