Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 473 posts

Re: California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

#271

Post by AnimalMuppet »

nradov wrote: post #241
registeredcorn wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see there being a realistic alternative? I realize we can't really go backward in time, but I would prefer if the farmers that lived close to where I am sold to people who live local to me. That can happen to some degree (open yard stands), and I like to do that for some of the smaller farms, but it's really a kind of "nice to have" rather than a "The market stocks stuff that was grown a town or two over" type…

Why do we need an alternative? Your preferences don't matter.

Well, they matter some. They matter to registeredcorn.

More widely, they matter in that farmers markets and roadside stands and such do exist. Why do they exist? Because there are enough people that want to buy from such places.

I mean, it's never going to be the way that food is sold. But those preferences matter enough for niche markets to exist.

Re: California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

#272

Post by SoftTalker »

cogman10 wrote: post #233
peyton wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA mentions 20-year contracts between Del Monte and farmers. That seems to have worked so well that we have too many peach trees. Like, to me the present situation itself should assuage your fears. Are you thinking another processor/distributor won’t come along in the future with long-term contracts? Where will they get their peaches?

> Are you thinking another processor/distributor won’t come along in the future with long-term contracts? That's exactly what I'm thinking. There are few crops where someone might want to lock in a 20 year contract. It's a major gamble for all involved. It's a gamble for the distributor because tastes might shift in 20 years (almost certainly a big part of why Del Monte went bankrupt) and it's a risk for the farmer b…

The bananas I buy at Aldi are not Dole. Unless Dole sells under different brand names. But Dole is obviously the big player.

Re: California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

#273

Post by nradov »

orwin wrote: post #256
nradov wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so weird for you to be fearful of something when you don't know how farming works. Every year farmers cut down a bunch of trees and plant new ones in response to costs and market demand. So what. This is routine and seldom makes the news. Canned fruit, like what these farmers were producing, has been losing popularity for years. You can't force consumers to like it.

> Every year farmers cut down a bunch of trees and plant new ones in response to costs and market demand I'll admit my experience is more with vineyard than orchards, but at least for grape, this isn't true. You only cut down old, unproductive vines, and market demand is not a factor. You never know how much you will produce YoY, so basically you try to only produce what your domain can handle. (The english translati…

Grape vines have a longer productive lifespan than most fruit trees so I don't know what point you're trying to make. Lots of wine grape vines are being torn out in California. Competition is intense, we're well past "peak wine" (consumers aren't drinking as much), and honestly a lot of it was kind of garbage anyway.

Re: California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

#274

Post by kelnos »

boringg wrote: post #123
clarionbell wrote: post #20

People underestimate how difficult it is to seek buyers for the amount of produce we are talking about here. Farmers are specialists at growing things, not at moving them across great distances, marketing them to dozens small buyers and or starting up packing plants from scratch. They don't have enough trucks, people or packaging machines to move them around. Maybe, they can take some portion for local use. But the r…

I mean you are destroying an entire forest that grows food, of course people are incensed, they are funding the destruction with money paid from taxes. Food is already bananas expensive. And it feels so terribly inefficient to just rip and replace. I fully understand that there is processing and logistics problems. This is not a misunderstanding of economics - its a wild misallocation of resources, and massive destru…

I mean, we already have one company going bankrupt in part because they are unable to sell enough of their production to cover costs. Your plan would just cause more peach producers to go bankrupt.

Re: California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

#275

Post by DarmokJalad1701 »

kelnos wrote: post #226
Aurornis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A situation like this bring out many comments that reveal a very low understanding of basic economics (and a low rate of reading the article). Del Monte went out of business because there wasn't enough demand for the peaches. The company that purchased their assets is continuing to buy 24,000 tons of peaches, but the previous unsustainable business was buying a lot more. It's the excess fields that need to be repurpo…

> The comments talking about farmers not being organized enough or powerful enough must be unaware of how powerful the farm lobby is and how much money they're able to secure from the government every year. Most people don't realize how powerful farmers are in the US. We (rightly!) complain about Wall Street and bank bailouts when they happen, but I'd wager that we've given significantly more money to farmers over ti…

I would much rather there be a surplus of food production (driven by subsidies or whatever) even if it causes inefficiencies given that the alternative is significantly worse.

Re: California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

#276

Post by SoftTalker »

phkahler wrote: post #153
clarionbell wrote: post #20

People underestimate how difficult it is to seek buyers for the amount of produce we are talking about here. Farmers are specialists at growing things, not at moving them across great distances, marketing them to dozens small buyers and or starting up packing plants from scratch. They don't have enough trucks, people or packaging machines to move them around. Maybe, they can take some portion for local use. But the r…

Reminds me of stories about McDonalds introducing new menu items. The logistics of introducing things at all their locations is a major concern. Maybe they could have introduced a new peach desert or something, but like you said supply isn't the only thing - you need to move them around and process them too.

