8 ms·

This is so, so important for helping family farms stay alive. The amount my family has saved by being able to fix and even modify stuff on their own is huge. M

This is so, so important for helping family farms stay alive. The amount my family has saved by being able to fix and even modify stuff on their own is huge. My dad still mows our lawn with an antique Allis-Chalmers hooked up to a commercial mower. Equipment is wildly expensive compared to margins at smaller scales (think like 2k acres for small farms). Things need to last for decades or generations in order to keep a profit.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
[flagged]
- ep103 3y ago
  If the John Deere engineers understand those systems so well, then they could design their products in ways that the farmers could repair the products for common use cases. They are intentionally designing the products to prevent that. That's the whole problem.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - eganist 3y ago
      It kinda just sounds like you're content with family farms not existing, because all of your points fail to address the economic realities for these farms.
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Ha! Family farms. Here in Iowa they are a dying (dead) breed. Folks make that claim similar to 'For the Children!' It's a generation too late to save anything like a family farm. Maybe a family-held corporation? An agribusiness combine?
    - wewtyflakes 3y ago
      (As an outsider looking in) I think Deere's (and many other companies) financial incentives more align with product gatekeeping, than with maximum safety and performance; maximum safety does not pay Deere's bills, but service appointments do.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      > They're designing the products for maximum safety and performance. It was never in the cards to make it open. Well, then, that was stupid of John Deere and makes them a victim of their own arrogance. Period. There wouldn't be a law right now if John Deere hadn't unnecessarily, by their own actions, pissed off so many people in the process of increasing "safety" and "performance". As though anybody complained about the lack of "safety and performance" in the century-long history of tractors before computers came along and saved us. Let's be clear here: John Deere, a multi-billion dollar company, isn't the victim here, but the aggressor against family farms, good intentions or not. Mourning for them is absurd. > A huge change, that will take years and millions to achieve? Nope. It's as easy as clicking "Publish" on the repositories and setting the Dropbox folder to "Public." I could do it in 15 minutes. Any legal review or trade secret review or whatever else is entirely the company protecting their own interests. John Deere has done that long enough, a hard deadline is their self-inflicted penalty.
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        I am concerned about the safety of the rest of us. It gets lost in the partisan yelling.
    - crmd 3y ago
      Safety and performance are elements of the cover story not drivers of the product strategy.
    - IntelMiner 3y ago
      >They're designing the products for maximum safety and performance How do you know this. Do you work for Jon Deere? Since the code is closed source that's simply an assumption
      - shagie 3y ago
        Product liability for industrial and agricultural equipment gets interesting. You can modify a household lawn mower and if you get maimed by it by those modifications, you're at fault. However, for industrial equipment if you can modify it - the manufacturer is likely liable. Consider how often you hear about deaths due to manufacturing defects (the stats for deaths for framers is 60 - 70 per year per 100,000 in the US). https://www.wkw.com/farming-accidents/blog/farming-accidents-types-of-farming-equipment-injuries/ https://www.wkw.com/farming-accidents/blog/farming-accidents... (personal injury lawyer site)
        zopa 3y ago
        > However, for industrial equipment if you can modify it - the manufacturer is likely liable. That’s interesting if true, but do you have a better source (ideally, a court case)? I don’t see that theory of liability discussed anywhere on the page you linked.
        shagie 3y ago
        Product Liability in the Farm Equipment Industry - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY It also has two case studies in it. (late edit) The main piece is that industrial and agricultural equipment falls into the category of strict liability. Going back up a few parent posts: > >They're designing the products for maximum safety and performance > How do you know this. Do you work for Jon Deere? Since the code is closed source that's simply an assumption If you have a piece of equipment that is known to be dangerous (e.g. farm equipment like combines and such) then anything that is considered a defect or failure to warn about and prevent someone from using the equipment in an unsafe way the liability falls on the manufacturer - even if there is no proof of negligence in its design. