4 ms·

Is there a robust but economical alternative to our current supply chain? I've been looking at local CSAs and most seem to be doing fine right now, but the pri

by fovc 7y ago

Is there a robust but economical alternative to our current supply chain? I've been looking at local CSAs and most seem to be doing fine right now, but the pricing is way higher than in the supermarket (even comparing it to organic, grass fed to grass feed, etc.). Are the economies of scale so large, or is it more of a segmentation issue? If CSAs weren't such a niche would it be feasible to bring costs closer to supermarket levels?

tathougies 7y ago
CSAs are way less robust than the mainstream supply chain. People want a 'robust' supply chain that they define as one that is able to immediately (in the course of a day) shift from mostly commercial to mostly residential. This is a ridiculous ask, and I don't understand why people think this is how things should be.
jelliclesfarm 7y ago
Co-operatives or farm hubs with reliable stream of income. It is not that CSAs are expensive. It’s that most people pay less for industrially grown food. Supermarket tomatoes are uniform, thick skins, picked when green and gassed them red, grown in thousands of acres, mechanically harvested, grown broadacre with chemicals and trucked thousands of miles by palletfuls. How can you compare that to food grown in ten acres, harvested by hand and has the shortest distance from soil to kitchen and usually done by hand because true mechanization, automation tech and economies of scale hasn’t reached small farms. The consumer has to make a stand and be willing to pay what food is worth. That our food is cheap is what fuels many of the woes of the world.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > The consumer has to make a stand and be willing to pay what food is worth. By definition, the consumer is willing to pay what food is worth. On the other hand, the claim you're actually trying to make here, that the consumer should be willing to pay what food costs regardless of how little it's worth, is ludicrous.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > the claim you're actually trying to make here, that the consumer should be willing to pay what food costs regardless of how little it's worth, is ludicrous. Yes, the old labor theory of value. In one of pg's essays, he describes it as believing that if you want someone to paint your house, you should be willing to pay them ten times as much if they say they're going to do it with a toothbrush.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Industrial food has hidden costs. It depletes non renewal resources. When you pay for pesticide laden food grown with fossil fuels, you are paying for it in another way by way of taxes. It creates billion dollar industries that don’t really need to exist in the first place. It destroys habitat and marine life with shipping containers plying up and down causing untold damage. It creates futures markets and commodity markets in Wall Street. You pay. You pay by way of taxes and the cherry on top is inequalities in society and destruction of the only habitable planet we have for now. Example: California grows 45 billion dollars worth of food..the food economy is worthy about 350 billion. We grew food and exported during drought. We exported water thirsty almonds to Middle East and China during a drought..so we exported water when Californians were asked to ration water and our water bills went up. And we paid the cost with no benefit to California. The beneficiary of a scarce resource..water..was those who imported Californian Ag produce at a discount when they should be paying more for it. Not only did we pay..we lost. When Ag workers expose themselves to pesticides, they end up on welfare or Medicare..more than $ cost, we have created a whole new class of vulnerable poor people. Pay more for your food. That’s what I say..stop destroying the planet for whatever pieces of genetic material you leave behind in your children. Do it out of self interest. Not altruism.
      - pdonis 7y ago
        None of the problems you describe (to the extent they are problems--for example, futures and commodities markets are natural features of any market and serve useful purposes, though many people ignorant of basic economics don't recognize that) are problems of "industrial food". They are problems of bad government. Furthermore, even if all of those problems of bad government were magically solved, it wouldn't change the fact that people won't buy things they can't afford. If you can't make the kind of food you prefer cheaper, most people won't buy it, because they can't. They're going to get the best deal they can for what they can afford to spend. Moralizing won't change that.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > The consumer has to make a stand and be willing to pay what food is worth. Most consumers can't afford to. The solution is not to make everyone pay a lot more for food; it's to figure out how to produce healthier food cheaply enough that most consumers can afford it.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    >produce healthier food cheaply enough that most consumers can afford it That's sort of what supermarket produce is--especially fresh and frozen. It may not taste as good as something local that's in season a lot of the time. (Though some fresh supermarket produce is local depending upon where you live.) But by and large it's perfectly healthy.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    As long as population increases, production from fixed resources that are dwindling should cost more. Ag depends on labour. Right now cheap food doesn’t come from better production but from economies of scale to a certain extent but mostly by hedging and importing from poorer countries where labour is cheaper. Such a supply chain is unstable and unreliable. We will see food shortages in places like America as imports will fall short and labour dries up. The farm workers are the most vulnerable population. Most will likely be infected during this crisis and will contribute to community spread. Because there is no one willing to work as hard as them at such low wages, ag is going to come to a screeching halt in the coming seasons.
    - pdonis 7y ago
      > production from fixed resources > Ag depends on labour. Labor is not a fixed resource. Also, ag does not have to depend on labor. It does now because, as you say, the supply chain is currently set up to take advantage of the cheap labor which is available in many places. But it doesn't have to be set up that way.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  That our food is cheap is what fuels many of the woes of the world. And also accounts for the amazing progress of the 20th-21st century.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Cheap food is not the reason for ‘amazing progress’ ..can you explain why you feel this way?
    - nitrogen 7y ago
      Cheap food allows us to spend more of our time, money, and attention on issues instead of finding food. It significantly increases the number of people who can get enough food at all. Ancient agriculture marked the birth of civilization. Modern agriculture is absolutely critical for modern civilization.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bluntfang 7y ago
>but the pricing is way higher than in the supermarket How can you say this? Every CSA I've seen does not tell you how much you'll get or what kinds you'll get on a weekly basis, it depends on the grow season. What numbers are you comparing?

