5 ms·

> Kill the subsidies and that whole industry slowly dies. That would be a good thing. Maybe repurpose the subsidies to have those farmers do something that actu

> Kill the subsidies and that whole industry slowly dies. That would be a good thing. Maybe repurpose the subsidies to have those farmers do something that actually is more productive and less harmful. So once we've put all the farmers out of work and declared success, what do you suggest they do that is "more productive"? Should they lease their corn fields to crypto bros?

blihp 5y ago
Or... and I'm just spitballing here... perhaps switch to more productive crops? I would hope that no one believes we need fewer farmers here in the U.S. (we need more, IMO), but don't incentivize them to produce more of a given type of crop than actually makes sense.
- assttoasstmgr 5y ago
  It's not that simple. Farmers typically rotate crops between corn, soybeans, clover, wheat, etc. It helps restore nutrients to the soil. https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/crop-rotation/ https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/crop-rotation/
  - watwut 5y ago
    It is not like agriculture and farming was impossible without excessive production of corn.
  - Retric 5y ago
    The extreme investment needed to grow crops at scale has resulted in hyper specialization supplemented by fertilizers etc. I have seen farms near me do Corn, Corn, Corn, Soy, Corn based on whatever they think will be most profitable.
  - walnutclosefarm 5y ago
    In the last century, kinda sorta. In the major corn producing region of the US (I live in Iowa, the heart of the beast), crop rotation is largely reduced to choosing, based on markets whether to grow corn or soybeans on any particular acre. Dairy farmers still grow some alfalfa here and there, but the black earth midwest is pretty much corn and soybeans, full stop.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more just to make sure folks have the proper equipment. If you currently grow corn and soybeans* then your equipment will be specialized for them, generally. I don't know about the current landscape, as it has been years since I've lived in the states, let alone mingled with farmers in the US, but at one point, they would pay farmers to allow a field to be unplanted. I find this to be a viable option when mixed with the above and the farmers I knew didn't complain either. *Corn and soybeans are generally grown together, generally (but not always) in alternating years. Corn tends to deplete nutrients in soil, soy puts them back.
  - the_other 5y ago
    > Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more just to make sure folks have the proper equipment. If you currently grow corn and soybeans* then your equipment will be specialized for them, generally. So what you’re saying is that the market doesn’t work?
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      "So what you’re saying is that the market doesn’t work?" I definitely do not back unregulated markets, and in general, do not think markets for food work. It isn't just food, but other things that are general necessities for the modern times. Utilities, roads, and medical care are other examples.
  - M2Ys4U 5y ago
    >Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more I don't think anyone arguing that subsidies in general are bad, just that subsidising corn is bad...
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      My point is that we can't simply change subsidies from corn to other things without thinking about the other things that would need funding in order to do that. I personally don't think all of it is bad: It is a food and feed crop, after all, but I think we could do with more variety in such crops (not so much reliance on corn, and definitely not for ethanol)
depereo 5y ago
....wheat? Rye? Any other similar staple crop? It doesn't have to be some extreme shut down, it can be a transition to something better for society.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  That sounds all simple, but if someone doesn't already grow those crops, they'll need to change equipment. They might need some time to gain knowledge - after all, they've specialized their field. And "better for society" is... well, not a given. I don't know enough about farming to know what sorts of beneficial crops can be grown where corn/soybeans grow well and I'm not optimistic enough to think we won't just use the "new and improved" crop in much of the same abusive ways that we use the corn crops. I'm going to guess that we could make animal feed for confinement farming out of something that isn't corn We could probably make a sweet syrup out of it, too, and I'm guessing the main benefit to people is that they've made corn syrup the absolute villian and swept away nuance surrounding it, and would welcome the new replacement without much though. We just need society to be a bit better, I suppose. Quit confinement farming livestock and have better animal welfare laws, for example. Make healthy eating very cheap (and easy with premade food too), have a sugar tax of sorts and food laws to keep sugar out of unexpected places and reduce sugar some other context. Oh, and probably expand public transport exponentially. Feed, corn syrup, and biofuel dependence should drop.
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  Of course. Stop incentivizing bad stuff. Start incentivizing good stuff. The key thing is to start that transition and not to waste time prolonging the problem. The Dutch government is actually paying farmers to stop farming. Nitrogen emissions are a big problem in densely populated areas and cattle farming is a known big contributor to that. So, they are paying farmers to get out of the business of converting subsidies into manure. The main point is not to keep them farming but to stop them from doing harmful things. If they can farm other things in a less harmful way; great. But otherwise, things like forests, nature reserves, etc. are also valuable to have. Nothing wrong with subsidizing farmers to create those.
- rhino369 5y ago
jillesvangurp 5y ago
By more productive, I mean something that is not a net negative contribution/actively harmful to our planet. If all farmers can do is convert subsidies into CO2 emissions for stuff that isn't technically needed, then we're better off with them not doing that. It's that simple. This amount of corn is simply not needed and it never was. It only exists because of the subsidies. So, maybe grow stuff that is not contributing to destroying our planet and is actually worth something without a lot of subsidies. Organic farming seems pretty lucrative lately. Iowa has plenty of that happening already. There are plenty of things farmers can do that are actually needed that are much less harmful.
rosndo 5y ago
Why can’t farmers just get real jobs? Work in a coal mine or something instead.
adrianN 5y ago
Putting PV on the fields produces a lot more energy per hectare than you get from energy crops and you don't need fertilizer, pesticides or heavy machinery.
imtringued 5y ago
Unemployed farmers should just join an afforestation project and produce more farmland.

