The last days of a 350-year-old family farm(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
The last days of a 350-year-old family farm
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/these-intimate-photos-capture-a-family-farms-bittersweet-final-years-180982139/
216 comments
Agreed you have to go big or go retail. There is no other option. However, at some point 1K or 2K dairy cows hardly feels much like a "family farm" anymore.
I believe most big farms in the US are family farms. It's not synonymous with small scale.
family farm becomes a different thing when you start milking 1100 cows, it's usually a few of the family working with several undocumented immigrants. I live in upstate NY also tho our family sold the farm a couple of decades ago.
The farm we used to own has gone towards organic milk to get a premium for their product, and the family that bought it now relies heavily on undocumented immigrants.
The farm we used to own has gone towards organic milk to get a premium for their product, and the family that bought it now relies heavily on undocumented immigrants.
America relies heavily undocumented immigrants, from dairy to produce farm ag to meat processing to restaurants to landscaping.
An open secret is that ICE doesn't touch meat ag's workers except for token enforcement. It's a dangerous occupation that includes underage child labor, deaths, and amputations without a social security net.
An open secret is that ICE doesn't touch meat ag's workers except for token enforcement. It's a dangerous occupation that includes underage child labor, deaths, and amputations without a social security net.
If its an open secret (like the open mystery in Ephesians 3:9,10), can you provide some sources to substantiate your claim? Thanks!
An open secret is something which is widely known to be true amongst people, but which is denied officially, for that very reason, providing sources is more usually than not possible for an open secret.
I have no idea if an open secret is like the open mystery of Ephesians 3:9,10.
I have no idea if an open secret is like the open mystery of Ephesians 3:9,10.
Indeed. That seems like a loaded cultural reference point considering the majority of the world (including Christendom) do fine not keeping up with bronze age letters as jargon. Maybe they mean an open secret like the Panama papers?
Your definition of an open secret is the best I've ever read, thx.
As a person of faith, the reference listed above was in poor taste. Scripture should never be used in cryptic ways.
As a person of faith, the reference listed above was in poor taste. Scripture should never be used in cryptic ways.
This is the literal definition of an open secret: https://twitter.com/neeneinnyetno/status/1655217749495361536. It is common knowledge, even in the deep midwest where I am, that there is no construction happening anywhere which doesn't have a large undocumented labor component.
This comment lacks sources and has a biased tone.
In italy, if you run a traditional farm + milk/meat animals, you need to have at least 2-3M $ in capital investments to be "safe", most smaller operations have to be run as "second jobs" bcs there isnt enough margins to sustain yourself as a single family, if you have to share with other family members its worse
NZ dairy farming become very intensified. Less than 200 acres is not worth it I heard. The effect on our environment is not good.
Meat and dairy ag are terrible for the following reasons:
- climate change - 15% of GHGs not counting total inputs of fuel and feed
- antibiotic resistance - antibiotics are used excessively to raise production, similar enough to the ones used in humans to evolve drug-resistant pathogens
- pandemics - many animals peeing and pooping together, in close proximity, create an "institutional" Petri dish effect plus regular cross-contamination with humans and random wildlife
- pollution - of water, air, and soil
- climate change - 15% of GHGs not counting total inputs of fuel and feed
- antibiotic resistance - antibiotics are used excessively to raise production, similar enough to the ones used in humans to evolve drug-resistant pathogens
- pandemics - many animals peeing and pooping together, in close proximity, create an "institutional" Petri dish effect plus regular cross-contamination with humans and random wildlife
- pollution - of water, air, and soil
[deleted]
Taking this course soon to learn more about environmental impacts of insects as a food source.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35882520
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35882520
Are they those awesome self-service milkers where the cow just walks up and gets milked automatically?
That close to Boston, they have an 8-figure net worth.
That must be why they can't hire help and want to hold onto the land to bequeath to their daughter.
That must be why they can't hire help and want to hold onto the land to bequeath to their daughter.
Harvard isn't particularly close to Boston. It's 25-30 miles outside of Boston and outside of even I-495, the outer loop highway encircling Boston. (Still River, where the farm is, is on the far end of Harvard.)
Article says they used to farm two fields they owned and three they leased and have backing away from some of the leased land. From a quick search (unverified/fact-checked), it looks like it's a <20 acres of owned farmland, which would fetch close to $3M in all likelihood. Add $1M for buildings and equipment and, assuming no debt, it's a modest 7-figure estate, seemingly split two ways. Many regular employees on this board have more in investments than each of the owners of this farm and didn't have to farm for 60 years to get there.
Article says they used to farm two fields they owned and three they leased and have backing away from some of the leased land. From a quick search (unverified/fact-checked), it looks like it's a <20 acres of owned farmland, which would fetch close to $3M in all likelihood. Add $1M for buildings and equipment and, assuming no debt, it's a modest 7-figure estate, seemingly split two ways. Many regular employees on this board have more in investments than each of the owners of this farm and didn't have to farm for 60 years to get there.
Probably not even that expensive. I live a town or two further out. One of my neighbors has a small apple tree orchard and the other has a Christmas tree farm. It's pretty accessible to Boston for the day but not really close. My old farmhouse was the original property for about a 75 acre farm. It's been renovated but certainly not a multi-million dollar property. You can actually get out of Boston fairly quickly to reasonably priced real estate.
It's mostly a very Bay area thing to imagine that being a 60-90 minute drive from the city means you're talking multi-million dollar real estate. That mostly isn't true of even relatively expensive cities.
But yeah my neighbor has scaled down you-pick apples over the years as it's really not worth the effort.
It's mostly a very Bay area thing to imagine that being a 60-90 minute drive from the city means you're talking multi-million dollar real estate. That mostly isn't true of even relatively expensive cities.
But yeah my neighbor has scaled down you-pick apples over the years as it's really not worth the effort.
"You can actually get out of Boston fairly quickly to reasonably priced real estate" Maybe compared to SV. I'd argue that it's surprisingly still very expensive even an hour out of Boston. I always wonder who are these wealthy people that can afford these million+ dollar mansions not even close to Boston.
It depends a lot on the town and the property. Massachusetts is certainly not cheap in general but get outside of 495 and there are many decent properties for far less than a million. It's also the case that a ton of Massachusetts companies are not in the city. Tech was historically not in the city much at all. So living 45 minutes plus outside the city can actually be a lot more convenient to many jobs than closer in.
A lot of people who live that relatively far out just don't go into Boston much.
A lot of people who live that relatively far out just don't go into Boston much.
IMO it's due go higher property taxes, the New England states have some of the highest property taxes and high taxes overall which makes land speculation expensive. CA has extremely low property taxes with a loopholes that push the average even lower
Even just a few miles outside NYC, you can get a decent house in NJ for 500K but the property taxes alone will be around 5-10K.
Even just a few miles outside NYC, you can get a decent house in NJ for 500K but the property taxes alone will be around 5-10K.
Which is literally why you have to farm the land. The agricultural rate can be substantially lower than the residential rate.
I don’t know about MA, but in NY for 7 acres or more you just need to average $10,000 in sales for 2 years. Interestingly if you have les than 7 acres the threshold goes up, but you can lease land to bring yourself over the 7 acres. Additionally, since property tax rates are set at the local municipality level an ag assessment uses state law to cap what the municipality can claim.
This is not tax advice, and I don’t know the law in MA, but probably not to far from NY’s.
I don’t know about MA, but in NY for 7 acres or more you just need to average $10,000 in sales for 2 years. Interestingly if you have les than 7 acres the threshold goes up, but you can lease land to bring yourself over the 7 acres. Additionally, since property tax rates are set at the local municipality level an ag assessment uses state law to cap what the municipality can claim.
This is not tax advice, and I don’t know the law in MA, but probably not to far from NY’s.
There's also the cost of heating in the winter. People budget monthly and housing prices tend to rise to consume surplus income (at least over the past few decades of ZIRP). So rather than dreading your heating bills in the winter, you should appreciate that it's a bill you don't have to pay in the summer. Whereas warmer climates end up paying a higher mortgage year round.
You've just described all those "low cost of housing" homes in Texas. Rundown 30-year old stick homes will run you $400k to $600k and $10k to $15k in property tax.
No state income tax is a lie, it's paid through small home property taxes. Larger land owners invariably go for rural/ag exemptions and reductions.
No state income tax is a lie, it's paid through small home property taxes. Larger land owners invariably go for rural/ag exemptions and reductions.
WoahNoun(1)
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
This comment has a very biased tone and lacks an understanding of basic economics
Could you elaborate on how it is wrong?
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.
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.
Federal subsidies may contribute, but average farm size has increased, and employment decreased, over a much longer scale - century plus - than any farm program I'm aware of. It's a massive secular trend longer than the monetary items mentioned as well.
Technology/automation is a commonly cited cause, although in this context you'll see references to mechanization.
Technology/automation is a commonly cited cause, although in this context you'll see references to mechanization.
If you look at the US’s richest (or the world’s for that matter) they’re not usually bankers, which raises a few questions about your hypothesis
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.
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
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
A friend who was an agricultural banker and financial advisor, who would regularly suggest to farmer customers that they could truly be better served financially by taking all the equity out of their farms, put it into an index fund and go to work at WalMart, or better still the post office.
