Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us?

#131

Post by xoa » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:21 PM UTC

BariumBlue wrote: post #110

cletus wrote: post #32

I see the multi-generational family farm being doomed as anything more than a niche boutique to make premium-priced organic produce in the next few decades. The reason for this is automation, though it isn't really touched on by this article. At some point in the near future robots will not only be able to construct greenhouses for growing crops with hydroponics but they'll also be able to do most of the work too. Lo…

For hydroponics, I've heard of lettuce being commercially grown, but nothing else - it's more expensive than just farming a large section of land. And for automation, yes it is a threat, but often times more expensive than just paying cheap labor, which it seems the world won't be running out of in the short term

>it's more expensive than just farming a large section of land.

Does that take into account all the externalities that are currently still ignored in standard farming? I mean, one could argue that they'll continue to get ignored indefinitely sure, but I wonder if we're starting to reach a tipping point there again and while cletus didn't mention it I think that's one of the most compelling arguments towards hydroponics. Pure physical barriers could mean the elimination of pesticide and herbicide requirements for example, and both of those hide and enormous amount of expense upstream and downstream. Nutrients (fertilizer) can be applied vastly more effectively and efficiently, and possibly at least as importantly excess can be recovered or processed before any emission which can entirely eliminate runoff issues and entry into the environment.

Even thinking politically, the general public often enjoys the views and imagine romanticism of farming, but the general public can also quite easily notice and hate algal blooms, outbreaks shutting down beaches, nutrient baths causing explosions of invasives like zebra mussels, etc., and just general reductions in recreational water quality even beyond any other effects. Those also represent big, powerful industries as well. And there is the land itself, hydroponics means arable land is unnecessary for basic food production, and there are other compelling uses for said land.

Also land-wise and politically, one argument that frequently gets brought up is "food security" and governments reasonably worried about having enough basic food available in an emergency. But at least for rich countries, if anything LED hydroponics could offer a better story there (at a price), since the facilities can even be put underground/underwater or in other non-arable, dense and defensible positions. They can be protected from new forms of diseases and pests far more effectively. Small developed countries that currently must import might be able to achieve that politically attractive (whatever the practical merits) "food independence" that is current infeasible for them.

I mean, I don't think there will be any super rapid changes here, and I do think many places will continue to have some agriculture as a boutique offering, but hydroponics long term looks pretty compelling in a lot of major ways.

Re: Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us?

#132

Post by randomdata » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:23 PM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #112

randomdata wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And of course with soybeans... they would need to be dried or canned, packaged, stored, and shipped. Doable but different from what we are currently set up to do. As a soybean farmer, and one who has focused on IP soybeans for the human market for most of my career at that, unless I am misunderstanding you, that is exactly how we do it. The beans are harvested dry, packaged, stored, and then shipped (primarily) to…

Dude... make yourself some edamame! It rocks.

Oh, I've had edamame on numerous occasions. But it is served quite differently to the dry beans we're talking about.

Re: Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us?

#133

Post by mitchell_h » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:31 PM UTC

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #42

“We’re heading to a place where we don’t have farmers; we just have food production.” This. I don't know what the solution to this is. I have a small farm, and raise meat sheep. But it's very much a hobby. The problem is, though, that almost all of the other farmers in my area, the ones I meet at the feed store or the livestock auction, they're also hobby farmers. There is exactly one “real” farmer (meaning that it's…

Good to meet a fellow hobby farmer in tech! I'm doing the same only I only raise meat animals for my family, some extend family and friends. Around me there's a number of folks that used to be full time cattle farmers(it's middle Missouri we have grass and land. too much rock for crops). Over the last 10-20 years all of the full time farmers, except one, have had to branch out into other stuff. Most took up construction or excavation or some other trade, and run cattle on the weekends/nights. The only full time farmer around raises heritage breed hogs for high end restaurants. Even a friend with ~500 acres of paid off land and 300 head of cattle has had to move to organic cattle in order to keep that part of his life from going too far in the red, and it still barely turns a profit most years.

Re: Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us?

