6 ms·

Rice isn't a very profitable crop unless you either have super cheap labour (not in the UK) or massive fields and lots of automation. The UK has small fields a

Rice isn't a very profitable crop unless you either have super cheap labour (not in the UK) or massive fields and lots of automation. The UK has small fields and complex land ownership arrangements which mean the 100,000 acre farms of the USA won't happen there. Overall, I think that unless the UK wants to subsidize rice production or use big Japan-like rice import tariffs, the rice industry is dead-in-the-water. Maybe there's a little market for restaurants and high value products which want to advertise 'under 100 food miles' or similar. But such things tend to be very economically inefficient, so the government would be wise to discourage such production.

RandomLensman 1y ago
Why should the goverment discourage such production instead of leave people free to pursue it? Do you expect (high) social costs from a failure there?
- xyzzy123 1y ago
  Farming sector in the UK was heavily subsidised in the past, not sure of today or what if any support rice farmers might be able to get. I agree it shouldn't be "discouraged" (as a private enterprise) but it seems reasonable to debate whether they should receive subsidies or grants etc. EDIT: this looks more like research than production, so I think it makes sense for it to be supported by grants.
  - eru 1y ago
    Farming sector as a whole is heavily subsidised in most of Europe, but that doesn't mean everything you do as a farmer (and every crop) is subsidised. Eg potatoes grown for eating are almost completely unregulated and unsubsidised in the EU. Similar with grapes grown for eating. In comparison with potatoes grown for starch and wine grown for grapes. It's crazy.
    - swores 1y ago
      To be fair, without subsidies only fools would grow wine for grapes! (Sorry, just my way of pointing out a minor typo. If you edit without replying to me I'll delete this.)
      - asah 1y ago
        In general food production enjoys heavy government support... ... but then again, many industries do too. Libertarian tech bros think they are "self made" even in fact the government supported them with absolutely massive support, from government tech purchasing to supporting R&D and higher education to tax breaks to deregulation and more. Rant off.
        phatfish 1y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        swores 1y ago
        The fact that you wrote this in reply to me makes me think you missed the point of my comment, which didn't actually have anything to do with subsidies - I was just pointing out they "growing wine to make grapes" is the wrong way round ;)
        eru 1y ago
        Your average industry can't enjoy net subsidies: the money has to come from somewhere, so you have to tax at least as much as you subsidise. (Modulo shifting taxation around over time via debt.) Though I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your comment? Just because someone is in favour of reducing subsidies, doesn't necessary mean they want to abolish the government? Just like Bob being in favour of a weightloss diet for a morbidly obese Alice, friend doesn't mean Bob wants their normal sized friend Charlie to starve himself to death (nor does Bob want Alice to continue losing weight once she reached a healthy weight).
- kryogen1c 1y ago
  >>subsidize rice production or rice import tariffs >Why should the goverment discourage These are government measures to encourage rice production, not discourage it.
closewith 1y ago
> But such things tend to be very economically inefficient, so the government would be wise to discourage such production. Absurd comment. Governments should subsidise local food production to whatever extent necessary, especially when it's economically inefficient, because stable staple food supplies should not be external dependencies.
- jstanley 1y ago
  Rice isn't exactly a staple food in the UK. And you can still have efficient food production in the UK, it's just that small artisanal "under 100 food-miles" farming is inefficient.
  - RandomLensman 1y ago
    Unless there is direct food security issue, not sure why inefficiency as such would warrant government interference.
    - rob_c 1y ago
      Have you been paying attention to the farming sector in the last 5yr? There's plenty of problems reminiscent of the 30s after the whole chain has been kicked around due to labour from Brexit, supply due to Brexit, access to markets from Brexit and then the joy of dealing with the cv19 lockdowns. The sector is still facing real financial problems and none of the last few governments have seen farmers as anything other than land owning cash cows.
      - RandomLensman 1y ago
        But why would that lead to the government discouraging rice farming?
    - jstanley 1y ago
      > not sure why inefficiency as such would warrant government interference Agreed
    - 1y ago
tossandthrow 1y ago
If this is the case why is rice one of the 4 major crops of the world? (genuine questions)
- rafaelmn 1y ago
  Because Asia is full of cheap labor ?
- eru 1y ago
  Rice can give you very high yields per acre, even if the yield per man-hour isn't necessarily that high. If your climate is suitable, you can have multiple rice crops per year on the same field. Eg 3 crops per year is common in Thailand.
  - tossandthrow 1y ago
    Ah, I got the impression from the comment that it was not space efficient (massive fields). It seems like smaller fully automated fields could also do?
    - eru 1y ago
      Oh, the bigger fields still have very high yield per acre. > It seems like smaller fully automated fields could also do? In principle, yes, but your machines will probably be idle much of the time, if there's not enough land to keep them busy. So it's not worth it, unless the machines get really cheap.
      - hinkley 1y ago
        The reason you see people planting rice seedlings in wet fields in movies and TV is that the rice being planted is already the second or third crop of the year. Someone somewhere sowed rice seed densely in a single plot, to use to replant several times as much acreage by transplanting. They can also in some cases raise fish in the same terrace, and herbs or other crops on the walls between them. Farmers of Forty Centuries is an out of copyright book from ~1903 that details the findings of a research group from IIRC England who wanted to understand how the Chinese have been farming the same fields for four millennia without exhausting them. They were doing three crops a year back 120 years ago. A lot of it is down to accumulating silt over time by irrigating with silty water, and dredging the irrigation canals every so often to start new fields with the take.
hinkley 1y ago
The UK is trying to reestablish tidal marshes to control storm surges which will only get worse with climate change. I’m sure there are some scenarios where rice fields could be added as additional depth to this buffer, via farm subsidies. It doesn’t matter if it’s profitable, if it’s nearly profitable and it reduces damage from ten, twenty, or even fifty year storms. You can divert money from remediation into prevention.
- aitchnyu 1y ago
  Does this mean they have to expect sudden floods of salt water? Pokkali rice in Kerala is supposed to thrive in that.
  - hinkley 1y ago
    Restoration wise, you’re going to want actual salt marshes on the coast. Up to the historical range of those biomes at least. The USDA reworked their fallow fields program a couple decades ago to pay for fallow fields low in watersheds, to reduce erosion and eutrophication. My reasoning is that you could use rice paddies to similar effect. Because they serve as containment ponds. So in this hypothetical you restore the coastline, then approach the farmers you didn’t displace about what to grow in their lowlands.