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/strict-product-liability-laws.html https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/strict-... > Strict liability, in contrast, does away with the analysis of whether the defendant's conduct met or fell below a certain standard. The thinking here is this: If it were necessary for a consumer to identify and illustrate the specific unsafe or unreasonable conduct that occurred at some point along the timeline of a product's journey to the marketplace—including design, manufacture, and distribution—these kinds of cases would be nearly unwinnable. Courts and state legislatures recognize this, so strict liability is established law in product defect cases. > Simply because a plaintiff is required to prove less in a strict product liability case (compared with a negligence-based action) does not mean a defendant's liability is automatic. There are a number of ways a strict liability case can fail, or be successfully defended. The defendant might be able to show that: > the plaintiff used the product in a way that he or she knew (or should have known) could lead to injury, or used the product despite knowing of the defect ("assumption of the risk") > the plaintiff's own careless actions contributed to or were the only cause of the injury, including using the product in a manner for which it was not intended, or > some other person or event interacted with the product to such an extent that the product was not the real cause of the injury. --- So, here's the question that will be posed. Does a farmer using 3rd party firmware on their JD tractor know that this could lead to injury? Is using 3rd party firmware in a JD tractor careless? Is a farmer updating the firmware of a tractor sufficient interaction with it that the JD tractor itself is not the real cause of injury? If these questions are answered with "no" then JD is responsible and would be expected to take all reasonable actions to prevent those interactions.
    - jitix 3y ago
      This legislation is more akin to allowing you to repair your PC and replace a damaged RAM module. I don’t think any farmer is looking to tinker with the control software, and even if they want they should be able to tinker considering it’s their property and their farmland and only they themselves are liable for any damages caused to neighbours or otherwise. John Deere is just trying to create artificial barriers and extract more value from existing customers.
- beiller 3y ago
  This is an odd comment in my opinion. Do you work at John Deere? I ask only because you say you are familiar with their testing environment. I don't think your horror scenario is realistic. How many farms are located in a neighborhood? If a farmer destroys property they are probably liable. I don't think John Deere is restricting repairs to protect random property damage since since I've never heard of that happening before.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Sorry, should have said, worked on the John Deere guidance module for auto-driving tractors. As a contractor. There are field limits defined. But they are respected as algorithms need, to determine turn parameters at the end of a row. I could imagine easily that fiddling with that code could end up with a tractor on the other side. What horror scenarios do you think are realistic? Remember we are considering multi-ton machines with maybe a thousand horsepower, wielding huge spinning blades and crusher mechanisms. What scenario can we consider that is not a horror show?
    - beiller 3y ago
      I imagine this multi ton machine running over a fence, into a tree stump. The stump disconnects the wheel from the axle and it's no longer able to drive. I think what we're saying here is changing the oil is not allowed. You can't change your own oil, or use third party oil because there is a detector that says this oil is not John Deere brand oil. The engine is now deactivated and you must call a John Deere technician to put in the encryption key to unlock the engine. Your next available appointment is in 938 days. Please note, we have a higher than expected volume of repair calls than usual this year. Your appointment may be de-prioritized. Sorry for the inconvenience.
    - itake 3y ago
      I am still trying to understand your point. While I agree these systems are highly complex, I am not sure why farmers need to mess with source code to perform a repair? If farmers are messing with the code (disabling sensors or whatever), then I'd have to assume the farmer knows they are taking on this risk that their tractor will not function as expected. If sensors can be safely disabled, then why not provide an easy to do that?
- pitched 3y ago
  The way I understood the issue (as an outsider) is that they weren’t offering things like gaskets for sale. Sure, I can pull out the old one if it pops but what do I do now? That plus there being a remote kill switch if someone does figure out how to manufacture replacements…
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    I can go down to my local John Deere supplier and buy any part on any John Deere tractor back to 1931.
- m4jor 3y ago
  I'd argue allowing farmers to fix their own stuff is way better (and safer) than them having to seek out sketchy foreign vendors/hacks in order to fix their own equipment on the black market as an alternative. Obviously the majority of farmers aren't going to be going into the software and editing it themselves, but instead paying reputable companies in the industry to do the programming/fixing/debugging for them. Companies like John Deere could embrace this by releasing a ton of guides and self-learning classes to teach these same farmers how to do basic coding, repairs, debugging and etc. themselves. Could start a whole new wave and generation of tech-literate and educated farmers which would be better for all involved.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  Huh? This is about things like hardware modules not connecting to the bus until an authorized repairer allows them to, exposing part numbers so board level repairs can happen, releasing board schematics, and things like that. Nobody is suggesting re-writing firmware? There is a mountain of context that you're either unaware of or leaving out on purpose for some reason.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Everybody is suggesting that. This bill explicitly demands release of software documents. Why do you suppose? Anyway yes the open-source voice is loud here. Just being a voice for taking care how carefully that happens.
