4 ms·
Even the latter statement has to be hedged, unfortunately (e.g., see the Dust Bowl), though it is more often the case. It really comes down to sustainable vs.
by barathr 5y ago
Even the latter statement has to be hedged, unfortunately (e.g., see the Dust Bowl), though it is more often the case. It really comes down to sustainable vs. unsustainable practices.
- nitwit005 5y agoYes, you have to be careful of people's romanticism around farming. A single small farm may not cause much damage, but millions of small farms can easily.
- barathr 5y agoThe key with small farms is that they have "skin in the game" and also the feedback loop is faster since they are often on the land and see the effects of what they do.
- Calvin02 5y agoI find it hard to believe that large farms don’t have “skin in the game”. I would think that they manage their farm land as an investment. It isn’t easy to move to a different area due to labor, equipment, investment into the ground, etc. If anything, I’d expect a small farm operation to easily relocate should the land become less productive.
- barathr 5y agoSustainability is often about long-term productivity, not short-term productivity. A piece of land that's going to be in a family for multiple generations is a different thing from a corporate operation that is looking for quarterly or yearly gains. Yes there are some in the latter category that are thinking long term, but how often are they thinking one generation out, let alone multiple?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]