But not all decisions are purely financial.
But not all decisions are purely financial.
That is definitely true if you are farming on debt. The big time operator is happy to see no more than index fund-like returns, so he is quite content to dump everything else into interest payments. Which means you also have to in order to compete. I am less convinced by your friend if you are not trying to service debt with your labour input.
That said, you can leverage the debt. It is much harder to get someone to loan you money to invest in index funds. With the huge run-up in asset values over the past decade, I expect the farmer with a small holding 10 years ago, who then bought up everything he could with the bank's money, is now considerably further ahead than he who invested the same amount of money in index funds 10 years ago and took a job at Walmart to try and top up those investments.
But you are right that not all decisions are financial. I expect the Walmart job is far less stressful and that is worth quite a bit.
That said, you can leverage the debt. It is much harder to get someone to loan you money to invest in index funds. With the huge run-up in asset values over the past decade, I expect the farmer with a small holding 10 years ago, who then bought up everything he could with the bank's money, is now considerably further ahead than he who invested the same amount of money in index funds 10 years ago and took a job at Walmart to try and top up those investments.
But you are right that not all decisions are financial. I expect the Walmart job is far less stressful and that is worth quite a bit.
> half of my developer income for just a couple of weeks per year of work
That is a very high hourly wage. Wow.
That is a very high hourly wage. Wow.
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.
There could come a point where modern society is so degrading that sacrificing complex niceties becomes worth it to live off the grid.
Many are already there.
> The economic value from operating it will generally not match the opportunity cost of not doing other things.
Not everyone evaluates their life choices like an arid economist.
In particular, not everyone would regard leaving an outdoor lifestyle for sitting at a desk all day at someone's beck and call an "oppirtunity"
> 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
Actually, in many places it is possible to operate a small farm without being destitute. The point is that all the "nicities" are particularly necessary, and outside of education and healthcare you can get by ok buying second hand and mending and making do.
Heck, even the homeless have mobile phones, so your example is pretty poor
Not everyone evaluates their life choices like an arid economist.
In particular, not everyone would regard leaving an outdoor lifestyle for sitting at a desk all day at someone's beck and call an "oppirtunity"
> 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
Actually, in many places it is possible to operate a small farm without being destitute. The point is that all the "nicities" are particularly necessary, and outside of education and healthcare you can get by ok buying second hand and mending and making do.
Heck, even the homeless have mobile phones, so your example is pretty poor
Are there really that many innovations in how to harvest a wheat field?
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
> 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.
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.
Without subsidies none of those would survive, especially the French ones, who are notorious for their 'traditional' (i.e., inefficient) farming practices.
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
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SA0R
> notorious for their 'traditional' (i.e., inefficient) farming practices
Do you have sources?
Do you have sources?
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.
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.
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.
Also people still steal chickens if its easy enough, so clip their wing and try to keep them on your property.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Is that true?
Small farms benefit from greater attention and incentives of their owners.
Small farms benefit from greater attention and incentives of their owners.
> The question of what will become of the farm is a very complicated and painful one for Eleanor. They are an academic and a writer, and their family wants them to pursue their passions. Eleanor has no interest in farming themself, but they don’t want to see the farm disappear. They now live in New York State and miss home all the time. The family wants to hold on to the property, if at all possible, so they can live out their days here and leave it for Eleanor to do with it as they wish.
This is getting pretty old. Is it one person or several? Confusing readers just to be politically correct is not surprising coming from Smithsonian Magazine, but I just can't help rolling my eyes at this nonsense.
This is getting pretty old. Is it one person or several? Confusing readers just to be politically correct is not surprising coming from Smithsonian Magazine, but I just can't help rolling my eyes at this nonsense.
>This is getting pretty old.
Well the singular use of "They" is actually pretty old [1]. I don't think it is confusing readers as they did mention a name.
> I just can't help rolling my eyes at this nonsense.
I get the frustration if you are not used to the usage of the pronoun in its singular form, but it is actually sensible
[1] https://www.scu.edu/media/offices/provost/writing-center/res...
Well the singular use of "They" is actually pretty old [1]. I don't think it is confusing readers as they did mention a name.
> I just can't help rolling my eyes at this nonsense.
I get the frustration if you are not used to the usage of the pronoun in its singular form, but it is actually sensible
[1] https://www.scu.edu/media/offices/provost/writing-center/res...
> Well the singular use of "They" is actually pretty old
The cardinal rule of writing is Serve the Reader — Don't Make Him/Her Do Needless Work. In modern parlance, "they" is an unobjectionable shortcut when you don't know who the person is, but it's just confusing to readers when it's about a known person. I'd be fine with a coined, gender-neutral singular pronoun, analogous to how feminists coined "Ms." decades ago and it's now practically universal.
The cardinal rule of writing is Serve the Reader — Don't Make Him/Her Do Needless Work. In modern parlance, "they" is an unobjectionable shortcut when you don't know who the person is, but it's just confusing to readers when it's about a known person. I'd be fine with a coined, gender-neutral singular pronoun, analogous to how feminists coined "Ms." decades ago and it's now practically universal.
The OED reference is very vague. We're not even sure in what context "they" was used 600 years ago. Care to elaborate?
Are you referring to this reference?
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...
What part is vague?
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...
What part is vague?
Because it's grasping at straws. A singular case of a poem referring to an unnamed person? They are trying to make it seem like this was likely common and accepted 700 years ago up until today. I really doubt the author considered gender identity. In fact, up until quite recently, the use of "they" as gender neutral would cause blank stares.
Why would it be necessary for the author to consider gender identity? I don’t follow the logic of your argument.
The cited example is just the oldest known example of singular “they”. You’ll find more examples. You’d have to rip a lot of pages out of your history books in order to come up with a timeline where singular “they” wasn’t natural English. All that is happening now is that “they” is being used more often to refer to specific, known people, which is not much of a stretch.
The cited example is just the oldest known example of singular “they”. You’ll find more examples. You’d have to rip a lot of pages out of your history books in order to come up with a timeline where singular “they” wasn’t natural English. All that is happening now is that “they” is being used more often to refer to specific, known people, which is not much of a stretch.
It's not a well-written paragraph because it deals with both Eleanor and the family and it's not immediately obvious what "they" is referring to in one or two spots.
That said, singular-they is pretty much the best alternative to dealing with a number of issues that copy editors have struggled with for years.
That said, singular-they is pretty much the best alternative to dealing with a number of issues that copy editors have struggled with for years.
Why can't we just make a new pronoun that is "they" but singular?
Like "Theya".
Theya is my friend. It's singular, non gendered, and then we can just get rid of every pronoun except "they" and "theya".
Like "Theya".
Theya is my friend. It's singular, non gendered, and then we can just get rid of every pronoun except "they" and "theya".
It's easier to do what happened to "you" (also previously the plural), form entirely new plurals akin to "you all". "They all" reads pretty well to me and I'm personally very curious if "th'all" works as well as "y'all" and have been subtly experimenting with it to see who notices.
Because it's much easier to get people to use an existing pronoun in a way that historically would have been considered a bit sloppy than it is to get them to adopt a new non-sex gendered but non-neutral coined pronoun. (It's actually been tried in the past.)
It worked pretty well with "Ms." back in the day. (I know, I know, it's not a pronoun.)
Honorifics are more of an “open class”…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed...
This really just a way of rephrasing what the parent comment says. By some reckonings, in English, pronouns are a closed class, and verbs are an open class. Some languages have it the other way around, where you can invent new pronouns but not new verbs (you have to take a noun X and say “do X” or something like that).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed...
This really just a way of rephrasing what the parent comment says. By some reckonings, in English, pronouns are a closed class, and verbs are an open class. Some languages have it the other way around, where you can invent new pronouns but not new verbs (you have to take a noun X and say “do X” or something like that).
Ms. did have its own political angle but but when it did finally become mainstream in the late 60s/early 70s, I'm not sure that there were too many people ready to go to the mat for public honorifics that distinguished whether a woman--and only a woman--was married or not. (And at least some people who probably reflexively opposed the change at first, changed their mind later on.)
But honorifics are tricky and some people feel very strongly about them--e.g. Dr. for someone with a PhD.
But honorifics are tricky and some people feel very strongly about them--e.g. Dr. for someone with a PhD.
You couldn’t figure out it was singular after seeing “an academic and a writer” in reference to a single name? This doesn’t seem confusing at all.
Granted, I’ve seen some sentences that are more ambiguous. But most of the time, context makes it plainly obvious, as it does here. The benefit is that by using “they”, the writer is making fewer guesses or assumptions. So it’s a trade off - more ambiguity, fewer mistakes. I think it’s a win overall.
Granted, I’ve seen some sentences that are more ambiguous. But most of the time, context makes it plainly obvious, as it does here. The benefit is that by using “they”, the writer is making fewer guesses or assumptions. So it’s a trade off - more ambiguity, fewer mistakes. I think it’s a win overall.
> This doesn’t seem confusing at all.
It was to me. Since I only read the quote I assumed "they" referred to Eleanor and Eleanor's partner or some other person that was mentioned before the quoted section.
