4 ms·

Ecen a pretty basic set of modern farm equipment and facilities will run into the millions of dollars, and will have very low utilization on small farms. A sing

by opencl 6y ago

Ecen a pretty basic set of modern farm equipment and facilities will run into the millions of dollars, and will have very low utilization on small farms. A single modern combine can harvest >100 acres per day. With multiple big fields of crops that have different harvesting times your equipment will spend much less time idle.

yorwba 6y ago
That's right, but it's not necessary to aggregate small farms into large ones to maximize machine utilization. It's also possible to separate the machine-owning part from the other aspects of farming and aggregate only that, by forming an association of farmers who share equipment. (Shared ownership of the means of production, so to speak.) In German, that's called a Maschinenring. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maschinenring https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maschinenring Not sure whether the concept is unpopular in the English-speaking world, or just not considered noteworthy enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article.
- mywacaday 6y ago
  In Ireland we have agricultural contractors who specialise in owning/operating big equipment that are only contracted in when needed but they are then very busy at certain times of the year an 18 hour days for a few weeks wouldn't be unusual. Literally making hay while the sun shines I guess.
- Retric 6y ago
  The overhead of transporting this equipment between farms makes the process significantly less efficient. The difference between harvesting 2,000 acres a day and 1,700 might not seem like a lot, but add in transaction costs and you can be talking 5+% higher food costs ignoring subsidies.
  - yorwba 6y ago
    If you merge multiple small farms into a single big one, the overhead of transporting this equipment between farms turns into the overhead of transporting this equipment between different parts of the farm. The distance that needs to be covered remains the same. Sure, the hand-off between farmers needs to be scheduled, but is that going to make the difference between 2,000 acres a day and 1,700? Do tractor drivers on big farms never take a break?
    - Retric 6y ago
      Individual farms aren’t simply a single open field. So, you need to physically drive between locations, verify that this is the correct location, enter the correct settings, ensure each farms resources are separate etc.
      - yorwba 6y ago
        And which of these steps can be omitted on a big farm? Only "ensure each farms resources are separate", no? Isn't that just an accounting question?
        Retric 6y ago
        I think you’re underestimating the overhead of talking to people. If your doing something worth X,000$ you want some signatures before and after the fact. Even the possibility of driving to the wrong location is meaningful. But, it’s also little things like the distance a tractor travels before it needs to turn around. Picture painting a a wall with and without windows using those long rollers. The simpler the shape the faster you can go.
  - phpnode 6y ago
    It's not just that, certain pieces of equipment (combines in particular) are needed at the exact same time in multiple different places, and a delay of a day or even a few hours can be ruinous (if you don't harvest wheat at exactly the right time it can be more or less destroyed by the weather)
    - yorwba 6y ago
      How do big farms cope with situations where their equipment is needed in multiple different places at the exact same time?
      - Retric 6y ago
        If you have 20,000 acres and equipment failure means you don’t harvest the last 1,000 acres before a rain that’s a problem. But for smaller farms it’s more binary where either 100% is on time or 0% is. You can bet people are more willing to let the first happen than the second.
- eru 6y ago
  There are transaction costs to these arrangements. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm for the broader question of why we have (big) companies at all instead of everything being organised on eg a project basis and people and equipment hired just as needed.
usrusr 6y ago
But there's only so much farmland. Those super efficient machines increase the efficiency of its operator, not the efficiency of the land.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bluGill 6y ago
  they increase the efficiency of the land too. By doing perfect spacing between plants they ensure optimal growing conditions for each which in turns increase yields greatly. Two plants in the space of one shade each other and the net result is a lot more than half the harvest is lost since each needs to put the same amount of energy into making a plant before they can put any into creating the crop. Too far apart and sunlight reaches the ground uselessly (or worse a fast growing weed that will shade your plants!).
spurgu 6y ago
Well, there's this: https://www.opensourceecology.org/ https://www.opensourceecology.org/

by opencl 6y ago

yorwba 6y ago

That's right, but it's not necessary to aggregate small farms into large ones to maximize machine utilization. It's also possible to separate the machine-owning part from the other aspects of farming and aggregate only that, by forming an association of farmers who share equipment. (Shared ownership of the means of production, so to speak.) In German, that's called a Maschinenring. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maschinenring https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maschinenring Not sure whether the concept is unpopular in the English-speaking world, or just not considered noteworthy enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article.

mywacaday 6y ago
In Ireland we have agricultural contractors who specialise in owning/operating big equipment that are only contracted in when needed but they are then very busy at certain times of the year an 18 hour days for a few weeks wouldn't be unusual. Literally making hay while the sun shines I guess.
Retric 6y ago
The overhead of transporting this equipment between farms makes the process significantly less efficient. The difference between harvesting 2,000 acres a day and 1,700 might not seem like a lot, but add in transaction costs and you can be talking 5+% higher food costs ignoring subsidies.
- yorwba 6y ago
  If you merge multiple small farms into a single big one, the overhead of transporting this equipment between farms turns into the overhead of transporting this equipment between different parts of the farm. The distance that needs to be covered remains the same. Sure, the hand-off between farmers needs to be scheduled, but is that going to make the difference between 2,000 acres a day and 1,700? Do tractor drivers on big farms never take a break?
  - Retric 6y ago
    Individual farms aren’t simply a single open field. So, you need to physically drive between locations, verify that this is the correct location, enter the correct settings, ensure each farms resources are separate etc.
    - yorwba 6y ago
      And which of these steps can be omitted on a big farm? Only "ensure each farms resources are separate", no? Isn't that just an accounting question?
      - Retric 6y ago
        I think you’re underestimating the overhead of talking to people. If your doing something worth X,000$ you want some signatures before and after the fact. Even the possibility of driving to the wrong location is meaningful. But, it’s also little things like the distance a tractor travels before it needs to turn around. Picture painting a a wall with and without windows using those long rollers. The simpler the shape the faster you can go.
- phpnode 6y ago
  It's not just that, certain pieces of equipment (combines in particular) are needed at the exact same time in multiple different places, and a delay of a day or even a few hours can be ruinous (if you don't harvest wheat at exactly the right time it can be more or less destroyed by the weather)
  - yorwba 6y ago
    How do big farms cope with situations where their equipment is needed in multiple different places at the exact same time?
    - Retric 6y ago
      If you have 20,000 acres and equipment failure means you don’t harvest the last 1,000 acres before a rain that’s a problem. But for smaller farms it’s more binary where either 100% is on time or 0% is. You can bet people are more willing to let the first happen than the second.
eru 6y ago
There are transaction costs to these arrangements. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm for the broader question of why we have (big) companies at all instead of everything being organised on eg a project basis and people and equipment hired just as needed.

usrusr 6y ago

But there's only so much farmland. Those super efficient machines increase the efficiency of its operator, not the efficiency of the land.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bluGill 6y ago
they increase the efficiency of the land too. By doing perfect spacing between plants they ensure optimal growing conditions for each which in turns increase yields greatly. Two plants in the space of one shade each other and the net result is a lot more than half the harvest is lost since each needs to put the same amount of energy into making a plant before they can put any into creating the crop. Too far apart and sunlight reaches the ground uselessly (or worse a fast growing weed that will shade your plants!).

spurgu 6y ago

Well, there's this: https://www.opensourceecology.org/ https://www.opensourceecology.org/