5 ms·

From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming. From a personal standpoint, the sensible thing to do is to scale it down to subsistence

From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming. From a personal standpoint, the sensible thing to do is to scale it down to subsistence gardening for yourself and your family. That is what my family does. I remember, when I was still young, they still used to sell some produce. Nowadays it is entirely consumed by the family or gifted out. The benefit of this, is that you are free from economic demand. You grow whatever you please, because you want to have it at the dinner table.

flerovium 3y ago
Is that true? Small farms benefit from greater attention and incentives of their owners.
zwieback 3y ago
That and maybe specialty farms. Where I live you can't throw a rock without hitting a small farm or nursery that does very specific things and they seem to do okay in their niches.
randomdata 3y ago
> From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming. So long as there is residual value in the "hand-me-down" equipment, there will be economic value in operating it. At the same time it is not economically sensible for large scale farming to continue to operate old and outdated equipment, so the smaller scale farm actually fills a useful role in the economy.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Are there really that many innovations in how to harvest a wheat field?
  - btilly 3y ago
    Yes. https://www.geoforce.com/how-can-gps-be-used-in-precision-farming/ https://www.geoforce.com/how-can-gps-be-used-in-precision-fa... https://wheatfoundation.org/innovation-to-feed-the-future-a-case-for-biotech-use-in-wheat/ https://wheatfoundation.org/innovation-to-feed-the-future-a-... https://www.corteva.us/Resources/graininnovations/grain-innovations-library.html https://www.corteva.us/Resources/graininnovations/grain-inno... And a whole lot more.
  - ROTMetro 3y ago
    Didn't they just recently start desiccating with Glyphosate at the end of the growing cycle to speed their harvest up by two weeks and putting glyphosate into food a few days harvesting it (causing a higher concentration in food than previously)?
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Recently like in the past 30 years or so? It has certainly been common practice for at least that long. I have vague recollections of our farm still pulling whites in the early-to-mid 80s, so perhaps not that far back. But that may have simply been a product of our farm being hesitant to try new things, which wouldn't be out of the ordinary. Unfortunately, I was a bit too young at that time to understand the motivation.
      - saalweachter 3y ago
        My understanding is it's mostly a thing in the northern latitudes -- England and Canada, and some northern US states, especially North Dakota. In eg Indiana and Iowa the growing season is long enough there's no need to desiccate -- the weather isn't going to turn before the crop has a chance to dry.
        randomdata 3y ago
        Desiccation may also be used to deal with uneven ripening. Edible beans in particular are notorious for that problem. Harvest is generally in late summer, so weather isn't typically a problem, but by the time the late bloom is ready to harvest the early bloom may have already spoiled.
    - biorach 3y ago
      Yep. For decades. Plus frequently _before_ planting, Glyphosate is used to clear weeds and volunteer cereals from the fields. Then, e.g. during the cereal growing phase there are regular applications of fungicide, insecticide, growth regulators and so on. Bottom líne, if you are not buying 100% organic this is the reality of your food chain. (Full disclosure: I do not buy organic)
- btilly 3y ago
  The economic value from operating it will generally not match the opportunity cost of not doing other things. And those operating it will learn the cost of this the hard way when they fail to have access to the niceties of modern society that require exchanging what you've produced for something produced by others. Like, say, the computing device that you used to post your opinion.
  - bendbro 3y ago
    There could come a point where modern society is so degrading that sacrificing complex niceties becomes worth it to live off the grid.
    - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
