Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies • Hacker News Board

Re: Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies

#61

Post by jlkuester7 » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 3:53 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #28

kickout wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number is high, but farming in generally is a high risk bet. I often say to people, I need to spend (i.e risk) $100,000 for the chance to make $20,000-$30,000 if everything goes correctly. One major event and you just lost 100K. Scale up or down depending on the size of the farm.

Sustainable farming is a terrible business as long as giant unsustainable factory farms are a thing. If you want to make money farming, you need to either go the vertical integration or agro-tourism route.

* Citation needed

Not trying to refute what you are saying because I honestly don't know, but this seems to contradict the original article. Of course sustainable/organic farming is going to struggle to compete in the normal international commodities market, but in the article it mentioned that organic grain could be sold directly for 2-3x the base commodity price. Seems like that kind of progressive price scale might make it not such a "terrible business".

Re: Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies

#62

Post by louis___ » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 3:53 PM UTC

durkie wrote: post #46

Is there an economic argument to be made for increasing the amount of money spent in the local economy? I often hear it cited as a benefit in situations like this, and it has a certain feel-good quality to it, but instinctively it feels like it means people pay higher prices: if you're buying seed from the local seed & feed, it's almost certainly more expensive than if you buy it from XYZ megacorp.

There is often an array of benefits.

Following on your example, if you buy seed from the local seed & feed, you :

- build resilience, for example if a global pandemic prevents far-reaching import-export

- are less subject to geopolitics

- money invested have a higher chance to stay in the local economy : the owner of the local seed & feed may buy its vegetables from you

- create local jobs : this seed & feed owner may be able to create jobs for people

- overall avoid the lock-in that you can have being tied to XYZ megacorp, for example if they now decide to only sell you seed that will grow with their newly branded feed

- preserve local folklore : maybe there is a kind of seed that grows really well on your soil, but not so much in the others, so XYZ has decided to discontinue it because the market is too small to be profitable

Re: Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies

#63

Post by adrianN » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 3:54 PM UTC

durkie wrote: post #46

Is there an economic argument to be made for increasing the amount of money spent in the local economy? I often hear it cited as a benefit in situations like this, and it has a certain feel-good quality to it, but instinctively it feels like it means people pay higher prices: if you're buying seed from the local seed & feed, it's almost certainly more expensive than if you buy it from XYZ megacorp.

People might pay higher prices, but they also get better wages and the economy becomes more resilient against killing the whole area because the local economic network gets more edges. So there is a better chance to find a new job should your current job go away for some reason.

Re: Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies

#64

Post by mathgladiator » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

songzme wrote: post #33

There's a guy in Montana called Paul Wheaton who spent the last 6 years building soil rich in organic matter using no chemicals (pesticides & biocides) in his 200 acre plot of land. There were giant hugelkultur beds 15 ft high it was a crazy sight. He believes that in a decade the soil will be so rich in organic matter with healthy microbial activity (with no chemical history) could produce food that cures cancer. I…

There feels like a deep truth to the constant assault of man-hand compounds in relation to our health. I recently started fasting every other day, and I've noticed odd issues just clearing up on their own.

I'd wager the down-votes related to the claims around curing cancer, but there is reason to pursue this. I'm self experimenting on myself and wife since the wife has an auto-immune issue (MS). She was on the anti-gluten train way before it was fashionable since there is an immediate cause and effect for her without celiacs.

We really should question all of our practices and values.

Re: Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies

#65

Post by egypturnash » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

durkie wrote: post #46

Is there an economic argument to be made for increasing the amount of money spent in the local economy? I often hear it cited as a benefit in situations like this, and it has a certain feel-good quality to it, but instinctively it feels like it means people pay higher prices: if you're buying seed from the local seed & feed, it's almost certainly more expensive than if you buy it from XYZ megacorp.

Money given to a megacorp leaves the local economy, leaving the local area poorer, overall. Money given to your neighbors stays in the local economy.

A well-off local economy supports more things than a poor one. Local seed & feed shops are a start, but think of every other business that might be part of a small town: grocery stores, bookshops, art galleries, clothing, musicians, movie theaters, children's party entertainers, furniture makers, car dealerships, repair shops... how many of these things used to be made locally, and are now made by people working under dubious conditions somewhere in Asia, then shipped across the world at a huge, but completely-ignored cost to the environment? How many local shops has Wal-Mart ruined by being large enough to cut predatory deals with suppliers that let them sell stuff below any sane price point? How much money left the entire US economy for Jeff Bezos' pockets during the pandemic?