It was to me. Since I only read the quote I assumed "they" referred to Eleanor and Eleanor's partner or some other person that was mentioned before the quoted section.
While I like rms' suggestion of using person, per, and pers I can live with writers using singular they instead. It solves an issue English has (and many other languages also have) with lack of information.
These things only become familiar with continued usage. Give it time.
It may become familiar, but it is no less confusing. I had to read that paragraph several times to understand who “they” were.
Yeah, you have to give it time.
That said, the particular paragraph has some problems with antecedents. It could equally have those same problems if you were using other pronouns, like he, she, or it.
That said, the particular paragraph has some problems with antecedents. It could equally have those same problems if you were using other pronouns, like he, she, or it.
It would seem that if there was another word that was gender neutral and that people like to use instead of they would reduce the plural confusion reading problem. I realize that isn’t likely to happen but would solve the technical issue.
Sure. But it is equally possible to reword things to clarify. There are plenty of languages out there that never made the he/she/they distinction in the first place, and plenty of pro-drop languages where you would normally omit the subject of a sentence entirely, if you expect that the listener/reader can infer the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language
It is hard to make the argument that singular “they” is somehow an inherently confusing construct, especially given how prevalent it is in English, and how prevalent it has been for centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language
It is hard to make the argument that singular “they” is somehow an inherently confusing construct, especially given how prevalent it is in English, and how prevalent it has been for centuries.
The wall has always said that two legs are better than four
It’s important to remember that this was a specific policy decision. Earl Butz[1] famously said to our farmers “Get big or get out”.
I don’t have the background or inclination to prove it but my conviction is the death of the small town, and the ancillary costs like the meth and opioid epidemics can be traced directly to the “fence row to fence row” approach he pushed forward and still exists today.
[later] thanks nickt for pointing out I left off the footnote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz
I don’t have the background or inclination to prove it but my conviction is the death of the small town, and the ancillary costs like the meth and opioid epidemics can be traced directly to the “fence row to fence row” approach he pushed forward and still exists today.
[later] thanks nickt for pointing out I left off the footnote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz
[1] Earl Butz - Secretary of Agriculture under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (1971 - 1976)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz
How much farming do you need if you cut out biofuels and some feed corn for industrial scale meat production? Lots of poor ag policy decisions over the last century, but also I think a a bit of make work in certain circumstances.
When speaking to opponents of utility scale solar on vast tracts of farmland, you see this when they’re upset about the land no longer being used to farm, but the farmer can make more from solar or wind than farming. Lots of emotion from tradition and history to make peace with. Change is the only constant, and everything dies eventually.
When speaking to opponents of utility scale solar on vast tracts of farmland, you see this when they’re upset about the land no longer being used to farm, but the farmer can make more from solar or wind than farming. Lots of emotion from tradition and history to make peace with. Change is the only constant, and everything dies eventually.
Did he make that true via policy changes, or was it an astute observation of what was going to be true given economic realities?
The death of the small town seems like it was fore-ordained by simple economics. In big cities, you can afford to have businesses like restaurants that aren't Sysco retail outlets, movie theaters that show more than the five most popular films on Earth at the moment, libraries that have books beyond romance novels, bestsellers, and out-of-date nonfiction.
Moreover, cities are the economic drivers, even in the agricultural world:
https://www.zompist.com/jacobs.html
> But don't cities arise from and depend on agriculture? No: all economic progress originates in cities, [Jane] Jacobs tells us; and cheekily adds that all agricultural progress originates in cities. Great advances, such as mechanical reapers and electricity, were invented and adopted in or near cities before being applied to agricultural regions farther out. Productivity improvements in agriculture always begin near the cities and spread out.
> What we think of as purely rural activities often began in the cities. In premodern Europe, the quintessential cottage industry was weaving; but before cloth was woven in cottages the art was rediscovered and practiced in cities. Dark Ages peasants lived on gruel; the art of breadmaking was recovered first in cities (and based on city-grown bread; a medieval city had its own fields). In our own rural areas there are vast ranches where animals are fattened before slaughter; they are transplants from the city stockyards of Kansas City and Chicago.
> Driving the nail in the coffin of the spontaneous generation of cities from farmland, Jacobs describes the inability of Ireland to turn itself around after the disastrous famines of the 1840s:
>> There were no ports to receive relief food... There were no mills for grinding relief grain. There were no mechanics or tools and equipment to build mills. There were no ovens for baking bread. There were no ways to spread information about how to grow crops other than potatoes. There was no way to distribute the seeds of other crops, nor to supply the farm tools that were indispensable for a change of crops...
>> To be sure, the Irish had reached this pass because they were held in an iron economic and social subjection. But the very core of that subjection-- and the reason why it was so effective and had rendered them so helpless-- was the systematic suppression of city industry, the same suppression in principle that the English had unsuccessfully tried to enforce upon industry in the little cities of the American colonies.
> Closer to home, here's a report from one Henry Grady, speaking in 1880 about a funeral in Pickens Co. Georgia, some years before.
>> The grave was dug through solid marble, but the marble headstone came from Vermont. It was in a pine wilderness but the pine coffin came from Cincinnati. An iron mountain over-shadowed it but the coffin nails and the screws and the shovel came from Pittsburgh. With hard wood and metal abounding, the corpse was hauled on a wagon from South Bend, Indiana. A hickory grove grew near by, but the pick and shovel handles came from New York. The cotton shirt on the dead man came from Cincinnati, the coat and breeches from Chicago, the shoes from Boston; the folded hands were encased in white gloves from New York... That country, so rich in undeveloped resources, furnished nothing for the funeral except the corpse and the hole in the ground and would probably have imported both of those if it could have done so.
> Grady is eloquently describing the circumstances of a passive economic region: despite all its resources, it makes nothing.
So blaming it all on Nixon, which has an obvious appeal I admit, is a bit ahistorical.
Moreover, cities are the economic drivers, even in the agricultural world:
https://www.zompist.com/jacobs.html
> But don't cities arise from and depend on agriculture? No: all economic progress originates in cities, [Jane] Jacobs tells us; and cheekily adds that all agricultural progress originates in cities. Great advances, such as mechanical reapers and electricity, were invented and adopted in or near cities before being applied to agricultural regions farther out. Productivity improvements in agriculture always begin near the cities and spread out.
> What we think of as purely rural activities often began in the cities. In premodern Europe, the quintessential cottage industry was weaving; but before cloth was woven in cottages the art was rediscovered and practiced in cities. Dark Ages peasants lived on gruel; the art of breadmaking was recovered first in cities (and based on city-grown bread; a medieval city had its own fields). In our own rural areas there are vast ranches where animals are fattened before slaughter; they are transplants from the city stockyards of Kansas City and Chicago.
> Driving the nail in the coffin of the spontaneous generation of cities from farmland, Jacobs describes the inability of Ireland to turn itself around after the disastrous famines of the 1840s:
>> There were no ports to receive relief food... There were no mills for grinding relief grain. There were no mechanics or tools and equipment to build mills. There were no ovens for baking bread. There were no ways to spread information about how to grow crops other than potatoes. There was no way to distribute the seeds of other crops, nor to supply the farm tools that were indispensable for a change of crops...
>> To be sure, the Irish had reached this pass because they were held in an iron economic and social subjection. But the very core of that subjection-- and the reason why it was so effective and had rendered them so helpless-- was the systematic suppression of city industry, the same suppression in principle that the English had unsuccessfully tried to enforce upon industry in the little cities of the American colonies.
> Closer to home, here's a report from one Henry Grady, speaking in 1880 about a funeral in Pickens Co. Georgia, some years before.
>> The grave was dug through solid marble, but the marble headstone came from Vermont. It was in a pine wilderness but the pine coffin came from Cincinnati. An iron mountain over-shadowed it but the coffin nails and the screws and the shovel came from Pittsburgh. With hard wood and metal abounding, the corpse was hauled on a wagon from South Bend, Indiana. A hickory grove grew near by, but the pick and shovel handles came from New York. The cotton shirt on the dead man came from Cincinnati, the coat and breeches from Chicago, the shoes from Boston; the folded hands were encased in white gloves from New York... That country, so rich in undeveloped resources, furnished nothing for the funeral except the corpse and the hole in the ground and would probably have imported both of those if it could have done so.
> Grady is eloquently describing the circumstances of a passive economic region: despite all its resources, it makes nothing.
So blaming it all on Nixon, which has an obvious appeal I admit, is a bit ahistorical.
Again, I have no business commenting on this as I have no idea what I’m talking about. But it’s striking driving through WI and MI vs IN, IL and IA.
In the former, where the agriculture is dominated by less commodity agriculture (dairy & fruit) small towns exist and thrive. In the latter dominated by the most commoditized crops in the world (feed corn & soy) they don’t.
In the former, where the agriculture is dominated by less commodity agriculture (dairy & fruit) small towns exist and thrive. In the latter dominated by the most commoditized crops in the world (feed corn & soy) they don’t.
Lots of timber industry in Wisconsin and Michigan. The paper mill in my town directly supports several hundred jobs (like the on site jobs) and is a gaping maw consuming wood fiber from the region.
(several hundred jobs doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a big deal in a small town)
Oh oops: It's not several hundred on site, it's ~1,000.