    - idiotsecant 3y ago
      software documentation includes things like APIs, bus protocols and configuration, and other interface points. It need not have anything to do with re-writing firmware and nothing is calling for that.
- kahrl 3y ago
  Oh look, the Pinkertons are trying to sow FUD in hacker news again.
  - squeaky-clean 3y ago
    Joe's been an active member here with good contributions for a long time. I disagree with his opinion in this thread, but he's not some fake account trying to cause trouble.
Andys 3y ago
Plus farming is often time-sensitive and you need to repair equipment with what you have on-hand, not have to wait for parts or repairers.
z_jdav 3y ago
2000 acres is a "small" "family" farm?? The myth of farming in the United States far over-estimates the where the _value_ in farming lies. Yes, John Deere is exploitative - but what about the wealthy land owners that profit off the backs of poorly paid _farm workers_? Or the huge government subsidies paid to growers of commodity grain? The idea of the "family farm" as a productive and legitimate sector of the economy is mostly a myth[0]. [0] See "Farm and other F words" by Sarah Mock for a more complete treatment.
- diordiderot 3y ago
  You can operate a 2000 acre farm with 4 people. That's a family farm bub.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    There's an issue with how the census defined a farm.
  - asebold 3y ago
    Exactly, thank you. Also, let’s be clear: we’re talking about the US. I’m sure it’s different in other countries.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > 2000 acres is a "small" "family" farm?? The 'farm vlogger' channel Laura Farms operates a 2000 acres (800 hectares; 8 sq. km) farm: * https://www.youtube.com/@LauraFarms/videos https://www.youtube.com/@LauraFarms/videos
- alvah 3y ago
  This only seems large by European standards I think. The 50-100 acre farms in my homeland are a relic of pre-industrial times, and can't be competitive in a world market without vast EU subsidies.
  - rendaw 3y ago
    Do you have any references on small farm size efficiency? In Japan ~90% are < 50 acre both by land mass and count, and seeing the 100m^2 farms in my neighborhood I can't believe it's anywhere near efficient, even when sharing farm equipment. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agricultural-land-area-by-farm-size?country=USA~JPN~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agricultural-land-area-by... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-farms-size?country=JPN~USA~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-farms-size?country...
VerminOctopus1 3y ago
What does your dad saving money on mowing his lawn have to do with farms with 2000 acres of property?
- foxyv 3y ago
  Both use equipment that needs to be repaired. Isn't that in the title?
Sytten 3y ago
2000 acres is not a small farm period. For context the price per acre where I live (centre of Quebec, Canada) is 15k$. So 30M$ for 2k acres, it's an industrial farm that need employees (at least one or two if it's a highly automated crop) and can afford the price of brand new John deer. You can even afford a Combine harvester at that size. Our farm is around 120 acres and we definitely cannot.
- egberts1 3y ago
  2,000 acres of highly-automated 4-employer farm nets an income of $240,000 USD per year. John Deere equipments all cost more than that. Furthermore, computerizing farm implements means shorter life span for its equipments. Probably why older cars are lasting longer than newer ones. Computer chip failure of a 20-yo car means a trip to the wrecking yard to get that chip or get totaled; 40-yo car, not as much.
  - diordiderot 3y ago
    Do you only buy a house or car valued less than your annual income or do you finance it?
    - egberts1 3y ago
      Can a middle-class or poor family afford a brand-new leased Mercedes Benz every two years?
      - diordiderot 3y ago
        No, that's why you buy a regular car
        egberts1 3y ago
        Can you buy a regular tractor?
- gduplessy 3y ago
freddie_mercury 3y ago
2,000 acres is the top 4% of farm sizes. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017Census_Farms_Farmland.pdf https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017C... By way of comparison, a top 4th-percentile income is $205,000 a year. Saying 2,000 acres is a small farm is like saying $205,000 a year salary is low-income.
- diordiderot 3y ago
  I know dozens of people that have a few goats or who 'farm' hay for the tax benefits.
- asebold 3y ago
  I’m sorry but this is sorely misguided. How many of the farms surveyed are the owner and operator’s full time job? How many of those farms are owned and operated by multiple families at the same time? Farming in the US is nothing like a corporate job, or even most small businesses, for reasons I just don’t have the time to share. Your comparison to income for the general population…doesn’t work. Farms with 2k acres or less are indeed small, family run operations. Especially if you only farm cash crops. These are the kinds of farms that rely on right-to-repair the most. Not the homesteader family with 16 acres and some goats. Sorry all, your idea of what most full-time, successful, multi-generational farming operations in the US looks like is simply not accurate.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

