3 ms·

Some weird cognitive dissonance here. On one hand farmers are concerned that companies buying up land to use for windfarms means the land is no longer used for

Some weird cognitive dissonance here. On one hand farmers are concerned that companies buying up land to use for windfarms means the land is no longer used for food. But we produce so much food that the government sometimes pays farmers not to sell it... and taking farmland out of production would theoretically increase crop prices for everyone else. As the article points out, farmers are retiring and their families don't want to run the farms anymore, so someone needs to buy it. Your choices are generally going to be either a mega farming corp or investors.

Spooky23 7y ago
That’s grain products, especially Corn This is something to worry about as our economic policy is finishing off whatever is left of the small farmer. Concentration of food production resources is an obviously bad thing that will be harmful to the country in the future. Particularly obvious which vegetables and berries, where a few dozen entities in 2-3 California counties essentially make the market. In the meantime, the former seasonal prime growing areas in places like New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts for these crops are now subdivisions. So when climate change makes irrigating the Imperial Valley less fruitful, we’ll have permanently lost that capacity.
- digitalsushi 7y ago
  https://www.foodsolutionsne.org/sites/default/files/LowResNEFV_0.pdf https://www.foodsolutionsne.org/sites/default/files/LowResNE...
gpm 7y ago
> we produce so much food that the government sometimes pays farmers not to sell it This strikes me as the ideal state of affairs, if we don't overproduce food a below average crop would mean people starving.
- asdff 7y ago
  It's not, as we aren't even producing useful crops in many places. In the central valley there are lots of almond and cotton farmers with outsized political sway, for example. These are water intensive crops that we actively subsidize and allow to freely pollute, but do we really need to waste all of this water and subsidy and taint the water supply for airline snacks and mattress-stuffing-grade cotton?
- AngryData 7y ago
  You are right, that is the literal intended purpose of farm subsidies. So a string of bad weather or pests or just naturally fluctuating yields don't cause a food shortage and make bread cost $10 a load. Although I do see major problems with how our subsidies are currently applied, the idea that we should just completely eliminate subsidies is a one way track to famine.
epistasis 7y ago
Scratch the surface of the farmer complaints, and they're probably just upset that they can't gobble up their neighbors' acreage as smaller farms fail. Wind gives a steady source of income that can keep farmers afloat if a crop doesn't go well. Meanwhile the large successful farmers are looking for land so that they can expand, or perhaps for some so that their multiple children can continue the tradition. I've read a couple articles on wind/solar use of farm land where the farmers' quotes reveals their true interests and concerns. At first they may complain about "change" or views, but their view, but economic expansions comes out as the far more likely culprit. Farmers are far far more politically sophisticated than the crazy billboards on I-5 would have a person believe. Wind also has almost negligible impact inland use, and even if the land is foreign owned it will likely be rented out to be farmed. Farmland that is leased for solar use is almost always the marginal parts of the land that don't produce much anyway. And some German experiments are combing solar with crops in a way that produces overall economic wins. Many farmers will adapt quickly to new tech, and those that don't will go bankrupt quickly.
- Bombthecat 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's because those families calculated and planned for years ahead. They are mostly economically more invested and interested than average Joe from the street...
- salawat 7y ago
  Uh... >Scratch the surface of the farmer complaints, and they're probably just upset that they can't gobble up their neighbors' acreage as smaller farms fail. Interesting you should mention that. Considering that the current regulatory, support, and incentive sructure around agriculture (in the U.S.) is notably skewed in favor of "Big Ag", it's not necessarily as straightforward as you imply to assign banal greed as the primary motivation of Farmers. You don't farm to make millions. The returns are terrible, with generally hard legal ceilings on many items. You're fighting a constant battle against the elements, your input sources (fiscal and material), and your own equipment and infrastructure to build up enough of a buffer to absorb down the road risks. Wanting to upsize in the current framework means availing yourself greater security through more of a risk buffer. This grants the farmer more peace of mind in the face of a rather dynamic trade landscape, and an uncertain future given the changing climate. Farmers are not stupid people. You don't run a sustainable farming op without coming to terms with the physical reality of the world; which includes a realistic view in terms of risk mitigation through political activism, and optimizing for getting the most out of the ambient environment. Farmers quickly come to terms with the difficulty and impracticality of maintaining the "hot house" flower, or unproductive livestock. A cold, inescapable sense of pragmatism develops from working closely with, and observing the machinery of the natural world at work. Not all may evenly consciously realize they are doing it. The longer you do it, the more you forget about the "why's" and "what you get's" as the practice of farming gets so ingrained it stops being a matter of what you want/chose to do, and just kind of becomes what you are. It's often a conducive to a more solitary, or fairly tight knit community; and communication tends to be secondary to execution. So it shouldn't come as a surprise when individually interviewing a farmer tends to generate some scandalous "gems" in common media. Cattle and crops don't care much for the artfully crafted word; and if farmers as a collective are actually pushed into a situation where time is better spent in a meeting as opposed to getting actual work done, it tends to be a signal that there is something fairly serious going on. Long story short, the point I'm meandering to is this: Don't write off any farmer, large or small, as being a callous, heartless, inflexible, unintelligent, greedy, unsociable human being. They're dealing with an environment as unforgiving as it is demanding. Then throwing economics on top of it. This means that of all people to keep an eye on as a barometer for change, the farmer is one he'll of a good signal to pay attention to. If a change impacts the fundamental process of farming; it has consequences likely everywhere else. Food for thought.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
I don't think it's dissonance so much as a conflict in needs, which is what most of business and life is about. No doubt America has a lot of land to spare, and it's probably not a problem. But on some scale, particularly for high-value residential areas, it can definitely be a problem. Vancouver is really a case for that. At least on London/NYC there's a lot local people (ie Londoners) who can pay 'global rates' for homes, banking is big there. In Van, the locals cannot afford anything unless the bought a long time ago. It was well within the scope for my (Canadian) parents to retire in North Van 25 years ago, I remember them talking about it as we were skiing near there as a kid. There's zero chance now and it's not because 'the local economy is booming'. But there are probably some material 'good things' about foreign ownership of some farmland as well.