#134

Post by TulliusCicero » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:31 PM UTC

> He can offer help to many farmers, but what was once a robust network of state-funded farmer advocates has shrunk dramatically

Do we have a robust network of state-funded plumber advocates or cashier advocates? If farming is unprofitable for many, then the expected market response is people exiting the market, which itself will make it more profitable for those who remain.

Farming is largely a commodity game. That we need fewer farmers over time due to technological advances is entirely expected and even good! A society where a large percentage of people still had to be farmers to have enough food to eat would be a poorer one.

Re: Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us?

#135

Post by TulliusCicero » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:34 PM UTC

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #42

“We’re heading to a place where we don’t have farmers; we just have food production.” This. I don't know what the solution to this is. I have a small farm, and raise meat sheep. But it's very much a hobby. The problem is, though, that almost all of the other farmers in my area, the ones I meet at the feed store or the livestock auction, they're also hobby farmers. There is exactly one “real” farmer (meaning that it's…

> The economies of scale in agriculture have become so strong that there's no way to compete on price any other way. And people understandably don't want to double their grocery bills just to buy local.

Doesn't sound like much of a problem to me. Those economies of scale mean cheaper food.

> They mainly want to grow exactly the same small number of crops, to keep supply chains simple.

Is there any evidence that variety of, say, produce in markets/grocery stores is less now than a hundred years ago?

> Or what happens if we encounter this generation's version of potato blight on corn or wheat?

Then we switch crops, like what happened to bananas before? It's not like we literally have no access to seeds and whatnot for other crops.

Re: Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us?

#136

Post by randomdata » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #95

randomdata wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a grain farmer in Canada, I see this year as being one of the better years for commodity prices. Wheat was back to levels we haven't seen in a long time. Corn has held a little above average. Soybeans have taken a big hit in the last couple of months, but there were some good marketing opportunities earlier in the year. Unless harvest is a complete failure, there doesn't seem to be much to worry about. A welcome c…

Yes. But if you're going to do whatever one else is doing, that's not a plan to prosper. It's suicidal. For example, I didn't see a single mention of "...so we're going to go organic..." Again. Don't get me wrong. Food supply is important. One article does not a trend make. That said, sharing a bad idea with 100 or 1000 other people (farmers) still makes it a bad idea. I realize change isn't something most farmers se…

> For example, I didn't see a single mention of "...so we're going to go organic..."

Going organic is nearly a decade long process during which time you are paid regular market price while having to burden the added cost of organic processes. If you have the millions to get going it can be a good deal long-term, but a farmer who is already struggling is going to be broke long before they ever meet certification.

Re: Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us?

#137

Post by TulliusCicero » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

BariumBlue wrote: post #109

mac01021 wrote: post #105

The article illustrates the crisis, producing an example of how farmers fail to make ends meet: >A gallon of milk costs a farmer approximately $1.90 to produce, but in the last year, farmers have been receiving as little as $1.35 per gallon. But they don't explain the underlying economic forces. The only possible reason (I think) that a farmer can't charge more than $1.35 for a gallon of milk is that some other farme…

> the only possible reason that a farmer can't charge more than $1.35 for a gallon of milk is that some other farmer is able to produce a gallon of milk for less than $1.35 Not necessarily - if you have demand for 300 units of milk and there are enough producers to match, then when demand halves, the producers are still producing 300 units of milk and paying for the costs to produce that amount of milk. To offset tho…

That would just be a short term thing, though. If the price stays that way, some farmers will exit the market, thereby increasing the price.

Re: Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us?

#138

Post by cimmanom » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 1:33 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #93

Spooky23 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This problem is similar to what happened in Ancient Rome. As wealth and influence concentrates, farms get bigger and bigger. Instead of slaves we have massive machinery and migrant workers. Disruption or destruction of key transit or water infrastructure in California would be a crippling blow to the US. The infrastructure to farm is gone. I worked on a farm as a teen in the 90s. There were 10 active farms in my town…

> Disruption or destruction of key transit or water infrastructure in California would be a crippling blow to the US. I doubt that the US is that dependent on California. For lettuce and strawberries, yes. Not for wheat, corn, soybeans, or cattle, though. We won't starve without salads or strawberries. I know that I'm missing some of what California grows. Losing it would hurt. But it's not vital .

