4 ms·

One of the difficulty for smaller farmers is the transition period where the field produces a lower yield. They don't have the monetary buffer available for tha

One of the difficulty for smaller farmers is the transition period where the field produces a lower yield. They don't have the monetary buffer available for that. I hope that Governments with a minimum of foresight will fund those efforts.

kickout 6y ago
This is correct. Its not an education problem (most farmers agree with these no-till sustainable practices), its an incentive problem. No sane farmer who derives their living from farming is going to take such a huge risk when annualized corn-soy production is heavily subsidized by the government (rightly or wrongly) on the _possibility_ of these practices maybe paying off (someday). https://thinkingagriculture.io/incentivizing-regenerative-agriculture/ https://thinkingagriculture.io/incentivizing-regenerative-ag... edit: There is a carefully crafted statement on the OP link saying increased yields in dry years. Outside of 2020 and 2012, the Midwest has been anything but dry. Can't expect people to adapt unprofitable practices
- wil421 6y ago
  If there are already subsidies why can’t there be subsidies specifically for adopting organic methods. You could also make the subsidies pay more during the first few years of the transition period. Milk is very subsidized as well. You could pair local dairies with local farmers participating in similar programs.
  - kickout 6y ago
    That's the million dollar question. There are reasons to subsidize overproduction of food and plant-based biofuels (ethanol) -- food riots are bad. So the current system makes sense even if I don't agree with it 100%. I anticipate we will see governments study/adapt these subsidy markets for more eco-friendly practices (for the purpose of carbon sequestration and/or ground water protection).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Each farm is different - in fact within a field there is enough variation that the best management is not the same across the whole. Thus you cannot subsidies any one practice. What the subsidies do is subsidize insurance. Buy insurance and if you have a crop failure you get paid as if you had the average yield over the past 10 years. However your average goes down as well for the next failure so better not have too many bad years in a row. Organic despite the name is not the best thing for the environment. Some of it is, that quickly is normal farming. What is left is not using safe chemicals, instead using much more harmful - but natural - ones, or tillage to control weeds. (Note that this article is pushing no-till which is conventional farming today)
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    The incentive structure for the people involved in asking for and deciding upon the subsidy structure is heavily weighted in favor of getting the subsidies at least cost to the business. Effectively, large ag producers are faced with a choice between "getting subsidies for labor-intensive sustainable practices" and "getting subsidies for machine-intensive practices".
VBprogrammer 6y ago
My impression of this is that the successful farmers are ones who cross from producing corn and soy to producing a variety of products which can be directly marketed at consumers (farmers markets, farm shop, veg box deliveries, pick your own etc) at prices which are far in excess of normal market prices. While this segment of the market is lucrative it's obviously limited in scale; most people want their normally weekly food at industrial scale prices.
- kickout 6y ago
  The most successful farmers have the best scale (10,000+ acres) of just corn/soy/wheat/cotton (depending on geography). The 'niche' guys may make good money, but their complexity is probably 1x-5x (maybe more) a 'stereotypical' row crop farmers farmers. That has to factor in somewhere.
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
    Yes, that's clearly true, for clarity what I actually meant was "Most successful [at niche no till agriculture]..."
  - mikey_p 6y ago
    This is huge, to be successful today you really need to be in the several thousand acres ranges, where only a few generations ago farmers made a living on 100-200 acres. If you can't afford the capital to expand via real estate niche farming is a more viable option for many folks. It's also often more risk than conventional grains, but with typical tradeoffs with higher reward.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      You can be successful on 10 acres - serving those high labor niche markets. Or you can be successful on 3000 acres. It is hard to be in the middle.
    - randomdata 6y ago
      > only a few generations ago farmers made a living on 100-200 acres. You still quite easily can if you own the land outright, even in the grain business. The problem is that you need multi-millions to buy 100-200 acres, which nobody wanting to start farming has, save situations of inheritance. That means, for most, the vast majority of the potential profit turns into servicing debt or paying rent to the actual landowner. When you are only receiving a small portion of the pie that the land is actually generating, that's when you need thousands of acres to accumulate enough. To put it another way: The going rate for rent for farmland around here is around $300/acre. $300 * 200 acres = $60,000. If you own the land and don't have to pay rent, that alone is a decent living; more than most people make. And that is ignoring the profit that someone renting would expect to make off the land.
sudoaza 6y ago
I cannot find the raw data or details about it, but they must have it. The only reason I see any transition loss in productivity would be in building soil fertility/biomass vs synthetic fertilizers which are more readily absorbed. I would guess it's possible to adopt the vegetable cover part of it while keeping the traditional fertilizers without suffering the transition.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Cover crops have been growing fast in conventional farming. It is less energy (read CO2!) to spray roundup to kill them before planting than to run a heavy roller (also soil compaction).
  - sudoaza 6y ago
    Experiments on soil compaction show the rolling to be better, the roll needs not to be that heavy, only to kill the vegetable. Also, you don't do a separate pass on the ground, you just roll it at sow time, so no extra gas. Also, the vegetable cover absorbs CO2 and later fix it to the ground. Here is a thorough comparison of soils and methods https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A

