Farming is a business. Industrial farming is a giant business. Even urban farming like this project requires inputs, labour, seeds, water and most importantly land. Food isn't free. I can't even...argh. Anyways...1. Even for-profit small farm in 3-5 acres can barely break even because farmers don't pay themselves. They usually cannot survive without a second job. Farming goals are out of the window if they want to start a family. Because babies are expensive. Secondly: when someone says a three acre farm can feed 100s if people, they probably include produce like lettuce which are not calorie or nutrient dense. You can sautéed a lb of spinach to two tbsp of cooked spinach. It's a lot of space(and $) to grow a lb of spinach! Squash and pumpkins etc are very heavy. You can grow 1000 lbs of produce from 100ft. But what does it really mean? Diverse food choices that are calorie and nutrient dense should be the key words. Having said that, this is very laudable and necessary as America has many food deserts in urban
Area where people do not have access to fresh organic food. Definitely appreciate projects like this.
First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free
31–40 of 89 posts
Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free
#32Fake news
Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free
#33Urban farming is one of those things that "feels" good, but doesn't make any economic sense. Why would you move farms, which are currently on the cheapest land available, into cities, where the most expensive land is? I agree that more vegetation in cities is a good thing, but the allure of an "urban farm" is misguided. If these people are serious about providing food for as low a price as possible, they should move…
They displaced blight, not expensive downtown land.
Overall I think you are right, but it seems like a non issue in a (relatively) stagnant depopulated city.
Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free
#34> enough food is produced around the world to feed 10 billion people. However, because 70% of the mono crops which are grown are feed livestock intended for slaughter, a distribution problem exists.
No, the distribution problem is largely political - in fact modern famine and starvation is almost always a problem with local government, or the warlords that pass for it.
Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free
#35> Have you ever contemplated the fact that humans are the only species on Earth that pays to live on the planet? This sounds vaguely profound, until you realize that other species are also predated on, starve to death, and die from trivially preventable issues.
Humans don't have to work. We can sleep in the rain and hunt and gather to survive like the animals. Although I would argue hunting and foraging is work, so most animals don't get out of it either.
[deleted]
Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free
#36Urban farming is one of those things that "feels" good, but doesn't make any economic sense. Why would you move farms, which are currently on the cheapest land available, into cities, where the most expensive land is? I agree that more vegetation in cities is a good thing, but the allure of an "urban farm" is misguided. If these people are serious about providing food for as low a price as possible, they should move…
Carbon food print. Less storage and transport and middle men. Green lungs for the city. Many urban farms have minimal fossil fuel needs. There is a case to be made here.
Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free
#37> despite the fact that there is presently more than enough resources to care for every citizen This is wrong. The fact there are more than sufficient resources to care for every citizen does not preclude the need to pay for something. Suppose that I self-sacrificed by under consuming and taking a risk. Instead of enjoying my free time and spending my money, I choose to spend many days building bricks. After a while,…
Hmmm I both like and dislike your argument.
The overall point is good - that there's nothing that's actually free (as in beer) once all costs are accounted for.
However - Things get muddier (heh) when you consider: - The supply so vastly outstrips demand ("more than enough for everyone") that the market price would be negligible - When the "true" per-person cost of "enough bricks" is negligible; only society as a whole needs enough brick to notice the cost. - When you consider what you are not charged for as a human; in other words, what other people are giving away for free that costs them their blood, sweat, and tears. (Typically, public art and the emotional labor that goes into being a human)
Note - I am very much not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that the real world appears to get waaay more complicated than that.
For example - If the per-person price is a dime, that's negligible, but across a billion people, that's a hundred million dollars. Hardly negligible. Taxes do this now - what's the space program cost each American, on average? A dollar a year? To each person, the space program is pretty much free, but to society, it's not.
For another example - Yosemite. Yosemite is free-ish - it's not charging market rates, that's for sure - and there definitely is NOT enough Yosemite "to care for every citizen". What's going on there?
So you're spot-on that it's not ultimately free, but also missing the point, which is that if society decided it was a good idea, it (probably) could be free for each individual.
Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free
#38This article is really dumb. It's only 3 acres, there's no way that satisfies 2,000 households' caloric needs, it's just a small supplement. Not to mention that it's 'free' because of volunteers. I can also feed myself for close to free by growing my own vegetables...but it's way more efficient to just work and pay for food.
Agreed. It's a little bizarre how gardening went from being a default feature of American life to REVOLUTIONARY INDUSTRY-DISRUPTING IDEA in less than one generation.
There are indeed numerous statistical inaccuracies.
However,
Let's see if we can pick out the good here.
When you say it's a little bizarre, you're right. We are massively estranged from almost all forces that supply our life. Just as the average American has no idea how to host a website from scratch on DO, most don't know where their food comes from, how to fix their car, has no financial literacy and no civic literacy.
After years of animal husbandry, our leaders have moved toward treating the vast majority us like agricultural elements, simply repeating one small action of a larger whole for our whole lives. Projects like this can help get us out of the matrix.
As most people who try to grow food learn, it's not a one-size-fits-all activity. The art of food production has many, subtle, non-sexy details. Real world experience counts for an awful lot.
I'm not saying we must all live in tipis, playing homebuilt instruments around a fire, wearing dresses from from potato sacks, BUT living life out of debt with a strong degree of self-sufficiency and freedom from The Invisible Hand of corporate life will bring us a lot closer to our pursuit of happiness than the apparent Ponzi scheme of centralized economy.
Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds profound until you realize we are too.
The majority of humans have very few natural predators, and to even be exposed to animals like bears, mountain lions and sharks usually requires a bit of effort. (What's going to eat me in a city? Maybe my cat, if I die in my apartment.) And while there are more people that starve to death that should, and more people who cannot get affordable health care, I would still much rather live in the modern world than head…
> For that matter, would you be willing to roll the dice and change places with a random "free" human being living 5,000 years ago?
We're all priviledged for being literate and having access to the internet.
A more representative what-if would be to choose between trading places with a random person 5000 years ago, or with a random modern person anywhere in the world.
I would rather trade within the modern world, but it's nowhere nearly as sure a thing.
Re: First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free
#40Farming is a business. Industrial farming is a giant business. Even urban farming like this project requires inputs, labour, seeds, water and most importantly land. Food isn't free. I can't even...argh. Anyways...1. Even for-profit small farm in 3-5 acres can barely break even because farmers don't pay themselves. They usually cannot survive without a second job. Farming goals are out of the window if they want to st…
There are some small-farm techniques that are successful - from a profit standpoint - when optimized. http://modernfarmer.com/2016/10/jm-fortier/