(several hundred jobs doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a big deal in a small town)
Oh oops: It's not several hundred on site, it's ~1,000.
You can store grain 10 years. You cannot store milk or fruit (even with the best inert gas refrigeration) more than a year at most without noticeable degradation.
That has significant implications.
That has significant implications.
I understand that these quotes are poignant symbols of how dependent rural areas are on cities, but you can't expect to base an argument about economic change on some quotes that you liked from books.
Do you have anything to add?
It's hard to support the idea of inefficient farming just out of pure nostalgia but I think there's something else lost when these small family farms die out. I imagine large commercial farms aren't going to experiment as much or adapt to changing conditions.
They aren't going to take any chances on growing unusual crops, perhaps. But big farm operations are constantly experimenting to improve yields and reduce expenses.
Yes, definitely. Working on a mature product in a big corporation I'm very familiar with the concept of continuous optimization and it can actually be quite interesting.
That's how I see the division: small companies invent and experiment, large ones scale and optimize, both are critical.
That's how I see the division: small companies invent and experiment, large ones scale and optimize, both are critical.
There is a lot of discussion about prices, weather etc. but the key here is that their family died out. Being 80 and 74 and the only ones running the farm..
The young don't want to farm. My neighbour is 84, his children in their 40s and 50s. They moved to a small regional town to work in factories. Same story for the several other farmers in this area.
He has offered to let me use the land for free. I moved here for the scenic views. I don't want to farm. There's over 10,000 square metres of farm land right outside my window growing weeds as I sit here in climate controlled comfort in a HM chair, typing away.
edit: math is hard
He has offered to let me use the land for free. I moved here for the scenic views. I don't want to farm. There's over 10,000 square metres of farm land right outside my window growing weeds as I sit here in climate controlled comfort in a HM chair, typing away.
edit: math is hard
The same is happening in many places in Europe: young people are leaving rural areas and the only ones left to tend the farms are the elderly who eventually give up and sell their land to a big company. There is a huge lack of incentives for young people to stay in the farming business, or just to live in the countryside
This is sort of sad, because - 350 years!
I think the other side of the coin is the places stagnation and outright decay have set in, like many inner cities or rustbelt regions that have not thrived. The opposite would be places like tokyo where everything is turned over rapidly and the new is ousted to be almost immediately replaced by the newer and newest.
I think the other side of the coin is the places stagnation and outright decay have set in, like many inner cities or rustbelt regions that have not thrived. The opposite would be places like tokyo where everything is turned over rapidly and the new is ousted to be almost immediately replaced by the newer and newest.
It's interesting to see that the same thing has been happening on the other side of the Atlantic. I grew up in a farming community in County Clare, Ireland (~1980 - 1999) and many farms there have been abandoned due to the low returns from agriculture.
The same thing has been happening pretty much everywhere in the world for a century.
The length of its existence is interesting, but by todays standards, the farm may have been just as unsustainable as it was at its onset.
Notably, the Smithsonian article only asks about recent changes affecting the farm.
Slavery was common in Massachusetts through 1700s.
If the farm was made sustainable through slave labor in its first 100 years, it would have avoided the same concerns that the article says are doing it in now: dependable and low cost labor.
Notably, the Smithsonian article only asks about recent changes affecting the farm.
Slavery was common in Massachusetts through 1700s.
If the farm was made sustainable through slave labor in its first 100 years, it would have avoided the same concerns that the article says are doing it in now: dependable and low cost labor.
My Scottish male ancestors were forcibly shipped to Massachusetts and made to do forced labour when they lost the civil war to the English. Because they were prisoners of war they were not allowed to bring their families with them.
Thanks for introducing me to that concept, enjoyed that.
We need a new New Deal w/ UBI and just invest in ourselves.
We need a new New Deal w/ UBI and just invest in ourselves.
Wendell. Appropriate name, given the situation. Wendell Berry has written beautifully on this subject, in fiction, nonfiction, and poetry. Highly recommended, if you want to dive into the nuance and heartbreak.
Suffice to say the situation is complex and irreducible and does not yield to armchair quarterbacking.
Suffice to say the situation is complex and irreducible and does not yield to armchair quarterbacking.
This 17-acre farm was enough to keep about eight humans alive if it had been the sole source of agricultural production to feed them.
That's the fundamental equation, and it generally assumes a vegan diet as well. Nobody has ever been able to reduce this value, it's related to the solar input and the ability of plants to capture carbon into a human-digestible energy source.
It'll be worse on Mars, of course, due to the reduced intensity of sunlight.
That's the fundamental equation, and it generally assumes a vegan diet as well. Nobody has ever been able to reduce this value, it's related to the solar input and the ability of plants to capture carbon into a human-digestible energy source.
It'll be worse on Mars, of course, due to the reduced intensity of sunlight.
I'm not quite sure where you got that figure from, but some quick research cites numbers vary between 0.1 and 1.2 acres per person.
In any event, 17 acres could theoretically supply food for an enormous range from 15 to 170 people, depending on how intensively it's farmed.
[1] 4000 sq ft bio-intensive farming (http://www.growbiointensive.org/) [2] 0.44 acres permaculturism (https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-fee...) [3] 1.2 from a 1994 study (and further discussion in this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1aozn1/how_much...)
In any event, 17 acres could theoretically supply food for an enormous range from 15 to 170 people, depending on how intensively it's farmed.
[1] 4000 sq ft bio-intensive farming (http://www.growbiointensive.org/) [2] 0.44 acres permaculturism (https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-fee...) [3] 1.2 from a 1994 study (and further discussion in this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1aozn1/how_much...)
China has around 330 million acres of farmland and, until relatively recently, they were a net food exporter with a population of 1.4 billion. That's around 4 people fed per acre, and that's not especially remarkable. Even urban homesteads are also able to match this. Here's [1] a heavily commercialized one that is/was operating on a fifth of an acre for a family of four.
And meat also provides an excellent nutrient:calorie ratio with extremely low upkeep. You can sustain around 50 free range chickens per acre, and they're ready for harvest in 6 weeks. That's more than a whole chicken per day, on a single acre. If you want to get real crazy you can also get into things like vertical farming/aquaponics [2] and more, where the densities are limited really only by cost. Though on the still very reasonable end, you can do things like potato boxes where you can get hundreds of pounds of potatoes in tens of square feet.
[1] - https://www.urbanhomestead.org/
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
And meat also provides an excellent nutrient:calorie ratio with extremely low upkeep. You can sustain around 50 free range chickens per acre, and they're ready for harvest in 6 weeks. That's more than a whole chicken per day, on a single acre. If you want to get real crazy you can also get into things like vertical farming/aquaponics [2] and more, where the densities are limited really only by cost. Though on the still very reasonable end, you can do things like potato boxes where you can get hundreds of pounds of potatoes in tens of square feet.
[1] - https://www.urbanhomestead.org/
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
Rice is a rich source of carbs and isn't grown on what westerners would consider farmland
Australia is a Western country and farms rice on farmland.
https://www.rga.org.au/Public/Public/Content/The_Rice_Indust...
I'm not sure where you get your odd notions from.
https://www.rga.org.au/Public/Public/Content/The_Rice_Indust...
I'm not sure where you get your odd notions from.
Not the person you’re replying to, but China over literally Millenia have effectively terraformed mountains into channels and channels of rice paddies for the cultivation of rice - areas that westerners would not typically consider farmland.
Of course you can also plant rice on flat fields (and China does as well), but this does skew the comparative ratios of acres of land use : people fed.
Of course you can also plant rice on flat fields (and China does as well), but this does skew the comparative ratios of acres of land use : people fed.
I'm a westerner in agriculture (Australian, northern territory cattle stations -> mining - Geophysics -> large acre grains) and I consider that to be farmland.
Maybe you're thinking of some specific subset of urban western non agricultural people.
Of course in western culture the "typical" westerner lives in an urban environment so perhaps that explains the disconnect.
Maybe you're thinking of some specific subset of urban western non agricultural people.
Of course in western culture the "typical" westerner lives in an urban environment so perhaps that explains the disconnect.
I expect people think I'm somehow 'tricking' them with terminology with China's farmland figures. Many seem to think that you need multiple acres per person for basic sustainability, so there must be some catch. Nope, farmland is just any land where farming (or ranching) is happening. It's not fixed, nor does it exclude certain types of farm/ranchland.
Friend, I’m Aussie as well and listing mining and geophysics as having anything to agriculture weakens your appeal to authority, making the subsequent snark even less appropriate for HN.
Do better.
Do better.
"Friend" my actual life experience is no appeal to authority, it's two decades around cattle and stations, two decades travelling the world writing GIS code for exploration geophysics across more than half the existing countries of the globe and another two decades around agriculture.
Everybody I've met in 60+ years considers the land that rice farmers farm rice on to be farmland.
Perhaps you might do better policing others less and working more on making a point.
Everybody I've met in 60+ years considers the land that rice farmers farm rice on to be farmland.
Perhaps you might do better policing others less and working more on making a point.
Several cogent points have been made about why China might have unexpectedly high agriculture output per acre used to a lay person - all of which you seem to wish to curmudgeonly argue against strawmen variants of.