[flagged]

ep103 3y ago
If the John Deere engineers understand those systems so well, then they could design their products in ways that the farmers could repair the products for common use cases. They are intentionally designing the products to prevent that. That's the whole problem.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - eganist 3y ago
    It kinda just sounds like you're content with family farms not existing, because all of your points fail to address the economic realities for these farms.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Ha! Family farms. Here in Iowa they are a dying (dead) breed. Folks make that claim similar to 'For the Children!' It's a generation too late to save anything like a family farm. Maybe a family-held corporation? An agribusiness combine?
  - wewtyflakes 3y ago
    (As an outsider looking in) I think Deere's (and many other companies) financial incentives more align with product gatekeeping, than with maximum safety and performance; maximum safety does not pay Deere's bills, but service appointments do.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    > They're designing the products for maximum safety and performance. It was never in the cards to make it open. Well, then, that was stupid of John Deere and makes them a victim of their own arrogance. Period. There wouldn't be a law right now if John Deere hadn't unnecessarily, by their own actions, pissed off so many people in the process of increasing "safety" and "performance". As though anybody complained about the lack of "safety and performance" in the century-long history of tractors before computers came along and saved us. Let's be clear here: John Deere, a multi-billion dollar company, isn't the victim here, but the aggressor against family farms, good intentions or not. Mourning for them is absurd. > A huge change, that will take years and millions to achieve? Nope. It's as easy as clicking "Publish" on the repositories and setting the Dropbox folder to "Public." I could do it in 15 minutes. Any legal review or trade secret review or whatever else is entirely the company protecting their own interests. John Deere has done that long enough, a hard deadline is their self-inflicted penalty.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      I am concerned about the safety of the rest of us. It gets lost in the partisan yelling.
  - crmd 3y ago
    Safety and performance are elements of the cover story not drivers of the product strategy.
  - IntelMiner 3y ago
    >They're designing the products for maximum safety and performance How do you know this. Do you work for Jon Deere? Since the code is closed source that's simply an assumption
    - shagie 3y ago
      Product liability for industrial and agricultural equipment gets interesting. You can modify a household lawn mower and if you get maimed by it by those modifications, you're at fault. However, for industrial equipment if you can modify it - the manufacturer is likely liable. Consider how often you hear about deaths due to manufacturing defects (the stats for deaths for framers is 60 - 70 per year per 100,000 in the US). https://www.wkw.com/farming-accidents/blog/farming-accidents-types-of-farming-equipment-injuries/ https://www.wkw.com/farming-accidents/blog/farming-accidents... (personal injury lawyer site)
      - zopa 3y ago
        > However, for industrial equipment if you can modify it - the manufacturer is likely liable. That’s interesting if true, but do you have a better source (ideally, a court case)? I don’t see that theory of liability discussed anywhere on the page you linked.
        shagie 3y ago
        Product Liability in the Farm Equipment Industry - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY It also has two case studies in it. (late edit) The main piece is that industrial and agricultural equipment falls into the category of strict liability. Going back up a few parent posts: > >They're designing the products for maximum safety and performance > How do you know this. Do you work for Jon Deere? Since the code is closed source that's simply an assumption If you have a piece of equipment that is known to be dangerous (e.g. farm equipment like combines and such) then anything that is considered a defect or failure to warn about and prevent someone from using the equipment in an unsafe way the liability falls on the manufacturer - even if there is no proof of negligence in its design. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/strict-product-liability-laws.html https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/strict-... > Strict liability, in contrast, does away with the analysis of whether the defendant's conduct met or fell below a certain standard. The thinking here is this: If it were necessary for a consumer to identify and illustrate the specific unsafe or unreasonable conduct that occurred at some point along the timeline of a product's journey to the marketplace—including design, manufacture, and distribution—these kinds of cases would be nearly unwinnable. Courts and state legislatures recognize this, so strict liability is established law in product defect cases. > Simply because a plaintiff is required to prove less in a strict product liability case (compared with a negligence-based action) does not mean a defendant's liability is automatic. There are a number of ways a strict liability case can fail, or be successfully defended. The defendant might be able to show that: > the plaintiff used the product in a way that he or she knew (or should have known) could lead to injury, or used the product despite knowing of the defect ("assumption of the risk") > the plaintiff's own careless actions contributed to or were the only cause of the injury, including using the product in a manner for which it was not intended, or > some other person or event interacted with the product to such an extent that the product was not the real cause of the injury. --- So, here's the question that will be posed. Does a farmer using 3rd party firmware on their JD tractor know that this could lead to injury? Is using 3rd party firmware in a JD tractor careless? Is a farmer updating the firmware of a tractor sufficient interaction with it that the JD tractor itself is not the real cause of injury? If these questions are answered with "no" then JD is responsible and would be expected to take all reasonable actions to prevent those interactions.
