3 ms·

Land farming isn't financially viable either under market prices, that's why there's huge farming subsidies to ensure crops remain affordable to the average cit

by tremon 3y ago

Land farming isn't financially viable either under market prices, that's why there's huge farming subsidies to ensure crops remain affordable to the average citizen. I don't know if vertical farming receives less or more subsidies than regular farming, but "financially viable" in the food industry is an entire field of study, not something that can be determined in a single HN post.

mc32 3y ago
That all underscores the folly of vertical farming. Regular farming has thin enough margins. Vertical farming is multiple times more expensive and would require hoodwinking consumers into paying multiples for their produce through payments at the cash register or through tax subsidies for it to survive. Farm subsidies are much cheaper than this goldbergian alternative.
Loughla 3y ago
>Land farming isn't financially viable either under market prices Is that the reason subsidies exist? From my experience in farming, subsidies exist to ensure I can stay afloat if a crop fails for whatever reason, or if the market tanks, or just ensures a minimum income to make sure I don't go out of business. It seems like ag subsidies are one place we actually want government intervention (but I am surely biased). We don't really want our food supply to be open directly to the whims of both nature and direct market changes. There is too much of a ramp up time needed if a large share of farms go out of business. It's not like we don't need food next year just because we had a bumper crop this year that caused prices to tank, I guess is what I'm trying to say. For example - look at pork in the 90's. The price fell, and hard, causing most family pork farms went out. This is the reason we have like 2-3 producers of pork for the US now with mega factory pork farms. Is that good? I can't be convinced it is.

3 ms·

Land farming isn't financially viable either under market prices, that's why there's huge farming subsidies to ensure crops remain affordable to the average cit

by tremon 3y ago

mc32 3y ago
That all underscores the folly of vertical farming. Regular farming has thin enough margins. Vertical farming is multiple times more expensive and would require hoodwinking consumers into paying multiples for their produce through payments at the cash register or through tax subsidies for it to survive. Farm subsidies are much cheaper than this goldbergian alternative.
Loughla 3y ago
>Land farming isn't financially viable either under market prices Is that the reason subsidies exist? From my experience in farming, subsidies exist to ensure I can stay afloat if a crop fails for whatever reason, or if the market tanks, or just ensures a minimum income to make sure I don't go out of business. It seems like ag subsidies are one place we actually want government intervention (but I am surely biased). We don't really want our food supply to be open directly to the whims of both nature and direct market changes. There is too much of a ramp up time needed if a large share of farms go out of business. It's not like we don't need food next year just because we had a bumper crop this year that caused prices to tank, I guess is what I'm trying to say. For example - look at pork in the 90's. The price fell, and hard, causing most family pork farms went out. This is the reason we have like 2-3 producers of pork for the US now with mega factory pork farms. Is that good? I can't be convinced it is.