[deleted]
To add to others' comments, having animals increases a farm's productivity, since a lot of plant material is indigestible for humans. So they wouldn't have been vegan.
Chickens and pigs are omnivourous and will eat all sorts. Ruminants such as cows or goats can convert inedible grass and other cellulose-rich material into milk and meat.
Low wage industries struggle in high wage countries.
Globalization displaces natural local supply and demand outcomes.
The above two factors result in some very complex status quos.
For example, take the country of New Zealand, whose significant apple growing industry is largely for export purposes - ostensibly, sending good fresh highly-valued NZ apples to other countries, where they'll fetch max $.
Problem: apple workers are minimum wage jobs. Over recent decades, the minimum wage in NZ has risen by a great deal more than the price of apples has. Profitability slumped.
The powerful industry, rather than cede ground or change crops, instead loudly complained and politically lobbied to have special conditions put in place for their industry: since 2007, they can 'temporarily import' hundreds of foreign labourers from the islands of Tonga and similar - a special workforce of large muscled young men for whom any NZ wage is a fortune back home, and to whom the powerful orchardists and their cronies are like little gods.
The natural local market forces that-would-be are being manipulated for commercial purposes, with significant and complex environmental, economic, and cultural side effects.
Whose fault is it? What should we do instead?
Globalization displaces natural local supply and demand outcomes.
The above two factors result in some very complex status quos.
For example, take the country of New Zealand, whose significant apple growing industry is largely for export purposes - ostensibly, sending good fresh highly-valued NZ apples to other countries, where they'll fetch max $.
Problem: apple workers are minimum wage jobs. Over recent decades, the minimum wage in NZ has risen by a great deal more than the price of apples has. Profitability slumped.
The powerful industry, rather than cede ground or change crops, instead loudly complained and politically lobbied to have special conditions put in place for their industry: since 2007, they can 'temporarily import' hundreds of foreign labourers from the islands of Tonga and similar - a special workforce of large muscled young men for whom any NZ wage is a fortune back home, and to whom the powerful orchardists and their cronies are like little gods.
The natural local market forces that-would-be are being manipulated for commercial purposes, with significant and complex environmental, economic, and cultural side effects.
Whose fault is it? What should we do instead?
Fault? The situation with apple producers you just described looks like a win-win situation both for consumers and immigrants. The only ones losing are New Zealand workers, but from all invoked groups, they're the only citizens who could theoretically vote out these politicians.
And those workers don't want to do those jobs, for that $, anyway. A friend of mine with a farm in Quebec, Canada says even if you can find folks to do the work and pay them well, they often aren't reliable. Better all round to use temporary workers
Only a minority of people have an aptitude for work consisting of an 8-hour hard-focused physical workout every day.
In the same way that only a minority of people have an aptitude for work consisting of an 8-hour hard-focused (e.g.) mathematical workout every day.
The difference is that the former tends to come with a sub-cultural attitude of "people who can't/won't are Lazy", which is unfortunate and misguided, in the very same manner that a "people who can't/won't do maths all day are Stupid" view would be.
In the same way that only a minority of people have an aptitude for work consisting of an 8-hour hard-focused (e.g.) mathematical workout every day.
The difference is that the former tends to come with a sub-cultural attitude of "people who can't/won't are Lazy", which is unfortunate and misguided, in the very same manner that a "people who can't/won't do maths all day are Stupid" view would be.
Only a few generations ago, an overwhelming majority of humans were farmers, having 8-hour hard-focused physical workout every day. Do you think we lost natural ability for it in such a short timespan?
Why do you think there was ever a natural ability for it? If that's the only option available, you suck it up and do the work.
But if you're unable to do it, you die of hunger anyway.
I acknowledge that win/loss is arguable. It invokes ethical cans of worms that I'm reluctant to open here. In theory, the dominant demographic at HN are from affluent countries, so the maxim that there are endless folk from poorer countries who'd be willing to come and do our work for a lot less - could apply to most of us, in similar fashion. Would we call that 'a win'? Highly subjective, obviously. And dependent upon other factors such as opportunity cost, the question 'is there something economically better we could be doing instead'?
I suppose my point could be construed as highlighting the significant factors of power and inertia in regulatory systems, as pertaining to environmental and economic setups.
Regarding your point about Voting Out - it assumes that the major political parties differ in their stance on this one matter. If both/all are subject to the same lobbying, then whichever is elected will see the status quo remain.
I suppose my point could be construed as highlighting the significant factors of power and inertia in regulatory systems, as pertaining to environmental and economic setups.
Regarding your point about Voting Out - it assumes that the major political parties differ in their stance on this one matter. If both/all are subject to the same lobbying, then whichever is elected will see the status quo remain.
I had a friend who used to FIFO to/of one of the offshore NZ fishery Islands cos they wouldn't get out of bed for less than $300 an hour and he could make enough in 3 months to have the other 9 months off. Cost of living there is extreme, $4.50 for a bottle of milk on the mainland but $12 there. The islands economy is export based.
> Would we call that 'a win'? Highly subjective, obviously.
Win for whom?
I'm a developer from not an affluent country, working remotely for an american company (although for an american level of pay, my employer is quite awesome). So it's definetly a win for me.
Win for whom?
I'm a developer from not an affluent country, working remotely for an american company (although for an american level of pay, my employer is quite awesome). So it's definetly a win for me.
> for whom any NZ wage is a fortune back home
This is the problem to solve, and something I believe is becoming solved gradually even if very slowly; developing nations have been developing. But if we manage to eradicate this idea of "high wage countries", or at least reduce it so that the imbalance is not order(s) of magnitude, then that will alleviate many of the negative side-effects of globalization.
This is the problem to solve, and something I believe is becoming solved gradually even if very slowly; developing nations have been developing. But if we manage to eradicate this idea of "high wage countries", or at least reduce it so that the imbalance is not order(s) of magnitude, then that will alleviate many of the negative side-effects of globalization.
From what I understand we would need an energy tech revolution because there's not enough resources to replicate current western lifestyle globally.
Assuming you aren't aiming to reduce standard of living in rich countries.
Assuming you aren't aiming to reduce standard of living in rich countries.
We can’t eliminate it on a city by city, or state by state basis. How would that inequality ever be eliminated on a country by country basis?
You see it being eliminated right there in the post. Globalization is moving money to the people who are more needy by giving them the chance to earn a relative fortune by harvesting apples in NZ. It's a fabulous success!
We see this all over the place. Many manufacturing jobs moved from China to cheaper places where people are more needy because so many Chinese were lifted out of poverty.
The best way out of poverty is allowing globalization to continue doing this and have policies that focus on creating abundance rather than seeing the economy as a zero-sum game.
At some point automation will hit a point where we must have something like UBI, but it seems like we aren't there yet.
We see this all over the place. Many manufacturing jobs moved from China to cheaper places where people are more needy because so many Chinese were lifted out of poverty.
The best way out of poverty is allowing globalization to continue doing this and have policies that focus on creating abundance rather than seeing the economy as a zero-sum game.
At some point automation will hit a point where we must have something like UBI, but it seems like we aren't there yet.
Automation gives profit margins to owners, not free time to workers. You’re asking for charity or revolution.
But the effects globalization has had on the environment has been disastrous
That really depends on where. If we say globalozation started in the 80s (which seems like a fair middle ground) then the environment in high income countries has recovered immensely.
In Europe since the 80s , forest coverage has grown by something like 30%, acid rain is pretty much gone, protected areas have doubled, most big rivers are safe to swim and co2 output is going down.
I think it would be great if every country had the ressources to accomplish similar things instead of deforesting because they’re poor.
In Europe since the 80s , forest coverage has grown by something like 30%, acid rain is pretty much gone, protected areas have doubled, most big rivers are safe to swim and co2 output is going down.
I think it would be great if every country had the ressources to accomplish similar things instead of deforesting because they’re poor.
This has to be reckoned with. Downvotes expose some kind of twisted biased I’d be curious to learn more about.
Is it globalization or industrialization? Is it inherent to globalization?
In capitalism, capital owning individuals, companies and countries gain wealth at an exponential rate, while labor producing individuals, companies and countries gain wealth at a linear rate.
In such a system, high levels of inequality is the natural state.
In such a system, high levels of inequality is the natural state.
Yes, let's kill the golden goose that makes us rich so that other people cannot get even richer and we won't get jealous.
Developing countries also seem to be catching up. The gap between southeast Asian states that used to be tragically poor a few decades ago to western countries is clearly closing.
Developing countries also seem to be catching up. The gap between southeast Asian states that used to be tragically poor a few decades ago to western countries is clearly closing.
This is why farming subsidies exist - it's advantageous for both national security and economic security to have at least some crops grown within a nation's borders. Not so great if the nation specifically has a lower minimum wage for their agriculture workers, though.
Low-wage industries wouldn't necessarily be a problem of the currency's purchasing power was rising rather than falling. But in most "developed" economies, we're institutional used theft via central banks targeting inflation, rather than recognizing that technological advancements ought to bring about gradual price deflation.
We've accepted for far too long the lie that low inflation (i.e. theft at a slow enough rate that working people hopefully won't notice) is necessary for economic growth. That's not true, but it introduces all sorts of systemic injustice into our economic systems.
