3 ms·

I don't think the problem is in output-per-acre (really, increase in yield per acre is shockingly low in the past 50 years), but rather in the amount of labor r

by Lutger 3y ago

I don't think the problem is in output-per-acre (really, increase in yield per acre is shockingly low in the past 50 years), but rather in the amount of labor required. That, plus the inertia of vested interests codified as bureacratic regulation and protected by lobbyists. Essentially: intensive agriculture uses monocultures, extremely large machines and herbicides/fertilizers/pesticides in order to reduce or displace labor costs, which dominate. And it still can't really exist without heavy subsidies. Any kind of regenerative practice in the current market situation needs to be competitive on a labor per output basis in the first place, not on the output per acre. Lightweight machines and robotics are part of the equation for sure, but will not be sufficient. However, agriculture in Europe is already build on subsidizes and heavily regulated. So we have the tools, we just need to use them and defeat agro corps lobbying efforts. Not easy, considering a political party from an Agro PR firm won the elections in the Netherlands, and legitimized a toxic blend of corporate disinfo, conspiracy theories and populist violence. Moving beyond the path of destruction seems as hopeless as ever.

tfourb 3y ago
There are some interesting approaches to regenerative agriculture that somewhat sidestep the problem of labour cost. I.e. Mark Shepard runs a 46ha farm in US mid west that he says has been profitable basically from year one. Very small degree of mechanization (basically a tractor and some implements) and no use of chemical fertilizers or any other inputs (pesticides, herbicides, irrigation). They basically cut out a huge share of conventional farming's cost structure to be able to compensate for increased labour costs. I live in a rural place and the typical farmer here has mid to high seven figures invested in machines and implements and spends a lot of money on inputs, which in turn has contributed to farms getting bigger and bigger, which in turn requires more investment in mechanization, etc. On the other hand, we have founded a non-profit CSA market garden on 4.000m2 that can pay 1.5 people a decent salary. My personal impression is that for farming to become financially attractive to the practitioners again, we need to reduce size, reduce inputs, reduce capital expenditure and put quality and diversity back into focus.

by Lutger 3y ago

tfourb 3y ago

There are some interesting approaches to regenerative agriculture that somewhat sidestep the problem of labour cost. I.e. Mark Shepard runs a 46ha farm in US mid west that he says has been profitable basically from year one. Very small degree of mechanization (basically a tractor and some implements) and no use of chemical fertilizers or any other inputs (pesticides, herbicides, irrigation). They basically cut out a huge share of conventional farming's cost structure to be able to compensate for increased labour costs. I live in a rural place and the typical farmer here has mid to high seven figures invested in machines and implements and spends a lot of money on inputs, which in turn has contributed to farms getting bigger and bigger, which in turn requires more investment in mechanization, etc. On the other hand, we have founded a non-profit CSA market garden on 4.000m2 that can pay 1.5 people a decent salary. My personal impression is that for farming to become financially attractive to the practitioners again, we need to reduce size, reduce inputs, reduce capital expenditure and put quality and diversity back into focus.