RandomLensman 1y ago

Why should the goverment discourage such production instead of leave people free to pursue it? Do you expect (high) social costs from a failure there?

xyzzy123 1y ago
Farming sector in the UK was heavily subsidised in the past, not sure of today or what if any support rice farmers might be able to get. I agree it shouldn't be "discouraged" (as a private enterprise) but it seems reasonable to debate whether they should receive subsidies or grants etc. EDIT: this looks more like research than production, so I think it makes sense for it to be supported by grants.
- eru 1y ago
  Farming sector as a whole is heavily subsidised in most of Europe, but that doesn't mean everything you do as a farmer (and every crop) is subsidised. Eg potatoes grown for eating are almost completely unregulated and unsubsidised in the EU. Similar with grapes grown for eating. In comparison with potatoes grown for starch and wine grown for grapes. It's crazy.
  - swores 1y ago
    To be fair, without subsidies only fools would grow wine for grapes! (Sorry, just my way of pointing out a minor typo. If you edit without replying to me I'll delete this.)
    - asah 1y ago
      In general food production enjoys heavy government support... ... but then again, many industries do too. Libertarian tech bros think they are "self made" even in fact the government supported them with absolutely massive support, from government tech purchasing to supporting R&D and higher education to tax breaks to deregulation and more. Rant off.
      - phatfish 1y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - swores 1y ago
        The fact that you wrote this in reply to me makes me think you missed the point of my comment, which didn't actually have anything to do with subsidies - I was just pointing out they "growing wine to make grapes" is the wrong way round ;)
      - eru 1y ago
        Your average industry can't enjoy net subsidies: the money has to come from somewhere, so you have to tax at least as much as you subsidise. (Modulo shifting taxation around over time via debt.) Though I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your comment? Just because someone is in favour of reducing subsidies, doesn't necessary mean they want to abolish the government? Just like Bob being in favour of a weightloss diet for a morbidly obese Alice, friend doesn't mean Bob wants their normal sized friend Charlie to starve himself to death (nor does Bob want Alice to continue losing weight once she reached a healthy weight).
kryogen1c 1y ago
>>subsidize rice production or rice import tariffs >Why should the goverment discourage These are government measures to encourage rice production, not discourage it.