Spooky23 7y ago

That’s grain products, especially Corn This is something to worry about as our economic policy is finishing off whatever is left of the small farmer. Concentration of food production resources is an obviously bad thing that will be harmful to the country in the future. Particularly obvious which vegetables and berries, where a few dozen entities in 2-3 California counties essentially make the market. In the meantime, the former seasonal prime growing areas in places like New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts for these crops are now subdivisions. So when climate change makes irrigating the Imperial Valley less fruitful, we’ll have permanently lost that capacity.

digitalsushi 7y ago
https://www.foodsolutionsne.org/sites/default/files/LowResNEFV_0.pdf https://www.foodsolutionsne.org/sites/default/files/LowResNE...

gpm 7y ago

> we produce so much food that the government sometimes pays farmers not to sell it This strikes me as the ideal state of affairs, if we don't overproduce food a below average crop would mean people starving.

asdff 7y ago
It's not, as we aren't even producing useful crops in many places. In the central valley there are lots of almond and cotton farmers with outsized political sway, for example. These are water intensive crops that we actively subsidize and allow to freely pollute, but do we really need to waste all of this water and subsidy and taint the water supply for airline snacks and mattress-stuffing-grade cotton?
AngryData 7y ago
You are right, that is the literal intended purpose of farm subsidies. So a string of bad weather or pests or just naturally fluctuating yields don't cause a food shortage and make bread cost $10 a load. Although I do see major problems with how our subsidies are currently applied, the idea that we should just completely eliminate subsidies is a one way track to famine.