  - jitix 3y ago
    This legislation is more akin to allowing you to repair your PC and replace a damaged RAM module. I don’t think any farmer is looking to tinker with the control software, and even if they want they should be able to tinker considering it’s their property and their farmland and only they themselves are liable for any damages caused to neighbours or otherwise. John Deere is just trying to create artificial barriers and extract more value from existing customers.
beiller 3y ago
This is an odd comment in my opinion. Do you work at John Deere? I ask only because you say you are familiar with their testing environment. I don't think your horror scenario is realistic. How many farms are located in a neighborhood? If a farmer destroys property they are probably liable. I don't think John Deere is restricting repairs to protect random property damage since since I've never heard of that happening before.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Sorry, should have said, worked on the John Deere guidance module for auto-driving tractors. As a contractor. There are field limits defined. But they are respected as algorithms need, to determine turn parameters at the end of a row. I could imagine easily that fiddling with that code could end up with a tractor on the other side. What horror scenarios do you think are realistic? Remember we are considering multi-ton machines with maybe a thousand horsepower, wielding huge spinning blades and crusher mechanisms. What scenario can we consider that is not a horror show?
  - beiller 3y ago
    I imagine this multi ton machine running over a fence, into a tree stump. The stump disconnects the wheel from the axle and it's no longer able to drive. I think what we're saying here is changing the oil is not allowed. You can't change your own oil, or use third party oil because there is a detector that says this oil is not John Deere brand oil. The engine is now deactivated and you must call a John Deere technician to put in the encryption key to unlock the engine. Your next available appointment is in 938 days. Please note, we have a higher than expected volume of repair calls than usual this year. Your appointment may be de-prioritized. Sorry for the inconvenience.
  - itake 3y ago
    I am still trying to understand your point. While I agree these systems are highly complex, I am not sure why farmers need to mess with source code to perform a repair? If farmers are messing with the code (disabling sensors or whatever), then I'd have to assume the farmer knows they are taking on this risk that their tractor will not function as expected. If sensors can be safely disabled, then why not provide an easy to do that?
pitched 3y ago
The way I understood the issue (as an outsider) is that they weren’t offering things like gaskets for sale. Sure, I can pull out the old one if it pops but what do I do now? That plus there being a remote kill switch if someone does figure out how to manufacture replacements…
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  I can go down to my local John Deere supplier and buy any part on any John Deere tractor back to 1931.
m4jor 3y ago
I'd argue allowing farmers to fix their own stuff is way better (and safer) than them having to seek out sketchy foreign vendors/hacks in order to fix their own equipment on the black market as an alternative. Obviously the majority of farmers aren't going to be going into the software and editing it themselves, but instead paying reputable companies in the industry to do the programming/fixing/debugging for them. Companies like John Deere could embrace this by releasing a ton of guides and self-learning classes to teach these same farmers how to do basic coding, repairs, debugging and etc. themselves. Could start a whole new wave and generation of tech-literate and educated farmers which would be better for all involved.
idiotsecant 3y ago
Huh? This is about things like hardware modules not connecting to the bus until an authorized repairer allows them to, exposing part numbers so board level repairs can happen, releasing board schematics, and things like that. Nobody is suggesting re-writing firmware? There is a mountain of context that you're either unaware of or leaving out on purpose for some reason.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Everybody is suggesting that. This bill explicitly demands release of software documents. Why do you suppose? Anyway yes the open-source voice is loud here. Just being a voice for taking care how carefully that happens.
  - idiotsecant 3y ago
    software documentation includes things like APIs, bus protocols and configuration, and other interface points. It need not have anything to do with re-writing firmware and nothing is calling for that.
kahrl 3y ago
Oh look, the Pinkertons are trying to sow FUD in hacker news again.
- squeaky-clean 3y ago
  Joe's been an active member here with good contributions for a long time. I disagree with his opinion in this thread, but he's not some fake account trying to cause trouble.

