4 ms·
> The average farmer is only doing 1.2 hectares where in the USA the average farm size is hundreds of times greater and far more efficient. Sure, there might b
by fractalb 4y ago
> The average farmer is only doing 1.2 hectares where in the USA the average farm size is hundreds of times greater and far more efficient.
Sure, there might be some truth to the statement that an average US farmer is more efficient than an Indian farmer. But, the reason that an average India farmer is only doing 1.2 hectares compared to the US farmers is not that Indian farmers are inefficient at farming, it's just that there are at least two orders of magnitude more farmers in India (and that's their livelihood) compared to the US.
edit:formatting
- missedthecue 4y agoThere used to be a lot more american farmers too before farmland consolidation.
- sudosysgen 4y agoSure, but that only happened because the US had enough capital to put to work all the farmers gainfully.
- fellellor 4y agoOne of the reasons for small land holdings in India are succession laws in Independent India. The entire holding doesn’t go to the eldest male/child, rather it’s often divided among siblings. The division leads to all kinds of violence and shrinking holdings over generations. Also the most profitable farms aren’t the largest ones, which are often dedicated to growing common grain like wheat and rice, and sugarcane. These crops would be bought by the government at prefixed prices. And the assured income again leads to a lot of fighting and influence mongering, and ironically much smaller takes for the average competing farmer. Quite unexpectedly, the highest profits are made by farmers who manage to get smart financing and grow niche crops like fruits, some vegetables, flowers, organic, cash crops etc. The highes profits in India are always made by people who carefully avoid government and activist attention, assistance, benevolence, interference.