closewith 1y ago

> But such things tend to be very economically inefficient, so the government would be wise to discourage such production. Absurd comment. Governments should subsidise local food production to whatever extent necessary, especially when it's economically inefficient, because stable staple food supplies should not be external dependencies.

jstanley 1y ago
Rice isn't exactly a staple food in the UK. And you can still have efficient food production in the UK, it's just that small artisanal "under 100 food-miles" farming is inefficient.
- RandomLensman 1y ago
  Unless there is direct food security issue, not sure why inefficiency as such would warrant government interference.
  - rob_c 1y ago
    Have you been paying attention to the farming sector in the last 5yr? There's plenty of problems reminiscent of the 30s after the whole chain has been kicked around due to labour from Brexit, supply due to Brexit, access to markets from Brexit and then the joy of dealing with the cv19 lockdowns. The sector is still facing real financial problems and none of the last few governments have seen farmers as anything other than land owning cash cows.
    - RandomLensman 1y ago
      But why would that lead to the government discouraging rice farming?
  - jstanley 1y ago
    > not sure why inefficiency as such would warrant government interference Agreed
  - 1y ago

tossandthrow 1y ago

If this is the case why is rice one of the 4 major crops of the world? (genuine questions)

rafaelmn 1y ago
Because Asia is full of cheap labor ?
eru 1y ago
Rice can give you very high yields per acre, even if the yield per man-hour isn't necessarily that high. If your climate is suitable, you can have multiple rice crops per year on the same field. Eg 3 crops per year is common in Thailand.
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  Ah, I got the impression from the comment that it was not space efficient (massive fields). It seems like smaller fully automated fields could also do?
  - eru 1y ago
    Oh, the bigger fields still have very high yield per acre. > It seems like smaller fully automated fields could also do? In principle, yes, but your machines will probably be idle much of the time, if there's not enough land to keep them busy. So it's not worth it, unless the machines get really cheap.
    - hinkley 1y ago
      The reason you see people planting rice seedlings in wet fields in movies and TV is that the rice being planted is already the second or third crop of the year. Someone somewhere sowed rice seed densely in a single plot, to use to replant several times as much acreage by transplanting. They can also in some cases raise fish in the same terrace, and herbs or other crops on the walls between them. Farmers of Forty Centuries is an out of copyright book from ~1903 that details the findings of a research group from IIRC England who wanted to understand how the Chinese have been farming the same fields for four millennia without exhausting them. They were doing three crops a year back 120 years ago. A lot of it is down to accumulating silt over time by irrigating with silty water, and dredging the irrigation canals every so often to start new fields with the take.

hinkley 1y ago

The UK is trying to reestablish tidal marshes to control storm surges which will only get worse with climate change. I’m sure there are some scenarios where rice fields could be added as additional depth to this buffer, via farm subsidies. It doesn’t matter if it’s profitable, if it’s nearly profitable and it reduces damage from ten, twenty, or even fifty year storms. You can divert money from remediation into prevention.

aitchnyu 1y ago
Does this mean they have to expect sudden floods of salt water? Pokkali rice in Kerala is supposed to thrive in that.
- hinkley 1y ago
  Restoration wise, you’re going to want actual salt marshes on the coast. Up to the historical range of those biomes at least. The USDA reworked their fallow fields program a couple decades ago to pay for fallow fields low in watersheds, to reduce erosion and eutrophication. My reasoning is that you could use rice paddies to similar effect. Because they serve as containment ponds. So in this hypothetical you restore the coastline, then approach the farmers you didn’t displace about what to grow in their lowlands.