Andys 3y ago

Plus farming is often time-sensitive and you need to repair equipment with what you have on-hand, not have to wait for parts or repairers.

z_jdav 3y ago

2000 acres is a "small" "family" farm?? The myth of farming in the United States far over-estimates the where the _value_ in farming lies. Yes, John Deere is exploitative - but what about the wealthy land owners that profit off the backs of poorly paid _farm workers_? Or the huge government subsidies paid to growers of commodity grain? The idea of the "family farm" as a productive and legitimate sector of the economy is mostly a myth[0]. [0] See "Farm and other F words" by Sarah Mock for a more complete treatment.

diordiderot 3y ago
You can operate a 2000 acre farm with 4 people. That's a family farm bub.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  There's an issue with how the census defined a farm.
- asebold 3y ago
  Exactly, thank you. Also, let’s be clear: we’re talking about the US. I’m sure it’s different in other countries.
throw0101b 3y ago
> 2000 acres is a "small" "family" farm?? The 'farm vlogger' channel Laura Farms operates a 2000 acres (800 hectares; 8 sq. km) farm: * https://www.youtube.com/@LauraFarms/videos https://www.youtube.com/@LauraFarms/videos
alvah 3y ago
This only seems large by European standards I think. The 50-100 acre farms in my homeland are a relic of pre-industrial times, and can't be competitive in a world market without vast EU subsidies.
- rendaw 3y ago
  Do you have any references on small farm size efficiency? In Japan ~90% are < 50 acre both by land mass and count, and seeing the 100m^2 farms in my neighborhood I can't believe it's anywhere near efficient, even when sharing farm equipment. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agricultural-land-area-by-farm-size?country=USA~JPN~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agricultural-land-area-by... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-farms-size?country=JPN~USA~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-farms-size?country...

VerminOctopus1 3y ago

What does your dad saving money on mowing his lawn have to do with farms with 2000 acres of property?

foxyv 3y ago
Both use equipment that needs to be repaired. Isn't that in the title?

Sytten 3y ago

2000 acres is not a small farm period. For context the price per acre where I live (centre of Quebec, Canada) is 15k$. So 30M$ for 2k acres, it's an industrial farm that need employees (at least one or two if it's a highly automated crop) and can afford the price of brand new John deer. You can even afford a Combine harvester at that size. Our farm is around 120 acres and we definitely cannot.

egberts1 3y ago
2,000 acres of highly-automated 4-employer farm nets an income of $240,000 USD per year. John Deere equipments all cost more than that. Furthermore, computerizing farm implements means shorter life span for its equipments. Probably why older cars are lasting longer than newer ones. Computer chip failure of a 20-yo car means a trip to the wrecking yard to get that chip or get totaled; 40-yo car, not as much.
- diordiderot 3y ago
  Do you only buy a house or car valued less than your annual income or do you finance it?
  - egberts1 3y ago
    Can a middle-class or poor family afford a brand-new leased Mercedes Benz every two years?
    - diordiderot 3y ago
      No, that's why you buy a regular car
      - egberts1 3y ago
        Can you buy a regular tractor?
gduplessy 3y ago

freddie_mercury 3y ago

2,000 acres is the top 4% of farm sizes. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017Census_Farms_Farmland.pdf https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017C... By way of comparison, a top 4th-percentile income is $205,000 a year. Saying 2,000 acres is a small farm is like saying $205,000 a year salary is low-income.

diordiderot 3y ago
I know dozens of people that have a few goats or who 'farm' hay for the tax benefits.
asebold 3y ago
I’m sorry but this is sorely misguided. How many of the farms surveyed are the owner and operator’s full time job? How many of those farms are owned and operated by multiple families at the same time? Farming in the US is nothing like a corporate job, or even most small businesses, for reasons I just don’t have the time to share. Your comparison to income for the general population…doesn’t work. Farms with 2k acres or less are indeed small, family run operations. Especially if you only farm cash crops. These are the kinds of farms that rely on right-to-repair the most. Not the homesteader family with 16 acres and some goats. Sorry all, your idea of what most full-time, successful, multi-generational farming operations in the US looks like is simply not accurate.