by fovc 7y ago

tathougies 7y ago

CSAs are way less robust than the mainstream supply chain. People want a 'robust' supply chain that they define as one that is able to immediately (in the course of a day) shift from mostly commercial to mostly residential. This is a ridiculous ask, and I don't understand why people think this is how things should be.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago

Co-operatives or farm hubs with reliable stream of income. It is not that CSAs are expensive. It’s that most people pay less for industrially grown food. Supermarket tomatoes are uniform, thick skins, picked when green and gassed them red, grown in thousands of acres, mechanically harvested, grown broadacre with chemicals and trucked thousands of miles by palletfuls. How can you compare that to food grown in ten acres, harvested by hand and has the shortest distance from soil to kitchen and usually done by hand because true mechanization, automation tech and economies of scale hasn’t reached small farms. The consumer has to make a stand and be willing to pay what food is worth. That our food is cheap is what fuels many of the woes of the world.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> The consumer has to make a stand and be willing to pay what food is worth. By definition, the consumer is willing to pay what food is worth. On the other hand, the claim you're actually trying to make here, that the consumer should be willing to pay what food costs regardless of how little it's worth, is ludicrous.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > the claim you're actually trying to make here, that the consumer should be willing to pay what food costs regardless of how little it's worth, is ludicrous. Yes, the old labor theory of value. In one of pg's essays, he describes it as believing that if you want someone to paint your house, you should be willing to pay them ten times as much if they say they're going to do it with a toothbrush.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Industrial food has hidden costs. It depletes non renewal resources. When you pay for pesticide laden food grown with fossil fuels, you are paying for it in another way by way of taxes. It creates billion dollar industries that don’t really need to exist in the first place. It destroys habitat and marine life with shipping containers plying up and down causing untold damage. It creates futures markets and commodity markets in Wall Street. You pay. You pay by way of taxes and the cherry on top is inequalities in society and destruction of the only habitable planet we have for now. Example: California grows 45 billion dollars worth of food..the food economy is worthy about 350 billion. We grew food and exported during drought. We exported water thirsty almonds to Middle East and China during a drought..so we exported water when Californians were asked to ration water and our water bills went up. And we paid the cost with no benefit to California. The beneficiary of a scarce resource..water..was those who imported Californian Ag produce at a discount when they should be paying more for it. Not only did we pay..we lost. When Ag workers expose themselves to pesticides, they end up on welfare or Medicare..more than $ cost, we have created a whole new class of vulnerable poor people. Pay more for your food. That’s what I say..stop destroying the planet for whatever pieces of genetic material you leave behind in your children. Do it out of self interest. Not altruism.
    - pdonis 7y ago
      None of the problems you describe (to the extent they are problems--for example, futures and commodities markets are natural features of any market and serve useful purposes, though many people ignorant of basic economics don't recognize that) are problems of "industrial food". They are problems of bad government. Furthermore, even if all of those problems of bad government were magically solved, it wouldn't change the fact that people won't buy things they can't afford. If you can't make the kind of food you prefer cheaper, most people won't buy it, because they can't. They're going to get the best deal they can for what they can afford to spend. Moralizing won't change that.
pdonis 7y ago
> The consumer has to make a stand and be willing to pay what food is worth. Most consumers can't afford to. The solution is not to make everyone pay a lot more for food; it's to figure out how to produce healthier food cheaply enough that most consumers can afford it.
- ghaff 7y ago
  >produce healthier food cheaply enough that most consumers can afford it That's sort of what supermarket produce is--especially fresh and frozen. It may not taste as good as something local that's in season a lot of the time. (Though some fresh supermarket produce is local depending upon where you live.) But by and large it's perfectly healthy.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  As long as population increases, production from fixed resources that are dwindling should cost more. Ag depends on labour. Right now cheap food doesn’t come from better production but from economies of scale to a certain extent but mostly by hedging and importing from poorer countries where labour is cheaper. Such a supply chain is unstable and unreliable. We will see food shortages in places like America as imports will fall short and labour dries up. The farm workers are the most vulnerable population. Most will likely be infected during this crisis and will contribute to community spread. Because there is no one willing to work as hard as them at such low wages, ag is going to come to a screeching halt in the coming seasons.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > production from fixed resources > Ag depends on labour. Labor is not a fixed resource. Also, ag does not have to depend on labor. It does now because, as you say, the supply chain is currently set up to take advantage of the cheap labor which is available in many places. But it doesn't have to be set up that way.
nitrogen 7y ago
That our food is cheap is what fuels many of the woes of the world. And also accounts for the amazing progress of the 20th-21st century.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Cheap food is not the reason for ‘amazing progress’ ..can you explain why you feel this way?
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    Cheap food allows us to spend more of our time, money, and attention on issues instead of finding food. It significantly increases the number of people who can get enough food at all. Ancient agriculture marked the birth of civilization. Modern agriculture is absolutely critical for modern civilization.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bluntfang 7y ago

>but the pricing is way higher than in the supermarket How can you say this? Every CSA I've seen does not tell you how much you'll get or what kinds you'll get on a weekly basis, it depends on the grow season. What numbers are you comparing?