3 ms·
Actually, if the corporate farmers grew the same crops in the field year after year, the land would eventually not be arable. This payment allows for the land t
by zeckalpha 13y ago
Actually, if the corporate farmers grew the same crops in the field year after year, the land would eventually not be arable. This payment allows for the land to recover from the disastrous methods the corporate farmers use.
- markdown 13y ago> Actually, if the corporate farmers grew the same crops in the field year after year, the land would eventually not be arable. So you reckon corporate farmers, left to their own devices, will destroy their own ability to grow crops?
- willvarfar 13y agoHappens all over the world that short termed farming leads to massive long term damage. Dust bowl etc. Farming always focuses on the current and next year.
- markdown 13y ago> Farming always focuses on the current and next year. Citation needed. I'm a (admittedly small-scale) farmer myself, and I've yet to meet a farmer who had that mindset. Further, I simply can't see a good reason why a farmer would destroy his most precious asset - his land.
- mordae 13y agoBecause it's cheaper to get a new one. If you don't happen to have your house nearby, plan to live there for next fifty years and want to raise kids. It's normal for corporations to destroy arable land in Czech Republic too, they can always move elsewhere...
- zeckalpha 13y agoAt large scale, there's no incentive to do basic crop rotation.
- wavefunction 13y agoSo we're making up the difference for short-sighted corporate farming policies that they would otherwise have to institute themselves? Corporate welfare.
- njharman 13y agoThat is the nature of farm business! Deal with it or gtfo.