kickout 6y ago

This is correct. Its not an education problem (most farmers agree with these no-till sustainable practices), its an incentive problem. No sane farmer who derives their living from farming is going to take such a huge risk when annualized corn-soy production is heavily subsidized by the government (rightly or wrongly) on the _possibility_ of these practices maybe paying off (someday). https://thinkingagriculture.io/incentivizing-regenerative-agriculture/ https://thinkingagriculture.io/incentivizing-regenerative-ag... edit: There is a carefully crafted statement on the OP link saying increased yields in dry years. Outside of 2020 and 2012, the Midwest has been anything but dry. Can't expect people to adapt unprofitable practices

wil421 6y ago
If there are already subsidies why can’t there be subsidies specifically for adopting organic methods. You could also make the subsidies pay more during the first few years of the transition period. Milk is very subsidized as well. You could pair local dairies with local farmers participating in similar programs.
- kickout 6y ago
  That's the million dollar question. There are reasons to subsidize overproduction of food and plant-based biofuels (ethanol) -- food riots are bad. So the current system makes sense even if I don't agree with it 100%. I anticipate we will see governments study/adapt these subsidy markets for more eco-friendly practices (for the purpose of carbon sequestration and/or ground water protection).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- bluGill 6y ago
  Each farm is different - in fact within a field there is enough variation that the best management is not the same across the whole. Thus you cannot subsidies any one practice. What the subsidies do is subsidize insurance. Buy insurance and if you have a crop failure you get paid as if you had the average yield over the past 10 years. However your average goes down as well for the next failure so better not have too many bad years in a row. Organic despite the name is not the best thing for the environment. Some of it is, that quickly is normal farming. What is left is not using safe chemicals, instead using much more harmful - but natural - ones, or tillage to control weeds. (Note that this article is pushing no-till which is conventional farming today)
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  The incentive structure for the people involved in asking for and deciding upon the subsidy structure is heavily weighted in favor of getting the subsidies at least cost to the business. Effectively, large ag producers are faced with a choice between "getting subsidies for labor-intensive sustainable practices" and "getting subsidies for machine-intensive practices".

VBprogrammer 6y ago

My impression of this is that the successful farmers are ones who cross from producing corn and soy to producing a variety of products which can be directly marketed at consumers (farmers markets, farm shop, veg box deliveries, pick your own etc) at prices which are far in excess of normal market prices. While this segment of the market is lucrative it's obviously limited in scale; most people want their normally weekly food at industrial scale prices.

kickout 6y ago
The most successful farmers have the best scale (10,000+ acres) of just corn/soy/wheat/cotton (depending on geography). The 'niche' guys may make good money, but their complexity is probably 1x-5x (maybe more) a 'stereotypical' row crop farmers farmers. That has to factor in somewhere.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  Yes, that's clearly true, for clarity what I actually meant was "Most successful [at niche no till agriculture]..."
- mikey_p 6y ago
  This is huge, to be successful today you really need to be in the several thousand acres ranges, where only a few generations ago farmers made a living on 100-200 acres. If you can't afford the capital to expand via real estate niche farming is a more viable option for many folks. It's also often more risk than conventional grains, but with typical tradeoffs with higher reward.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    You can be successful on 10 acres - serving those high labor niche markets. Or you can be successful on 3000 acres. It is hard to be in the middle.
  - randomdata 6y ago
    > only a few generations ago farmers made a living on 100-200 acres. You still quite easily can if you own the land outright, even in the grain business. The problem is that you need multi-millions to buy 100-200 acres, which nobody wanting to start farming has, save situations of inheritance. That means, for most, the vast majority of the potential profit turns into servicing debt or paying rent to the actual landowner. When you are only receiving a small portion of the pie that the land is actually generating, that's when you need thousands of acres to accumulate enough. To put it another way: The going rate for rent for farmland around here is around $300/acre. $300 * 200 acres = $60,000. If you own the land and don't have to pay rent, that alone is a decent living; more than most people make. And that is ignoring the profit that someone renting would expect to make off the land.

sudoaza 6y ago

I cannot find the raw data or details about it, but they must have it. The only reason I see any transition loss in productivity would be in building soil fertility/biomass vs synthetic fertilizers which are more readily absorbed. I would guess it's possible to adopt the vegetable cover part of it while keeping the traditional fertilizers without suffering the transition.

bluGill 6y ago
Cover crops have been growing fast in conventional farming. It is less energy (read CO2!) to spray roundup to kill them before planting than to run a heavy roller (also soil compaction).
- sudoaza 6y ago
  Experiments on soil compaction show the rolling to be better, the roll needs not to be that heavy, only to kill the vegetable. Also, you don't do a separate pass on the ground, you just roll it at sow time, so no extra gas. Also, the vegetable cover absorbs CO2 and later fix it to the ground. Here is a thorough comparison of soils and methods https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A