Live data from Hacker News

The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

smithsonianmag.com

21–30 of 217 posts

Re: The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

#21
post #17

There goes another possible experiment in regenerative agriculture, the only sustainable way for our great-grandchildren to avoid mass starvation. Industrial farming depends on oil as a chemical input , because the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers. The process of tilling the land resulted in most of the remaining dirt being eroded over the past century. We're g…

Scientists will figure it out. Much more likely than everyone switching to artisan, labor intensive farms.

Or, like many things, the labor intensive parts will be automated by ever more autonomous farm devices allowing more biologic processes to grow food and less chemical intervention. The cost an autonomous drone that uses electricity to zap pests and weeds, charged off panels in the fields, over time will be significantly less than applying mass amounts of synthetic chemicals over a large surface area. The biological processes that yield soil are very efficient and essentially free at extreme scales, so long as the labor isn’t so expensive. And I think most people are wagering on automation taking over an awful lot of tasks. There have been plenty of HN postings of companies proving the basic techniques out, which work but are too expensive today. That will change. I think this is more likely than vertical farming or that we can continue to blast the environment with chemicals that interfere with fundamental biological processes at extreme scales.

Re: The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

#22

From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming. From a personal standpoint, the sensible thing to do is to scale it down to subsistence gardening for yourself and your family. That is what my family does. I remember, when I was still young, they still used to sell some produce. Nowadays it is entirely consumed by the family or gifted out. The benefit of this, is that you are free from economic…

> From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming.

So long as there is residual value in the "hand-me-down" equipment, there will be economic value in operating it. At the same time it is not economically sensible for large scale farming to continue to operate old and outdated equipment, so the smaller scale farm actually fills a useful role in the economy.

Re: The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

#23

There goes another possible experiment in regenerative agriculture, the only sustainable way for our great-grandchildren to avoid mass starvation. Industrial farming depends on oil as a chemical input , because the soil has been sterilized and turned into dirt in most places by ammonia based fertilizers. The process of tilling the land resulted in most of the remaining dirt being eroded over the past century. We're g…

The biggest fertilizer is ammonia. It's made from nitrogen that comes from the air and hydrogen that comes from methane. Conveniently, methane can be burnt to create the high temperature environment in which the reaction must take place. The other major fertilizer is potash. It is mined, but can also be extracted from underground brines, both natural and those produced from water pumped into deep wells and brought back up.

If you took away the methane, you could heat the reactor electrically and produce hydrogen from water. It would be more expensive and use more energy, but it would work. Although potassium is a nonrenewable resource it is not likely to run out any time soon.

Re: The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

#24

> the 17-acre Willard Farm This is a very small farm even for family farm-sizes. Article does not mention if it was once larger, but I have a suspicion that it was. > “Today, the cost of producing anything is way out of line,” Paul tells Harasimowicz. “A dollar gets spent almost before you earn it because of the cost of pesticides, diesel fuel, labor, insurance—everything has gone up. You can only get so much for a t…

I really want to know why entitled and toxic millennials forced your friend off his farm and into accounting…

Re: The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

#25

> the 17-acre Willard Farm This is a very small farm even for family farm-sizes. Article does not mention if it was once larger, but I have a suspicion that it was. > “Today, the cost of producing anything is way out of line,” Paul tells Harasimowicz. “A dollar gets spent almost before you earn it because of the cost of pesticides, diesel fuel, labor, insurance—everything has gone up. You can only get so much for a t…

[dead]

Re: The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

#26
post #14

It’s important to remember that this was a specific policy decision. Earl Butz[1] famously said to our farmers “Get big or get out”. I don’t have the background or inclination to prove it but my conviction is the death of the small town, and the ancillary costs like the meth and opioid epidemics can be traced directly to the “fence row to fence row” approach he pushed forward and still exists today. [later] thanks ni…

The death of the small town seems like it was fore-ordained by simple economics. In big cities, you can afford to have businesses like restaurants that aren't Sysco retail outlets, movie theaters that show more than the five most popular films on Earth at the moment, libraries that have books beyond romance novels, bestsellers, and out-of-date nonfiction. Moreover, cities are the economic drivers, even in the agricul…

Again, I have no business commenting on this as I have no idea what I’m talking about. But it’s striking driving through WI and MI vs IN, IL and IA.

In the former, where the agriculture is dominated by less commodity agriculture (dairy & fruit) small towns exist and thrive. In the latter dominated by the most commoditized crops in the world (feed corn & soy) they don’t.

Re: The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

#27
Here's what I find funny: many of the people who extoll the virtues of capitalism also bemoan the death of small businesses and family farms. Or at least they pay it lip service.

Why is this funny? Because small businesses and family farms are inherently more socialist than capitalist. Why? Because it is closer to owning the means of production and capturing the excess value of labor by those who are, well, laboring. These are socialist principles.

Many (including in these comments) will repeat the propaganda that small farms (or businesses) can't survive. Yet farmer's markets, which many people like, can offer better prices and products than those that come out of agribusiness and go through distribution chains to end up on supermarket shelves. Again, the value has simply shifted to many layers of capital owners instead of the farmers.

This is a myth because it's been artificially created. Agribusiness is predatory in nature. Things like seeds are now a subscriptio model. Modern farm equipment often can't be repaired. It requires another predatory subscription. Yet, those large agricultural conglomerates also operate their own farms and don't have to pay those predatory prices.

Re: The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

#28
This farm is in Harvard MA - e.g the exurbs of Boston. Harvard is one of these communities that has large minimum lot sizes and restrictions on commercial property so it retains its rural feel. It's pretty, possibly not the best use of property in Boston these days, kinda snooty, and is certainly not a cheap place to run a family farm.

A couple towns south where I live there are many active small farms. They either specialize in CSAs or have farmstands that sell a mix of their own produce and imported (e.g California) produce. It certainly is possible to farm - but you have to adapt to the times I guess.

My family also has a large commercial dairy farm in upstate NY. Very different farm then when I was growing up. Went from milking 70 cows to 1100+. From what my cousin's say - the only way is to go big or go home.

Re: The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

#29

> the 17-acre Willard Farm This is a very small farm even for family farm-sizes. Article does not mention if it was once larger, but I have a suspicion that it was. > “Today, the cost of producing anything is way out of line,” Paul tells Harasimowicz. “A dollar gets spent almost before you earn it because of the cost of pesticides, diesel fuel, labor, insurance—everything has gone up. You can only get so much for a t…

I really want to know why entitled and toxic millennials forced your friend off his farm and into accounting…

That's easy, he hated being a boss and probably underpaid the farmhands.

Re: The last days of a 350-year-old family farm

#30

From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming. From a personal standpoint, the sensible thing to do is to scale it down to subsistence gardening for yourself and your family. That is what my family does. I remember, when I was still young, they still used to sell some produce. Nowadays it is entirely consumed by the family or gifted out. The benefit of this, is that you are free from economic…

> From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming. So long as there is residual value in the "hand-me-down" equipment, there will be economic value in operating it. At the same time it is not economically sensible for large scale farming to continue to operate old and outdated equipment, so the smaller scale farm actually fills a useful role in the economy.

Are there really that many innovations in how to harvest a wheat field?
Post reply on HN