epistasis 7y ago

Scratch the surface of the farmer complaints, and they're probably just upset that they can't gobble up their neighbors' acreage as smaller farms fail. Wind gives a steady source of income that can keep farmers afloat if a crop doesn't go well. Meanwhile the large successful farmers are looking for land so that they can expand, or perhaps for some so that their multiple children can continue the tradition. I've read a couple articles on wind/solar use of farm land where the farmers' quotes reveals their true interests and concerns. At first they may complain about "change" or views, but their view, but economic expansions comes out as the far more likely culprit. Farmers are far far more politically sophisticated than the crazy billboards on I-5 would have a person believe. Wind also has almost negligible impact inland use, and even if the land is foreign owned it will likely be rented out to be farmed. Farmland that is leased for solar use is almost always the marginal parts of the land that don't produce much anyway. And some German experiments are combing solar with crops in a way that produces overall economic wins. Many farmers will adapt quickly to new tech, and those that don't will go bankrupt quickly.

Bombthecat 7y ago
I'm pretty sure it's because those families calculated and planned for years ahead. They are mostly economically more invested and interested than average Joe from the street...
salawat 7y ago
Uh... >Scratch the surface of the farmer complaints, and they're probably just upset that they can't gobble up their neighbors' acreage as smaller farms fail. Interesting you should mention that. Considering that the current regulatory, support, and incentive sructure around agriculture (in the U.S.) is notably skewed in favor of "Big Ag", it's not necessarily as straightforward as you imply to assign banal greed as the primary motivation of Farmers. You don't farm to make millions. The returns are terrible, with generally hard legal ceilings on many items. You're fighting a constant battle against the elements, your input sources (fiscal and material), and your own equipment and infrastructure to build up enough of a buffer to absorb down the road risks. Wanting to upsize in the current framework means availing yourself greater security through more of a risk buffer. This grants the farmer more peace of mind in the face of a rather dynamic trade landscape, and an uncertain future given the changing climate. Farmers are not stupid people. You don't run a sustainable farming op without coming to terms with the physical reality of the world; which includes a realistic view in terms of risk mitigation through political activism, and optimizing for getting the most out of the ambient environment. Farmers quickly come to terms with the difficulty and impracticality of maintaining the "hot house" flower, or unproductive livestock. A cold, inescapable sense of pragmatism develops from working closely with, and observing the machinery of the natural world at work. Not all may evenly consciously realize they are doing it. The longer you do it, the more you forget about the "why's" and "what you get's" as the practice of farming gets so ingrained it stops being a matter of what you want/chose to do, and just kind of becomes what you are. It's often a conducive to a more solitary, or fairly tight knit community; and communication tends to be secondary to execution. So it shouldn't come as a surprise when individually interviewing a farmer tends to generate some scandalous "gems" in common media. Cattle and crops don't care much for the artfully crafted word; and if farmers as a collective are actually pushed into a situation where time is better spent in a meeting as opposed to getting actual work done, it tends to be a signal that there is something fairly serious going on. Long story short, the point I'm meandering to is this: Don't write off any farmer, large or small, as being a callous, heartless, inflexible, unintelligent, greedy, unsociable human being. They're dealing with an environment as unforgiving as it is demanding. Then throwing economics on top of it. This means that of all people to keep an eye on as a barometer for change, the farmer is one he'll of a good signal to pay attention to. If a change impacts the fundamental process of farming; it has consequences likely everywhere else. Food for thought.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

I don't think it's dissonance so much as a conflict in needs, which is what most of business and life is about. No doubt America has a lot of land to spare, and it's probably not a problem. But on some scale, particularly for high-value residential areas, it can definitely be a problem. Vancouver is really a case for that. At least on London/NYC there's a lot local people (ie Londoners) who can pay 'global rates' for homes, banking is big there. In Van, the locals cannot afford anything unless the bought a long time ago. It was well within the scope for my (Canadian) parents to retire in North Van 25 years ago, I remember them talking about it as we were skiing near there as a kid. There's zero chance now and it's not because 'the local economy is booming'. But there are probably some material 'good things' about foreign ownership of some farmland as well.