Keeping money in the local economy leads to better-off neighbors. Better-off neighbors are less likely to resort to criminal acts to feed your family; better-off neighbors are more likely to be able to help you out if something bad happens.

The metaphor that comes easily to mind is water: each local economy is a pool, with the locals the fish swimming in it. Buying stuff from a megacorp may be cheaper in the short run, but every time you do that, the corporation is pumping a bit of the water out of your pond and putting a little of it in their pond, far far away, and most of it in their giant storage tank even further away, where it sits, unused. Ultimately your pond dries up and either you leave for a larger pond that hasn't been sucked dry by corporations, or you end up baking in the sun and dying.

Re: Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies

#66

Post by CuriouslyC » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 3:58 PM UTC

jlkuester7 wrote: post #61

CuriouslyC wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sustainable farming is a terrible business as long as giant unsustainable factory farms are a thing. If you want to make money farming, you need to either go the vertical integration or agro-tourism route.

* Citation needed Not trying to refute what you are saying because I honestly don't know, but this seems to contradict the original article. Of course sustainable/organic farming is going to struggle to compete in the normal international commodities market, but in the article it mentioned that organic grain could be sold directly for 2-3x the base commodity price. Seems like that kind of progressive price scale migh…

The problem there is that farmers must do a lot of marketing to achieve that 2-3x multiple of commodity prices, so even if you're nominally more profitable, the additional time investment isn't really worth it, compared with taking your crops to a co-packager to get a 10-20x mark up.

Re: Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies

#67

Post by louis___ » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 4:00 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #57

What is the best criticism of regenerative ag? Everything I see about it is so positive that it seems crazy everyone hasn't switched. Are there really no downsides and it's just institutional inertia/caution holding everyone back?

It's more that it requires to leave the mainstream system, because the fertilizer and pesticides that destroyed your soil are the money-making machines of "Big Ag" corporations.

Regenerative ag will not make you very rich either, so you have not much money to invest in lobbying activities, to go against the flow.

Re: Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies

#68

Post by saalweachter » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #57

What is the best criticism of regenerative ag? Everything I see about it is so positive that it seems crazy everyone hasn't switched. Are there really no downsides and it's just institutional inertia/caution holding everyone back?

Honestly?

My biggest concern about it is that half its advocates say crazy things. For instance, down-thread we got the line:

"[Paul Wheaton] believes that in a decade the soil will be so rich in organic matter with healthy microbial activity (with no chemical history) could produce food that cures cancer. I believe that in an environment where human body is not weakened by the constant bombardment of chemical compounds, it could heal itself from cancer."

I do my best to keep an open mind because, hey, a lot of bits and pieces sound plausible, but whenever I get to lines about cancer-curing food, I begin to doubt the truth, validity or factual nature of anything else that was said on the topic.

Aside from that, the biggest question is always going to be "Does it scale to growing sufficient food for 10 billion people?" Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but whenever food comes up keep in mind that end game. If a particular agricultural system could produce food at lower energy costs, more sustainably, "better", but could only feed a billion people applied globally, it's only an acceptable solution in very particular moral frameworks.

Re: Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies

#69

Post by mathgladiator » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #57

What is the best criticism of regenerative ag? Everything I see about it is so positive that it seems crazy everyone hasn't switched. Are there really no downsides and it's just institutional inertia/caution holding everyone back?

The key criticism is that it yields less, so it doesn't scale. Furthermore, it generally lacks uniformity, so you can't automate either.

Re: Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies

#70

Post by foobarian » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 4:04 PM UTC

stonemetal12 wrote: post #25

hanniabu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I read that many farmers are required to use them by contract. If that's the case then a lot of farmers don't have that luxury.

That just moves the thought back a step. Why would they sign a contract to pay $200k to use those chemicals? They wouldn't if there weren't any benefits to it.

I think when a producer is doing things at scale and is on the hook for millions of tons of wheat the industrial approaches involving chemicals are probably the only way unfortunately.