And they usually don't introduce something everywhere at once. They do trial markets, or short-term runs. If something proves very popular (e.g. chicken nuggets) it eventually rolls out everywhere.

Re: California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

#277

Post by joecool1029 »

psadauskas wrote: post #143
quotz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I moved to the US from southern Europe I was so horrified by the lack of taste of any fruit I tried, particularly the peaches and plums. I moved back to Europe and not a small factor was the lack of good produce and food in general. Its just mind boggling how Americans dont revolt against this, stop buying shit produce and suppliers will notice.

Same with Maui Gold pineapples. I can't eat the Dole crap you get everywhere else. The ones at the markets in Maui are a completely different fruit, they're like candy. Whenever I go I eat them until my tongue burns from the citric acid. This is what happens when you optimize your food supply for profit instead of being edible; varieties are selected for yield, longevity and shipping rather than flavor or nutrients.…

Not sure that's citric acid doing that, it's probably bromelain, which can be used as a meat tenderizer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromelain

Re: California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

#278

Post by cogman10 »

nradov wrote: post #269
cogman10 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, then I'll just reissue my 2 questions > If that were the case, then why are there so many peach trees currently? Why hasn't the entire orchard been replaced with olive trees? I agree, that farmers forecast and switch up crops. But I disagree with you that you have a bunch of farmers that have mixed orchards setup because of that forecasting. It's not like wheat or barely where you could switch between the two eve…

You're not making any sense. I never claimed that a bunch of farmers have mixed orchards. Some farmers have too many peach trees right now because Del Monte got their forecasts wrong so now those farmers will chop down the peach trees and probably plant something else. Olive oil demand is still trending up so that might be a possibility in some cases, there are lots of options. That's just how farming works: you have…

> I never claimed that a bunch of farmers have mixed orchards.

You claimed

> Every year farmers cut down a bunch of trees and plant new ones in response to costs and market demand.

What do you mean responding to "costs and market demand"?

You also claimed

> They forecast future trends as best they can and will replace trees (or other crops) when it seems profitable.

Both those statements would imply that you have orchard farmers who are growing and harvesting multiple types of crops. Unless you are trying to say that it's common for a fruit farmer to completely destroy an orchards and replace with with a new crop.

Both, frankly, are ridiculous claims which are quickly dispatched with "Why aren't there more olive trees".

If the reaction to market forces was that fast, the expectation is that last 10 years of raised olive prices would have caused a lot of these farmers to uproot and plant olive trees. It's currently a very lucrative crop and California is certainly amenable to growing olives.

> That's just how farming works: you have to place your bets and then work for years to see if they pay off.

I agree with this statement. Farming is a game of placing bets on the future of the market. But I disagree that orchard farmers are commonly just diving head first into switching crops in any sort of fashion. It takes a severe event, like their primary distributor going bankrupt, to move an orchard farmer towards new crops. That is not common or business as usual.

Re: California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

#279

Post by rootusrootus »

cogman10 wrote: post #233
peyton wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA mentions 20-year contracts between Del Monte and farmers. That seems to have worked so well that we have too many peach trees. Like, to me the present situation itself should assuage your fears. Are you thinking another processor/distributor won’t come along in the future with long-term contracts? Where will they get their peaches?

> Are you thinking another processor/distributor won’t come along in the future with long-term contracts? That's exactly what I'm thinking. There are few crops where someone might want to lock in a 20 year contract. It's a major gamble for all involved. It's a gamble for the distributor because tastes might shift in 20 years (almost certainly a big part of why Del Monte went bankrupt) and it's a risk for the farmer b…

> We have access to only 1 because there's only one distributor of bananas in the US.

Aren't there 3, at least? Dole, Chiquita, and Del Monte?

Re: California farmers to destroy 420k peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy

#280

Post by kelnos »

mpyne wrote: post #178
heathrow83829 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the difficulty of bringing produce to market is reflected in the cost structure. 90% of a food dollar goes towards all the efforts required to get food to the customer (transportation, packaging, warehousing, marketing, retail, etc). this is why I think the solution is to have people grow their own fruits in their own backyards and front yards. customers will save a huge amount of money and it's better for the enviro…

You're assuming that the customer growing their own fruit could do it at lower overall cost. Logistics are fairly inexpensive all things considered, if they really represent 90% of the total cost of fruit it says a lot for how low agribusiness has driven down the cost of the other 10%.

I think for some types of produce, a home garden is an easy win when it comes to cost. Sure there are things that are very difficult (labor intensive, water intensive, etc.) to grow, so avoid those. But tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, beans, potatoes, peas, and beans are pretty easy to grow, and seed stock can be purchased cheaply. I haven't done this as an adult because I am so excessively lazy (but it's on my to-do list for this year, finally), but we had a vegetable garden when we were kids, and between my mom, my sister, and I, it was very manageable, and we ended up growing more than we could use, and gave some away to neighbors.
Post reply on HN