I’d agree with that. But GP’s point still stands if you specify the Midwest rather than California. In fact, that happened during the Great Depression, exacerbating hunger problems just as unemployment was peaking: a severe years-long drought in the Midwest (whence the term “dust bowl”) crippled the country’s grain production.

Re: Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us?

#139

Post by GlenTheMachine » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 1:49 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #114

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Quite a bit of US food production is going to produce animal feed, and some is exported. It'd take an amazing blow to cause actual starvation, given that could divert that back to feeding the population.” Well, not really. Yes, it's true that a substantial fraction of current US food production goes to animal feed. Yes, it's true, theoretically, that you could turn all of that into human food production instead. Of…

>humans can't survive on what is currently being grown. In other words, we can't just stop feeding all of that corn and soybeans to animals and give it to humans instead. We can't live off of a diet that is 75% field corn and industrial soybeans. Both feed corn and industrial soybeans yield their deliciousness to the power of the chemical engineers. Both are processed into food you and I eat every day. I bet you a do…

Yes, but that's part of my point. You don't eat straight lecithin. Or high fructose corn syrup. You need a lot of other ingredients and a lot of processingto turn that corn into edible food products. That's one reason why it would be very challenging to double the number of calories we take in from corn — you would also need to double your production of all of that other stuff. I don't know all of the specifics, so I won't speculate on whether we could do that quickly, but if we were contemplating it we would need to make sure we had the infrastructure necessary to do all of that extra processing, and access to twice as many ingredients as we currently use.

Re: Is the Second Farm Crisis Upon Us?

#140

Post by GlenTheMachine » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #135

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #42

“We’re heading to a place where we don’t have farmers; we just have food production.” This. I don't know what the solution to this is. I have a small farm, and raise meat sheep. But it's very much a hobby. The problem is, though, that almost all of the other farmers in my area, the ones I meet at the feed store or the livestock auction, they're also hobby farmers. There is exactly one “real” farmer (meaning that it's…

> The economies of scale in agriculture have become so strong that there's no way to compete on price any other way. And people understandably don't want to double their grocery bills just to buy local. Doesn't sound like much of a problem to me. Those economies of scale mean cheaper food. > They mainly want to grow exactly the same small number of crops, to keep supply chains simple. Is there any evidence that varie…

“Is there any evidence that variety of, say, produce in markets/grocery stores is less now than a hundred years ago?”

Not in markets, because a hundred years ago most people didn't get their produce from a market. They got it from their own gardens or the local farm.

The issue here is that back then, there were lots and lots of different varieties of a given crop, all of them grown regionally. There are thousands and thousands of varieties of corn. In 1915, 200 of these were grown commercially in Kansas. Today, Reid Yellow Dent, a type of field corn, has basically take over the market. 99% of all corn grow in the US is a subvariety of yellow dent.

Walk into your market. When it's in season you will find a bin of sweet corn (which is not field corn). There will be one variety. Thre will be one variety of broccoli. Three or four varieties of potatoes. Two types of summer squash, one of which will be zucchini.

At a high end market you will be given a choice between two types of beef: “beef” and “angus beef”. One type of lamb, and one type of chicken. But there are hundreds of varieties of beef cow, tens of varieties of meet sheep, and at least fifty different varieties of meat or dual-use chicken.

Look through a good heirloom seed catalog some time (I like Southern Exposure Seed Exchange). You'll find a hundred types of tomato, fifteen or twenty types of potato, ten types of sweet potato, twenty varieties of corn, ten varieties of broccoli. Plus some crops that you just can't find in a market.

It's not that any individual's food choices are more constrained now than they used to be; that's clearly not the case. It's that the total amount of genetic diversity in corn, potatoes, or whatever, as a fraction of the total acreage of those crops, has dropped precipitously.