blihp 5y ago

Or... and I'm just spitballing here... perhaps switch to more productive crops? I would hope that no one believes we need fewer farmers here in the U.S. (we need more, IMO), but don't incentivize them to produce more of a given type of crop than actually makes sense.

assttoasstmgr 5y ago
It's not that simple. Farmers typically rotate crops between corn, soybeans, clover, wheat, etc. It helps restore nutrients to the soil. https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/crop-rotation/ https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/crop-rotation/
- watwut 5y ago
  It is not like agriculture and farming was impossible without excessive production of corn.
- Retric 5y ago
  The extreme investment needed to grow crops at scale has resulted in hyper specialization supplemented by fertilizers etc. I have seen farms near me do Corn, Corn, Corn, Soy, Corn based on whatever they think will be most profitable.
- walnutclosefarm 5y ago
  In the last century, kinda sorta. In the major corn producing region of the US (I live in Iowa, the heart of the beast), crop rotation is largely reduced to choosing, based on markets whether to grow corn or soybeans on any particular acre. Dairy farmers still grow some alfalfa here and there, but the black earth midwest is pretty much corn and soybeans, full stop.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more just to make sure folks have the proper equipment. If you currently grow corn and soybeans* then your equipment will be specialized for them, generally. I don't know about the current landscape, as it has been years since I've lived in the states, let alone mingled with farmers in the US, but at one point, they would pay farmers to allow a field to be unplanted. I find this to be a viable option when mixed with the above and the farmers I knew didn't complain either. *Corn and soybeans are generally grown together, generally (but not always) in alternating years. Corn tends to deplete nutrients in soil, soy puts them back.
- the_other 5y ago
  > Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more just to make sure folks have the proper equipment. If you currently grow corn and soybeans* then your equipment will be specialized for them, generally. So what you’re saying is that the market doesn’t work?
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    "So what you’re saying is that the market doesn’t work?" I definitely do not back unregulated markets, and in general, do not think markets for food work. It isn't just food, but other things that are general necessities for the modern times. Utilities, roads, and medical care are other examples.
- M2Ys4U 5y ago
  >Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more I don't think anyone arguing that subsidies in general are bad, just that subsidising corn is bad...
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    My point is that we can't simply change subsidies from corn to other things without thinking about the other things that would need funding in order to do that. I personally don't think all of it is bad: It is a food and feed crop, after all, but I think we could do with more variety in such crops (not so much reliance on corn, and definitely not for ethanol)

depereo 5y ago

....wheat? Rye? Any other similar staple crop? It doesn't have to be some extreme shut down, it can be a transition to something better for society.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
That sounds all simple, but if someone doesn't already grow those crops, they'll need to change equipment. They might need some time to gain knowledge - after all, they've specialized their field. And "better for society" is... well, not a given. I don't know enough about farming to know what sorts of beneficial crops can be grown where corn/soybeans grow well and I'm not optimistic enough to think we won't just use the "new and improved" crop in much of the same abusive ways that we use the corn crops. I'm going to guess that we could make animal feed for confinement farming out of something that isn't corn We could probably make a sweet syrup out of it, too, and I'm guessing the main benefit to people is that they've made corn syrup the absolute villian and swept away nuance surrounding it, and would welcome the new replacement without much though. We just need society to be a bit better, I suppose. Quit confinement farming livestock and have better animal welfare laws, for example. Make healthy eating very cheap (and easy with premade food too), have a sugar tax of sorts and food laws to keep sugar out of unexpected places and reduce sugar some other context. Oh, and probably expand public transport exponentially. Feed, corn syrup, and biofuel dependence should drop.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
Of course. Stop incentivizing bad stuff. Start incentivizing good stuff. The key thing is to start that transition and not to waste time prolonging the problem. The Dutch government is actually paying farmers to stop farming. Nitrogen emissions are a big problem in densely populated areas and cattle farming is a known big contributor to that. So, they are paying farmers to get out of the business of converting subsidies into manure. The main point is not to keep them farming but to stop them from doing harmful things. If they can farm other things in a less harmful way; great. But otherwise, things like forests, nature reserves, etc. are also valuable to have. Nothing wrong with subsidizing farmers to create those.
rhino369 5y ago

jillesvangurp 5y ago

By more productive, I mean something that is not a net negative contribution/actively harmful to our planet. If all farmers can do is convert subsidies into CO2 emissions for stuff that isn't technically needed, then we're better off with them not doing that. It's that simple. This amount of corn is simply not needed and it never was. It only exists because of the subsidies. So, maybe grow stuff that is not contributing to destroying our planet and is actually worth something without a lot of subsidies. Organic farming seems pretty lucrative lately. Iowa has plenty of that happening already. There are plenty of things farmers can do that are actually needed that are much less harmful.

rosndo 5y ago

Why can’t farmers just get real jobs? Work in a coal mine or something instead.

adrianN 5y ago

Putting PV on the fields produces a lot more energy per hectare than you get from energy crops and you don't need fertilizer, pesticides or heavy machinery.

imtringued 5y ago

Unemployed farmers should just join an afforestation project and produce more farmland.