      Many are already there.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > The economic value from operating it will generally not match the opportunity cost of not doing other things. Trouble is finding a better opportunity. From personal experience, my small acreage and old equipment, on average, nets me half of my developer income for just a couple of weeks per year of work. That's really hard to compete with. What else are you going to do instead? It doesn't scale in the sense that if I put in more time I won't make more money, but the nice thing about small farms is that time commitment is also small. Fantastic income relative to the time commitment, and still leaves you the ability to do other things the rest of the year.
    - theonething 3y ago
      > half of my developer income for just a couple of weeks per year of work That is a very high hourly wage. Wow.
      - kortilla 3y ago
        Calling it an hourly wage is misleading. It’s akin to having a rental property that you fix up and lease out for a year with a single payment.
canadiantim 3y ago
Depends on the type of small farm. Commodity crops? Sure there’s no sense in doing that small scale. But a diversified direct to consumer small farm is actually significantly better than the commodity farm business model. Not to mention commodity farm businesses are Very dependant on debt and the hurt is only beginning for these types of farms as interest rates continue to rise. Small direct to consumer farms? They’ll be thriving
Arn_Thor 3y ago
You're right, from an economic standpoint, at least on the surface. But what of the social and ecological benefits of keeping alive small communities and small fields with diverse crops? The problems with large-scale monoculture farming are well known. A counter-argument is that food is too cheap. That obviously doesn't feel correct for someone struggling to pay the bills each month, but still... Workers are being squeezed on one end and small farmers are being squeezed on the other, and the gains go somewhere else entirely while small communities fall into despair and die out.
- jkepler 3y ago
  > Workers are being squeezed on one end and small farmers are being squeezed on the other, and the gains go somewhere else entirely while small communities fall into despair and die out. This seems to have all started when we turned the dollar into a melting iceberg jn 1913 (created the Federal Reserve, which is basicaly a cabal of private banksters with a veneer of government), and it intensified when we decided to make dollars our primary national export product in 1971 (when Nixon closed the gold convertibility window for foreign central banks). Since then, workers are squeezed for working hard and trying to save for the future, but not understanding that if they're saying in dollars they'll never get ahead. My guess specific to farming is that federal subsidies for corn and energy have driven prices up in ways that price smaller-scale farms out of the market.
  - koheripbal 3y ago
    This comment has a very biased tone and lacks an understanding of basic economics
    - Akronymus 3y ago
      Could you elaborate on how it is wrong?
      - tomrod 3y ago
        First, a typo "jn" for in. Second, the Federal Reserve is not a cabal, let alone a shadowy one. Third, it's existence is to ameliorate recessions. Your great-great grandparents, if in the US at the time, were very much in favor of it. Fourth, the US doesn't allow for sovereign banks, so a private Federal Reserve is already the classical liberal/libertarian solution (anarcho-capitalists are typically the ones calling for abolishing the Federal Reserve/returning to commodity as a standard). Fifth, a lender of last resort is a fantastic backstop allowing more investment and risk taking, which has pushed the US' investment dominance for over a century.
checkyoursudo 3y ago
I like gardening and have been a very small-scale gardener my whole life, but mostly flowers and a couple of tomato and bean plants. How much space would you need for a true subsistence garden? Like a family of 4, producing all your own produce (or you know the vast majority of it, excluding that which cannot grow in your conditions), plus giving a small percentage to friends and neighbors. A quick search does not seem to be super helpful.
- orwin 3y ago
  Converting in US units, 10 to 12 acres should be enough? Maybe a bit more if you want well fed chickens (the trick is to let them go ham in your fields in between crops (my parents both farmed their peas this weekend and will probably plant salads behind next weekend, and in the meantime, the chickens enjoy the field). It's easier if you eat meat and know how to kill your chickens, as you can 'rotate' them out every 2-3 years, my mother's chickens have one egg a week max.
