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

Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity

#11

Post by nemomarx »

gefriertrockner wrote: post #8
XorNot wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most countries on Earth have declining birth rates, many first world countries have negative population growth. Overpopulation isn't a thing.

Overpopulation is a thing in parts of South Asia and Africa. Climate change can affect the agricultural output in many countries and thus the land will support less people. The population growth is still very relevant in most of the affected countries. So overpopulation will definitely be a thing, unless there are real technological breakthroughs.

no break throughs needed - provide birth control and education in those regions and the rate will slow

Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity

#13

Post by ls612 »

robbiep wrote: post #10
mike-the-mikado wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other countries would be wise to adopt that Until they can't import food and can't feed their people

In the US and much of Europe, the subsidies are to NOT produce, not to produce more

To not produce in ordinary times. The thinking is that in time of war it’s easy to then say “go wild” and ensure your food supply is abundant.

Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity

#14

Post by EdwardDiego »

dinkblam wrote: post #5

> Australia has among the lowest agricultural subsidies other countries would be wise to adopt that, but there is zero chance of that happening.

New Zealand did this in the 80s. Caused a lot of pain in the rural community, a bunch of bankruptcies, marriage failures and suicides as farming operations only sustainable because they were subsidised failed.

We now have a very internationally competitive agricultural sector, but yeah, getting there caused a lot of pain.

Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity

#15

Post by profsummergig »

dinkblam wrote: post #5

> Australia has among the lowest agricultural subsidies other countries would be wise to adopt that, but there is zero chance of that happening.

They kind of have free land available to anyone who wants to farm. Maybe that helps.

Land is a huge expense in places with high population density (e.g. India).

Australia also produces a huge amount of high-quality mangoes. In the desert. Respect. They're very very strong on water management.

Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity

#16

Post by EdwardDiego »

robbiep wrote: post #10
mike-the-mikado wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other countries would be wise to adopt that Until they can't import food and can't feed their people

In the US and much of Europe, the subsidies are to NOT produce, not to produce more

And in the US, a lot of the subsidies flow towards food that isn't edible without processing - soybeans and field corn as opposed to sweet corn.

Why? Because they've always grown it. So the subsidies encourage them to keep on growing it instead of diversifying into more competitive or higher value crops.

Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity

#17

Post by rcxdude »

robbiep wrote: post #10
mike-the-mikado wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other countries would be wise to adopt that Until they can't import food and can't feed their people

In the US and much of Europe, the subsidies are to NOT produce, not to produce more

The subsidies are generally to have spare production capacity, so as to reduce the risk of famine that can occur from the capitalistic incentives of optimising the system for efficiency above resilience.

(Not that the subsidies are always actually the most sensibly set out: but the general idea of subsidizing farming is an important one)

Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity

#18

Post by abdullahkhalids »

dinkblam wrote: post #5

> Australia has among the lowest agricultural subsidies other countries would be wise to adopt that, but there is zero chance of that happening.

What's needed is for countries to create risk profiles for food availability under different scenarios. At the same time establish maximum risk threshold.

Then pursue whatever strategy gets you there.

Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity

#19

Post by cpursley »

rcxdude wrote: post #17
robbiep wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US and much of Europe, the subsidies are to NOT produce, not to produce more

The subsidies are generally to have spare production capacity, so as to reduce the risk of famine that can occur from the capitalistic incentives of optimising the system for efficiency above resilience. (Not that the subsidies are always actually the most sensibly set out: but the general idea of subsidizing farming is an important one)

> The subsidies are generally to have spare production capacity

Maybe originally, but not anymore. Exhibit A: See America's waistline and the reason behind it (hint: farm subsidies and SNAP, two sides of the same coin).

Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity

#20

Post by bluGill »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #16
robbiep wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US and much of Europe, the subsidies are to NOT produce, not to produce more

And in the US, a lot of the subsidies flow towards food that isn't edible without processing - soybeans and field corn as opposed to sweet corn. Why? Because they've always grown it. So the subsidies encourage them to keep on growing it instead of diversifying into more competitive or higher value crops.

What subsidies?
Post reply on HN