We've accepted for far too long the lie that low inflation (i.e. theft at a slow enough rate that working people hopefully won't notice) is necessary for economic growth. That's not true, but it introduces all sorts of systemic injustice into our economic systems.
Thats looks more like dynamics of seasonal jobs in developed economies. People get stable jobs that provide income all year around and avoid hustling for low value odd jobs. The only ways to fill those positions are employing special class workers: unenployed welfare recipients, prisoners, students, foreign unskilled workers, etc... . Foreign unskilled workers usually are the easiest to get
Exactly like big tech in the US and their H1B carve out.
Get rid of minimum wage and replace it with UBI. Avoids the market distorting effects of minimum wage without leaving people destitute.
No! Creating more money doesn't create wealth. We need to cap the money supply, let working people save in money that isn't being stolen from them by design (central banks target rates of inflation), and trust that with the deflationary effects of technology, peoples' savings will gradually increase in purchasing power.
In my experience, individual small farms tend to be "displaced" moreso by government, than by broad concepts like Globalization.
It seems like it's "ride the wave with us or get left behind" kind of thing.
I was reading Matt Levine commenting on how the oil industry would have to figure out how to get "out" while making wild profits as recent as this year. It sounds poetic: the elements of man's destruction and food salvation are both rended from earth and yet both might end up being undoable, on almost the same time scales of technological evolution.
Could investing in more automation keep this legacy going? Also, huge thanks to Smithsonian Mag for writing a quality piece on something this important and beautiful. Very amazing legacy and photos and writing to capture. It causes me to consider a subscription or at least an account. More content like this in general would not be reproducible by AI for a long time yet - not until AI can walk and are indistinguishable from humans. The media organizations that scale into the future and take the existing market share are going to be the ones that invest in deep relationships with communities and bringing quality stories like this to light.
Family grown, wholesome produce is a great product, and definitely just better than mass produced. However, as furniture, building, etc has all shown...people just want cheaper and easier. Is the family farm just a victim of our move to mass production?
The majority of people don't just want for cheaper goods, it's a necessity.
If you find this story interesting, I would encourage you to travel to central and south america.
There are farms there with 1,000+ year traceable, verifiable histories.
There are farms there with 1,000+ year traceable, verifiable histories.
Source? Sounds interesting.
If you feel moved by this story, I am going to recommend the Spanish movie Alcarràs.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcarr%C3%A0s_(film)
Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av7xGRiXe0M
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcarr%C3%A0s_(film)
Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av7xGRiXe0M
> the 17-acre Willard Farm
This is a very small farm even for family farm-sizes. Article does not mention if it was once larger, but I have a suspicion that it was.
> “Today, the cost of producing anything is way out of line,” Paul tells Harasimowicz. “A dollar gets spent almost before you earn it because of the cost of pesticides, diesel fuel, labor, insurance—everything has gone up. You can only get so much for a tomato.”
At 17 acres, the farm would not be able to take advantage of economies of scale the way a one man show of, say, 530 acres would. My friend, a farmer that left his family farm (of about 5000 acres now) after decades to become an accountant (due to the toxic behavior of the uneducated and entitled next generation, Millennials fwiw, not insolvency) was just talking to me about smaller 1000 acre farms around his family's farm that "were basically one-man shows," that they would hire seasonal help only during harvest, and the reason they were not wealthy (they're not unsuccessful though) had nothing to do with farming, per se, instead poor crop choices and bad timing in planting.
This is a very small farm even for family farm-sizes. Article does not mention if it was once larger, but I have a suspicion that it was.
> “Today, the cost of producing anything is way out of line,” Paul tells Harasimowicz. “A dollar gets spent almost before you earn it because of the cost of pesticides, diesel fuel, labor, insurance—everything has gone up. You can only get so much for a tomato.”
At 17 acres, the farm would not be able to take advantage of economies of scale the way a one man show of, say, 530 acres would. My friend, a farmer that left his family farm (of about 5000 acres now) after decades to become an accountant (due to the toxic behavior of the uneducated and entitled next generation, Millennials fwiw, not insolvency) was just talking to me about smaller 1000 acre farms around his family's farm that "were basically one-man shows," that they would hire seasonal help only during harvest, and the reason they were not wealthy (they're not unsuccessful though) had nothing to do with farming, per se, instead poor crop choices and bad timing in planting.
I really want to know why entitled and toxic millennials forced your friend off his farm and into accounting…
His nephew feels the farm belongs to him, saw my friend, one of the three actual legitimate heirs, as a threat. It was not just toxicity, it was escalating violence. Though my friend is the strongest man I know and could literally tie his skinny nephew into a double knot, and I could tell you stories of his ridiculous physicality that I personally witnessed, he is a pacifist, nonviolent, quite gentle for someone with farm hands. His nephew barely has a HS education, though I would consider him extremely financially successful, as is everyone with a share in the business thanks to the farm's success. But he is young, thinks he knows everything but doesn't know anything, drives a $100K pickup and thinks a lot of himself, as success can have that effect. He drives a planter, and that is all he knows. He doesn't have any education in the sciences that would lend themselves to farming, such as agronomy, genetics, biology, ecology, meteorology, business, economics or engineering. I'd be very surprised if he knew algebra. My friend has a mechanical engineering degree from a high ranking engineering university, and he worked on that farm for 40 years under his grandfather, then his father. For the last 2 decades, though not a mechanic, he's fixed the broken equipment, which broke down all the time, and kept it running, saving the farm untold amounts for this alone, and ran the front office, and also handled sales, as well as driving a combine, harvester, delivering product with ten wheelers, or whatever else he needed to do. I don't think his brothers recognized his value, and I don't understand how they're getting along without him. He knew what he was leaving behind, actually got a fair settlement, but accounting, and it is controlling actually, is easy money to him compared to farming.
Farming is extremely lucrative, but there are far easier ways to make money. And if his nephew ever does get control of the farm, it will not last, because he is an uneducated moron that is mentally ill and abusive. That he is a Millennial is incidental. He's young, but also identifiably a narcissist, and I should have just said that and left what generation American he was out of it. I believe the children are our future. Millennials, as sensitive as they can be at times (if hn comments are any indicator), and maybe it is just that they get too much unjustified criticism, are going to save the world, I have no doubt about that. And I am and should be grateful to them.
Farming is extremely lucrative, but there are far easier ways to make money. And if his nephew ever does get control of the farm, it will not last, because he is an uneducated moron that is mentally ill and abusive. That he is a Millennial is incidental. He's young, but also identifiably a narcissist, and I should have just said that and left what generation American he was out of it. I believe the children are our future. Millennials, as sensitive as they can be at times (if hn comments are any indicator), and maybe it is just that they get too much unjustified criticism, are going to save the world, I have no doubt about that. And I am and should be grateful to them.
> Millennials, as sensitive as they can be at times
They are sensitive. Thankfully, not as sensitive as the generations that would riot if the wrong kind of person drank from their water fountain.
They are sensitive. Thankfully, not as sensitive as the generations that would riot if the wrong kind of person drank from their water fountain.
Seems like a classic farm drama I’ve heard play out poorly before. Other one is the kids just don’t care to take it on. But less drama there and more a slow death
>Farming is extremely lucrative
I dont know the margins in US, but in italy, considering all capital costs, margins for cereals farms average 2% before tax (inheriting lands makes numbers look bigger but one has to factor land costs).
I dont know the margins in US, but in italy, considering all capital costs, margins for cereals farms average 2% before tax (inheriting lands makes numbers look bigger but one has to factor land costs).
Ever since the EPA banned the "toxic uneducated millennial"icides they've really started to overrun the corn and soybean fields. Grouchy boomers and gen x'ers can drive them away organically by telling tales of how they worked 8 or even 10 hours nearly every day, but these deterrents are getting harder and harder to find in the heartland - they are migrating to Florida and Arizona.
That's easy, he hated being a boss and probably underpaid the farmhands.
So all the trillion+ of the farm bill are going somewhere else?
This really isn't anything new - costs and lack of scale forcing out small farmers has been going on forever.
There goes another possible experiment in regenerative agriculture, the only sustainable way for our great-grandchildren to avoid mass starvation.
Industrial farming depends on oil as a chemical input, because the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers. The process of tilling the land resulted in most of the remaining dirt being eroded over the past century.
We're going to run out of oil. I know that's a minority opinion here, but the facts will bear it out over time. Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce. Doing so would build soil, capturing and fixing large amounts of carbon in the process, improving drought resistance (through improved ability to hold water without runoff, and reduced ground temperature and evaporation due to cover crops).
Industrial farming depends on oil as a chemical input, because the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers. The process of tilling the land resulted in most of the remaining dirt being eroded over the past century.
We're going to run out of oil. I know that's a minority opinion here, but the facts will bear it out over time. Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce. Doing so would build soil, capturing and fixing large amounts of carbon in the process, improving drought resistance (through improved ability to hold water without runoff, and reduced ground temperature and evaporation due to cover crops).
> Industrial farming depends on oil as a chemical input, because the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers. The process of tilling the land resulted in most of the remaining dirt being eroded over the past century.
What a piece of nonsense bullshit.