  - orwin 3y ago
    The 12 acres figure is with trees and berries, as well as some decorative plants. Also people still steal chickens if its easy enough, so clip their wing and try to keep them on your property.
    - checkyoursudo 3y ago
      So about 4-5 ha? We do not eat meat really. Maybe at a restaurant, or some fish at home, but not really otherwise. I could handle raising some chickens for eggs or otherwise as pest control when they are infertile. I used to tend to the chickens on my grandma's farm throughout my childhood. How many chickens for 5 ha of gardens+trees+berries, do you think?
      - orwin 3y ago
        Depends on the chicken type. You ought to ask local farmers. My father have very aggressive black chickens, a rare breed named after a town 10 km north. 2 of them do the same damage as 6 factory chickens. And it depends on your needs in eggs too. 3-4 chickens for a family of 4 is enough if you only eat eggs occasionally. My grandmother bought 12 chickens every two years for a family of 3.
sgu999 3y ago
> From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming. I don't think this is true everywhere. It likely requires the right supply chain to work, but here in France small family farms are doing fine for instance. They have to go sell their products to local markets on top of growing them, but it's a sustainable business.
- roel_v 3y ago
  Without subsidies none of those would survive, especially the French ones, who are notorious for their 'traditional' (i.e., inefficient) farming practices.
  - jkepler 3y ago
    I'm not sure US agro-business would survive at scale without the massive federal subsidies it receives. The little guys in the US don't get the benefit of the government money on anywhere near the scale of the big firms. Large agricultural corporations are among those lined up to grow from the Cantillion effect of being very close to the government money printer---and everyone who's further from that spigot gets squeezed as the purchasing power of the US dollar is destroyed.[1] [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SA0R https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SA0R
  - sgu999 3y ago
    > notorious for their 'traditional' (i.e., inefficient) farming practices Do you have sources?
JackFr 3y ago
This is not a struggling family farm. These are landowners who farm as a tax dodge or a hobby. For those on the thread who keep pointing out that this is not in Boston and the real estate isn’t worth that much, I would counter that it’s difficult to believe that a family who’s held real estate in Massachusetts for 350 years is not doing ok.
- chrisrohlf 3y ago
  > These are landowners who farm as a tax dodge This is exactly what it is here in NJ. They’re called ‘fake farmers’ here, and a quick google search will show you they cost the state tens of millions in lost tax revenue per year. Its all the usual suspects too, you know, the kind of celebrities that lecture you on giving and their politics. Those quaint farm stands are just a ruse to keep their tax bills to a minimum on >5 acres if expensive land in wealthy counties.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I rather like having access to the "quaint farm stand" a couple miles down the road from me in the summer. Not everything needs to be about the quest for efficiency.
    - chrisrohlf 3y ago
      Sure. I'm just not sure why their existence depends on cheating the remaining tax payers out of tens of millions of dollars every year.
      - mjh2539 3y ago
        Let's suppose that these people are not, in fact, making a good faith effort to make their land agriculturally productive, and they shouldn't get the agriculture exemption. Ok, fine. They don't get the benefit, and they pay more in taxes...or they sell, the houses are demolished, and the land is put to more "productive use" (i.e. sprawl/suburbs). The county or the city or what have you gains more in property taxes, and the evil rich people are no longer getting away with not paying more taxes. But now instead of uncultivated land (remember, it was a fake farm), you have concrete, asphalt, hardy board, one or two species of grass, crepe myrtles...you get the picture. If anything, there should be a national wildlife sanctuary tax exemption program, so that this is actually codified.