1. Ammonia can be produced without any oil. Natural gas (not oil per se) is simply used as an easy way to produce hydrogen and the heat energy needed.
2. Nitrogen fertilizers do not "sterilize" the soil. Not even close to it. They in fact can cause bacterial overgrowth, as nitrogen is often the limiting nutrient for anything. Soil with fertilizer is extremely fertile for both agricultural plants and for microbial life.
3. Nitrogen fertilizers are _essential_ to survival. Without them, quite literally billions will starve.
4. "Soil depletion" is typically caused by the lack of micronutrients such as potassium, and can be managed by (you guessed it!) adding fertilizers. Some other causes such as salt accumulation due to irrigation are more complicated.
> Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce.
Sigh. People should REALLY learn how the nitrogen cycle works.
What a piece of nonsense bullshit.
1. Ammonia can be produced without any oil. Natural gas (not oil per se) is simply used as an easy way to produce hydrogen and the heat energy needed.
2. Nitrogen fertilizers do not "sterilize" the soil. Not even close to it. They in fact can cause bacterial overgrowth, as nitrogen is often the limiting nutrient for anything. Soil with fertilizer is extremely fertile for both agricultural plants and for microbial life.
3. Nitrogen fertilizers are _essential_ to survival. Without them, quite literally billions will starve.
4. "Soil depletion" is typically caused by the lack of micronutrients such as potassium, and can be managed by (you guessed it!) adding fertilizers. Some other causes such as salt accumulation due to irrigation are more complicated.
> Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce.
Sigh. People should REALLY learn how the nitrogen cycle works.
The future of land management is going to be cultivating, curating, and generally taking care of the living, mostly fungal, part of the soil which will displace some or all of the straight up chemical additions instead enhancing the natural symbioses between root, fungus, and bacteria on an industrial scale... but until then chemical additions are fine. The issue going forward is going to be cost not an existential threat.
What a LOAD of bull.
Look, the hard truth is, nitrogen is the limiting nutrient. A square kilometer of plants can fix only so much of it on its own via symbiotic bacteria (and maaaaybe archaea), fungi can NOT fix nitrogen on their own.
You can optimize, curate, cultivate, paint yourself in dog shit and chant at the full moon however long you want, but there's a hard practical limit on that amount. And that's it.
Animals can concentrate nitrogen into manure, but they don't produce more of it.
That's why fertilizers are absolutely essential, as long as the Earth's population is above ~2B.
Look, the hard truth is, nitrogen is the limiting nutrient. A square kilometer of plants can fix only so much of it on its own via symbiotic bacteria (and maaaaybe archaea), fungi can NOT fix nitrogen on their own.
You can optimize, curate, cultivate, paint yourself in dog shit and chant at the full moon however long you want, but there's a hard practical limit on that amount. And that's it.
Animals can concentrate nitrogen into manure, but they don't produce more of it.
That's why fertilizers are absolutely essential, as long as the Earth's population is above ~2B.
Abundant solar means you can just rip the nitrogen right out of the air.
Sounds like the cost is in the ballpark already:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/01/19/pulling-fertilizer-ou...
Sounds like the cost is in the ballpark already:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/01/19/pulling-fertilizer-ou...
It all just comes out of the air. High temperature, high pressure, air, hydrogen, and a catalyst. Methane is just a cheaper source of hydrogen than water.
Hard to tell if this startup is really something because all you can find is articles built from press releases.
The part about transportation is mostly moot, in the Midwest the fertilizer plants are local, there was one like twenty miles away from the farm i grew up on.
Decoupling from the energy markets would be nice, but it’s doubtful anybody really wants to become a pricecutting commodity here. Farm inputs have the tendency to be as expensive as farmers can afford.
Hard to tell if this startup is really something because all you can find is articles built from press releases.
The part about transportation is mostly moot, in the Midwest the fertilizer plants are local, there was one like twenty miles away from the farm i grew up on.
Decoupling from the energy markets would be nice, but it’s doubtful anybody really wants to become a pricecutting commodity here. Farm inputs have the tendency to be as expensive as farmers can afford.
This is speculative technology, still in early prototype phase
Sure. The approach is very likely to be viable (we know that electric arcs produce fixed nitrogen), the reason to point to the specific technology is that they think the pricing just about works.
"very likely..." "they think"
Until this thing is operating profitably at scale it is unproven
Until this thing is operating profitably at scale it is unproven
Oil isn't "turned into fertilizer".
Methane is used as a source of hydrogen to fix atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, but it's entirely possible but slightly more expensive to use hydrogen from splitting water. When natural gas prices go up, it'll be cheaper to use electrolysis on water so that's what will be used, no starvation involved.
You don't know what you're talking about.
The generational BS about not being able to do agriculture any more in n decades doesn't have any merit, it's just a bubble of doomers who have no idea what they're talking about convince each other that the world is going to end.
Methane is used as a source of hydrogen to fix atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, but it's entirely possible but slightly more expensive to use hydrogen from splitting water. When natural gas prices go up, it'll be cheaper to use electrolysis on water so that's what will be used, no starvation involved.
You don't know what you're talking about.
The generational BS about not being able to do agriculture any more in n decades doesn't have any merit, it's just a bubble of doomers who have no idea what they're talking about convince each other that the world is going to end.
I believe the H from the oil (literally the hydrogen atom) is incorporated chemically into the resulting ammonia, which would be consistent with saying "oil is turned into fertilizer" in most worlds that I move through.
I mean, yes, this is what I explained, but in no way is the hydrocarbon necessary, it's just one of many alternative feedstocks for hydrogen.
I don't think this is logical. You said "oil is not turned into fertilizer" but then you agree, oil can be used to do it. And, in reality, nearly all nitrogen fertilizer uses oil as the feedstock, so probably, in the future, don't say "you don't know what you're talking about" unless you are 100% technically correct, which in this case, I don't think you were.
He's saying oil (or any fossil fuel) doesn't have to be the feedstock from which ammonia is produced. That natural gas (not oil) is currently the leading feedstock is entirely beside the point. Agriculture can switch away from it at any time.
And, in particular, this statement is figurative and literal bullshit:
> Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce.
And, in particular, this statement is figurative and literal bullshit:
> Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce.
The biggest fertilizer is ammonia. It's made from nitrogen that comes from the air and hydrogen that comes from methane. Conveniently, methane can be burnt to create the high temperature environment in which the reaction must take place. The other major fertilizer is potash. It is mined, but can also be extracted from underground brines, both natural and those produced from water pumped into deep wells and brought back up.
If you took away the methane, you could heat the reactor electrically and produce hydrogen from water. It would be more expensive and use more energy, but it would work. Although potassium is a nonrenewable resource it is not likely to run out any time soon.
If you took away the methane, you could heat the reactor electrically and produce hydrogen from water. It would be more expensive and use more energy, but it would work. Although potassium is a nonrenewable resource it is not likely to run out any time soon.
Potassium can also be obtained from seawater.
The limiting element is phosphorus. It cannot be substituted for and phosphate ores will not last forever. Eventually, it will have to be extracted from very low grade rocks at a concentration just above 0.1%. This probably sets a lower limit on how much rock global civilization will have to process each year. Phosphorus recycling will likely become more profitable.
The limiting element is phosphorus. It cannot be substituted for and phosphate ores will not last forever. Eventually, it will have to be extracted from very low grade rocks at a concentration just above 0.1%. This probably sets a lower limit on how much rock global civilization will have to process each year. Phosphorus recycling will likely become more profitable.
Scientists will figure it out. Much more likely than everyone switching to artisan, labor intensive farms.
Or, like many things, the labor intensive parts will be automated by ever more autonomous farm devices allowing more biologic processes to grow food and less chemical intervention. The cost an autonomous drone that uses electricity to zap pests and weeds, charged off panels in the fields, over time will be significantly less than applying mass amounts of synthetic chemicals over a large surface area. The biological processes that yield soil are very efficient and essentially free at extreme scales, so long as the labor isn’t so expensive. And I think most people are wagering on automation taking over an awful lot of tasks. There have been plenty of HN postings of companies proving the basic techniques out, which work but are too expensive today. That will change. I think this is more likely than vertical farming or that we can continue to blast the environment with chemicals that interfere with fundamental biological processes at extreme scales.
> Without that oil to turn into fertilizer, the only other chance is to have ruminants actively managed on a regenerative farm growing both meat and produce.
False dilema.
There are probably more options, but one that immediately comes to mind is that we could synthesize petroleum from the atmosphere.
It'd probably be the only sensible way to do long-range air travel in your scenario anyhow.
False dilema.
There are probably more options, but one that immediately comes to mind is that we could synthesize petroleum from the atmosphere.
It'd probably be the only sensible way to do long-range air travel in your scenario anyhow.
> the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers.
That's a massive, massive exaggeration.
That's a massive, massive exaggeration.
Here's what I find funny: many of the people who extoll the virtues of capitalism also bemoan the death of small businesses and family farms. Or at least they pay it lip service.
Why is this funny? Because small businesses and family farms are inherently more socialist than capitalist. Why? Because it is closer to owning the means of production and capturing the excess value of labor by those who are, well, laboring. These are socialist principles.