flerovium 3y ago

Is that true? Small farms benefit from greater attention and incentives of their owners.

zwieback 3y ago

That and maybe specialty farms. Where I live you can't throw a rock without hitting a small farm or nursery that does very specific things and they seem to do okay in their niches.

randomdata 3y ago

> From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming. So long as there is residual value in the "hand-me-down" equipment, there will be economic value in operating it. At the same time it is not economically sensible for large scale farming to continue to operate old and outdated equipment, so the smaller scale farm actually fills a useful role in the economy.

flangola7 3y ago
Are there really that many innovations in how to harvest a wheat field?
- btilly 3y ago
  Yes. https://www.geoforce.com/how-can-gps-be-used-in-precision-farming/ https://www.geoforce.com/how-can-gps-be-used-in-precision-fa... https://wheatfoundation.org/innovation-to-feed-the-future-a-case-for-biotech-use-in-wheat/ https://wheatfoundation.org/innovation-to-feed-the-future-a-... https://www.corteva.us/Resources/graininnovations/grain-innovations-library.html https://www.corteva.us/Resources/graininnovations/grain-inno... And a whole lot more.
- ROTMetro 3y ago
  Didn't they just recently start desiccating with Glyphosate at the end of the growing cycle to speed their harvest up by two weeks and putting glyphosate into food a few days harvesting it (causing a higher concentration in food than previously)?
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Recently like in the past 30 years or so? It has certainly been common practice for at least that long. I have vague recollections of our farm still pulling whites in the early-to-mid 80s, so perhaps not that far back. But that may have simply been a product of our farm being hesitant to try new things, which wouldn't be out of the ordinary. Unfortunately, I was a bit too young at that time to understand the motivation.
    - saalweachter 3y ago
      My understanding is it's mostly a thing in the northern latitudes -- England and Canada, and some northern US states, especially North Dakota. In eg Indiana and Iowa the growing season is long enough there's no need to desiccate -- the weather isn't going to turn before the crop has a chance to dry.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        Desiccation may also be used to deal with uneven ripening. Edible beans in particular are notorious for that problem. Harvest is generally in late summer, so weather isn't typically a problem, but by the time the late bloom is ready to harvest the early bloom may have already spoiled.
  - biorach 3y ago
    Yep. For decades. Plus frequently _before_ planting, Glyphosate is used to clear weeds and volunteer cereals from the fields. Then, e.g. during the cereal growing phase there are regular applications of fungicide, insecticide, growth regulators and so on. Bottom líne, if you are not buying 100% organic this is the reality of your food chain. (Full disclosure: I do not buy organic)
btilly 3y ago
The economic value from operating it will generally not match the opportunity cost of not doing other things. And those operating it will learn the cost of this the hard way when they fail to have access to the niceties of modern society that require exchanging what you've produced for something produced by others. Like, say, the computing device that you used to post your opinion.
- bendbro 3y ago
  There could come a point where modern society is so degrading that sacrificing complex niceties becomes worth it to live off the grid.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
    Many are already there.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > The economic value from operating it will generally not match the opportunity cost of not doing other things. Trouble is finding a better opportunity. From personal experience, my small acreage and old equipment, on average, nets me half of my developer income for just a couple of weeks per year of work. That's really hard to compete with. What else are you going to do instead? It doesn't scale in the sense that if I put in more time I won't make more money, but the nice thing about small farms is that time commitment is also small. Fantastic income relative to the time commitment, and still leaves you the ability to do other things the rest of the year.
  - theonething 3y ago
    > half of my developer income for just a couple of weeks per year of work That is a very high hourly wage. Wow.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      Calling it an hourly wage is misleading. It’s akin to having a rental property that you fix up and lease out for a year with a single payment.

canadiantim 3y ago

Depends on the type of small farm. Commodity crops? Sure there’s no sense in doing that small scale. But a diversified direct to consumer small farm is actually significantly better than the commodity farm business model. Not to mention commodity farm businesses are Very dependant on debt and the hurt is only beginning for these types of farms as interest rates continue to rise. Small direct to consumer farms? They’ll be thriving

Arn_Thor 3y ago

You're right, from an economic standpoint, at least on the surface. But what of the social and ecological benefits of keeping alive small communities and small fields with diverse crops? The problems with large-scale monoculture farming are well known. A counter-argument is that food is too cheap. That obviously doesn't feel correct for someone struggling to pay the bills each month, but still... Workers are being squeezed on one end and small farmers are being squeezed on the other, and the gains go somewhere else entirely while small communities fall into despair and die out.

jkepler 3y ago
> Workers are being squeezed on one end and small farmers are being squeezed on the other, and the gains go somewhere else entirely while small communities fall into despair and die out. This seems to have all started when we turned the dollar into a melting iceberg jn 1913 (created the Federal Reserve, which is basicaly a cabal of private banksters with a veneer of government), and it intensified when we decided to make dollars our primary national export product in 1971 (when Nixon closed the gold convertibility window for foreign central banks). Since then, workers are squeezed for working hard and trying to save for the future, but not understanding that if they're saying in dollars they'll never get ahead. My guess specific to farming is that federal subsidies for corn and energy have driven prices up in ways that price smaller-scale farms out of the market.
- koheripbal 3y ago
  This comment has a very biased tone and lacks an understanding of basic economics
  - Akronymus 3y ago
    Could you elaborate on how it is wrong?
    - tomrod 3y ago
      First, a typo "jn" for in. Second, the Federal Reserve is not a cabal, let alone a shadowy one. Third, it's existence is to ameliorate recessions. Your great-great grandparents, if in the US at the time, were very much in favor of it. Fourth, the US doesn't allow for sovereign banks, so a private Federal Reserve is already the classical liberal/libertarian solution (anarcho-capitalists are typically the ones calling for abolishing the Federal Reserve/returning to commodity as a standard). Fifth, a lender of last resort is a fantastic backstop allowing more investment and risk taking, which has pushed the US' investment dominance for over a century.

checkyoursudo 3y ago

I like gardening and have been a very small-scale gardener my whole life, but mostly flowers and a couple of tomato and bean plants. How much space would you need for a true subsistence garden? Like a family of 4, producing all your own produce (or you know the vast majority of it, excluding that which cannot grow in your conditions), plus giving a small percentage to friends and neighbors. A quick search does not seem to be super helpful.

orwin 3y ago
Converting in US units, 10 to 12 acres should be enough? Maybe a bit more if you want well fed chickens (the trick is to let them go ham in your fields in between crops (my parents both farmed their peas this weekend and will probably plant salads behind next weekend, and in the meantime, the chickens enjoy the field). It's easier if you eat meat and know how to kill your chickens, as you can 'rotate' them out every 2-3 years, my mother's chickens have one egg a week max.
- orwin 3y ago
  The 12 acres figure is with trees and berries, as well as some decorative plants. Also people still steal chickens if its easy enough, so clip their wing and try to keep them on your property.
  - checkyoursudo 3y ago
    So about 4-5 ha? We do not eat meat really. Maybe at a restaurant, or some fish at home, but not really otherwise. I could handle raising some chickens for eggs or otherwise as pest control when they are infertile. I used to tend to the chickens on my grandma's farm throughout my childhood. How many chickens for 5 ha of gardens+trees+berries, do you think?
    - orwin 3y ago
      Depends on the chicken type. You ought to ask local farmers. My father have very aggressive black chickens, a rare breed named after a town 10 km north. 2 of them do the same damage as 6 factory chickens. And it depends on your needs in eggs too. 3-4 chickens for a family of 4 is enough if you only eat eggs occasionally. My grandmother bought 12 chickens every two years for a family of 3.

sgu999 3y ago

> From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming. I don't think this is true everywhere. It likely requires the right supply chain to work, but here in France small family farms are doing fine for instance. They have to go sell their products to local markets on top of growing them, but it's a sustainable business.

roel_v 3y ago
Without subsidies none of those would survive, especially the French ones, who are notorious for their 'traditional' (i.e., inefficient) farming practices.
- jkepler 3y ago
  I'm not sure US agro-business would survive at scale without the massive federal subsidies it receives. The little guys in the US don't get the benefit of the government money on anywhere near the scale of the big firms. Large agricultural corporations are among those lined up to grow from the Cantillion effect of being very close to the government money printer---and everyone who's further from that spigot gets squeezed as the purchasing power of the US dollar is destroyed.[1] [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SA0R https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SA0R
- sgu999 3y ago
  > notorious for their 'traditional' (i.e., inefficient) farming practices Do you have sources?

JackFr 3y ago

This is not a struggling family farm. These are landowners who farm as a tax dodge or a hobby. For those on the thread who keep pointing out that this is not in Boston and the real estate isn’t worth that much, I would counter that it’s difficult to believe that a family who’s held real estate in Massachusetts for 350 years is not doing ok.

chrisrohlf 3y ago
> These are landowners who farm as a tax dodge This is exactly what it is here in NJ. They’re called ‘fake farmers’ here, and a quick google search will show you they cost the state tens of millions in lost tax revenue per year. Its all the usual suspects too, you know, the kind of celebrities that lecture you on giving and their politics. Those quaint farm stands are just a ruse to keep their tax bills to a minimum on >5 acres if expensive land in wealthy counties.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I rather like having access to the "quaint farm stand" a couple miles down the road from me in the summer. Not everything needs to be about the quest for efficiency.
  - chrisrohlf 3y ago
    Sure. I'm just not sure why their existence depends on cheating the remaining tax payers out of tens of millions of dollars every year.
    - mjh2539 3y ago
      Let's suppose that these people are not, in fact, making a good faith effort to make their land agriculturally productive, and they shouldn't get the agriculture exemption. Ok, fine. They don't get the benefit, and they pay more in taxes...or they sell, the houses are demolished, and the land is put to more "productive use" (i.e. sprawl/suburbs). The county or the city or what have you gains more in property taxes, and the evil rich people are no longer getting away with not paying more taxes. But now instead of uncultivated land (remember, it was a fake farm), you have concrete, asphalt, hardy board, one or two species of grass, crepe myrtles...you get the picture. If anything, there should be a national wildlife sanctuary tax exemption program, so that this is actually codified.