Many (including in these comments) will repeat the propaganda that small farms (or businesses) can't survive. Yet farmer's markets, which many people like, can offer better prices and products than those that come out of agribusiness and go through distribution chains to end up on supermarket shelves. Again, the value has simply shifted to many layers of capital owners instead of the farmers.
This is a myth because it's been artificially created. Agribusiness is predatory in nature. Things like seeds are now a subscriptio model. Modern farm equipment often can't be repaired. It requires another predatory subscription. Yet, those large agricultural conglomerates also operate their own farms and don't have to pay those predatory prices.
Why is this funny? Because small businesses and family farms are inherently more socialist than capitalist. Why? Because it is closer to owning the means of production and capturing the excess value of labor by those who are, well, laboring. These are socialist principles.
Many (including in these comments) will repeat the propaganda that small farms (or businesses) can't survive. Yet farmer's markets, which many people like, can offer better prices and products than those that come out of agribusiness and go through distribution chains to end up on supermarket shelves. Again, the value has simply shifted to many layers of capital owners instead of the farmers.
This is a myth because it's been artificially created. Agribusiness is predatory in nature. Things like seeds are now a subscriptio model. Modern farm equipment often can't be repaired. It requires another predatory subscription. Yet, those large agricultural conglomerates also operate their own farms and don't have to pay those predatory prices.
> Because it is closer to owning the means of production and capturing the excess value of labor by those who are, well, laboring
I would call this distributed capitalism. The farm owners can still run the farm however they like, keep the entire profit of the farm, invest in capital machinery over a long term that they have exclusive ownership of, etc. The outcome is indeed closer to socialism in that it's likely the owners will also be workers, and profits are spread around throughout society. I'd say the key difference is that distributed capital divides power bottom-up, whereas socialism is more of a reaction to the lack of it or the failings of it.
What we're suffering today is centralized capitalism, where that ownership has been concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. I look at the federal government giving many trillions of dollars to centralized Wall Street in the form of low interest loans over the past few decades, and can't help but think that is a significant cause of the centralization - especially in light of the waste that centralized management seems to create (otherwise you'd expect larger business structures to be outcompeted in many areas). These subsidies are also the cause of beancounter-centric monocultures, because in order to direct those loans (leverage) into specific concrete endeavors the financial outcome must be made extremely predictable.
I would call this distributed capitalism. The farm owners can still run the farm however they like, keep the entire profit of the farm, invest in capital machinery over a long term that they have exclusive ownership of, etc. The outcome is indeed closer to socialism in that it's likely the owners will also be workers, and profits are spread around throughout society. I'd say the key difference is that distributed capital divides power bottom-up, whereas socialism is more of a reaction to the lack of it or the failings of it.
What we're suffering today is centralized capitalism, where that ownership has been concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. I look at the federal government giving many trillions of dollars to centralized Wall Street in the form of low interest loans over the past few decades, and can't help but think that is a significant cause of the centralization - especially in light of the waste that centralized management seems to create (otherwise you'd expect larger business structures to be outcompeted in many areas). These subsidies are also the cause of beancounter-centric monocultures, because in order to direct those loans (leverage) into specific concrete endeavors the financial outcome must be made extremely predictable.
This can best be framed (as Marx did) in terms of feudalism.
Feudalism as an economic system captured the surplus value of labor right up to the monarch. This was done through a number of layers, what you'd call vassal lords. In some places these structures exist today (eg the various duchies in the UK that still derive an income from their holdings to whatever royal or aristocrat is appointed to benefit from them). One might be tempted to call this distributed feudalism because of the existence of intermediate lords but it's one of those distinctions without a difference. The monarch will ultimately seek to extract as much value from his or her vassal lords as is possible. At times this was an explicit goal (eg Louis XIV keeping the nobility poor through Versailles).
"Distributed capitalism" is likewise a distinction without a difference. You can have smaller farms. These will be gobbled up Cargill or whoever, often coercively through predatory pricing of key products. The forces at work always seek to capture that surplus value of labor into a smaller and smaller group at the top.
You see the effects of this everywhere: massive consolidation in every sector. All of the food in the US is produced by like 6 conglomerates.
Feudalism as an economic system captured the surplus value of labor right up to the monarch. This was done through a number of layers, what you'd call vassal lords. In some places these structures exist today (eg the various duchies in the UK that still derive an income from their holdings to whatever royal or aristocrat is appointed to benefit from them). One might be tempted to call this distributed feudalism because of the existence of intermediate lords but it's one of those distinctions without a difference. The monarch will ultimately seek to extract as much value from his or her vassal lords as is possible. At times this was an explicit goal (eg Louis XIV keeping the nobility poor through Versailles).
"Distributed capitalism" is likewise a distinction without a difference. You can have smaller farms. These will be gobbled up Cargill or whoever, often coercively through predatory pricing of key products. The forces at work always seek to capture that surplus value of labor into a smaller and smaller group at the top.
You see the effects of this everywhere: massive consolidation in every sector. All of the food in the US is produced by like 6 conglomerates.
> You can have smaller farms. These will be gobbled up Cargill or whoever, often coercively through predatory pricing of key products. The forces at work always seek to capture that surplus value of labor into a smaller and smaller group at the top.
You completely ignored the last bit of my comment where I pointed out a likely cause of much of the consolidation, that isn't just "capitalism". A privileged class of people getting a cheat code of easy money to buy up ever more of the productive economy is not what I'd call a level playing field.
I see many dynamics that should discourage concentrations of wealth, like the utility value of money goes down as you have more (rich people overpay for stuff), and centralization often creates extra waste to help uniformity. I'm not going to assert that the overall dynamic is definitely this way (and then just-world-fallacy the way things currently are), rather I'm just pointing out that distributed capitalism is most certainly not the experiment we're running.
And to head off the common retort that these subsidies are inevitable as capital captures the government - if this is true then there's really no point in analyzing any -isms as it means we'll always be stuck in this type of "capitalism".
You completely ignored the last bit of my comment where I pointed out a likely cause of much of the consolidation, that isn't just "capitalism". A privileged class of people getting a cheat code of easy money to buy up ever more of the productive economy is not what I'd call a level playing field.
I see many dynamics that should discourage concentrations of wealth, like the utility value of money goes down as you have more (rich people overpay for stuff), and centralization often creates extra waste to help uniformity. I'm not going to assert that the overall dynamic is definitely this way (and then just-world-fallacy the way things currently are), rather I'm just pointing out that distributed capitalism is most certainly not the experiment we're running.
And to head off the common retort that these subsidies are inevitable as capital captures the government - if this is true then there's really no point in analyzing any -isms as it means we'll always be stuck in this type of "capitalism".
> Why is this funny? Because small businesses and family farms are inherently more socialist than capitalist. Why? Because it is closer to owning the means of production and capturing the excess value of labor by those who are, well, laboring. These are socialist principles.
But why is it funny? You're not wrong that family farms are socialist in nature. Farmers have traditionally, at least here in Canada, even been socialist in political view. Our socialized healthcare system, for example, was a product of the work of farmers. The NDP, our closest answer to a socialist party, was born out of the older United Farmers party.
Bemoaning the death of that socialist legacy is like bemoaning the disposal of an Apple II, Commodore 64, or whatever legacy computer system is to your fancy. Being sad to see that history go isn't at odds with extolling the virtues of our modern technology, nor is it unusual to have a place in one's heart for the past while also embracing the present.
But why is it funny? You're not wrong that family farms are socialist in nature. Farmers have traditionally, at least here in Canada, even been socialist in political view. Our socialized healthcare system, for example, was a product of the work of farmers. The NDP, our closest answer to a socialist party, was born out of the older United Farmers party.
Bemoaning the death of that socialist legacy is like bemoaning the disposal of an Apple II, Commodore 64, or whatever legacy computer system is to your fancy. Being sad to see that history go isn't at odds with extolling the virtues of our modern technology, nor is it unusual to have a place in one's heart for the past while also embracing the present.
I'm not sure how you can say that an owner-operated family farm is socialist. The family owns the capital in the farm, and profits from its use. That's pretty capitalistic.
What seems far more socialist is the crony capitalism of large agro-business that prices small, family-owned capitalist farmers out of the market by taking taxpayer-funded federal subsidies and using them to capture regulators and buy out their competition.
What seems far more socialist is the crony capitalism of large agro-business that prices small, family-owned capitalist farmers out of the market by taking taxpayer-funded federal subsidies and using them to capture regulators and buy out their competition.
Capitalism isn't the reason this farm is closing. The owners are retiring and don't have anyone to take it over.
I’ll suggest that farmland is even older, like thousands of years old, and it belonged to other people who lived there before Europeans showed up. So it’s important to keep that in the conversation.
The land has been above-water since the middle Triassic. So yes, much older than thousands. The most recent non-European owners didn't leave much in the way of title (they took possession of it by conquest); so it is important to keep that in the conversation.
A couple towns south where I live there are many active small farms. They either specialize in CSAs or have farmstands that sell a mix of their own produce and imported (e.g California) produce. It certainly is possible to farm - but you have to adapt to the times I guess.
My family also has a large commercial dairy farm in upstate NY. Very different farm then when I was growing up. Went from milking 70 cows to 1100+. From what my cousin's say - the only way is to go big or go home.