Live data from Hacker News

Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

fb.org

261–270 of 432 posts

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't most ag in the US just big business at this point? Sure, there are still some small farms.. but there are also rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for status and financial benefits(farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance).

> rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for ... financial benefits This is incorrect. He divested. Google AI tells me: > Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is an investor in North Dakota soybean farmland but has stated he has divested from his holdings to avoid conflicts of interest, addressing criticisms regarding his personal financial stake in agriculture.

>Google AI tells me:

How about an actual source?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they aren't. Go look at the bills coming before congress and tell me how many are voted purely along party lines? Then look at the bills themselves. And the vast majority of the party is actually working towards real change. And guess what's happening to those who don't (the Schumers and Pelosis of the party)? They have a 5% approval rating and have to CONSTANTLY deal with people from their own party telling them…

They are never voted out.

Yes, a handful of people in the Democrat party suck.

But that's not the same as saying they're the same as Republicans. Not even remotely close.

The "both sides" stuff is an amateur, armchair take that tells me the person doesn't actually follow what's happening.

And again, you don't need any more proof that what they actually vote on. Go ahead, look up the bills. How does the "both sides" argument stand up to the fact that we have the most divided congress in almost 100 years?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Personally I don't understand the love that agriculture shows to the Republican party, but hey you get what you vote for. It seems like this whole year has been implementing policy after policy that screws over agriculture. USAid (big purchaser) gone. 40 billion sent to Argentina. Antagonize Canadians (Canadians !!) so they boycott American produce. Tarif China so they'll reciprocate on soy beans. Deport far…

I think it's actually because of the gun control crap that Dems push. Farmers really like their guns, not because they need it to compensate for themselves, but because they really do largely live in areas where the local police response is 30+ minutes because they are in sparsely populated counties that are just farms, farms and more farms.

You’re buying into Republican propaganda if you believe this.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't most ag in the US just big business at this point? Sure, there are still some small farms.. but there are also rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for status and financial benefits(farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance).

> rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for ... financial benefits This is incorrect. He divested. Google AI tells me: > Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is an investor in North Dakota soybean farmland but has stated he has divested from his holdings to avoid conflicts of interest, addressing criticisms regarding his personal financial stake in agriculture.

A bit late, though

>In truth, Bessent disclosed early in the Trump Administration that he owned several thousand acres of farm land in North Dakota through a limited liability partnership. He was supposed to divest those holdings 90 days after taking office, by April 28.

>In August, government ethics officials warned in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee that the secretary failed to comply with the rules and needed to sell the land. Bessent's Treasury ethics officials explained that the "assets are illiquid and not readily marketable."

>The August letter said Bessent "would be recused from particular matters affecting these assets." But that was just weeks before Bessent flew to Malaysia to meet with Chinese counterparts and hash out the framework of a deal that crucially included a commitment to buy American soybeans.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/21/trea...

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#265
post #239

Much of this is an antitrust problem. The inputs to farming, especially seeds, fertilizer and machinery, are controlled by monopolies and near-monopolies. There have been too many mergers. On the sell side, there's monopsony or near-monopsony, with very few big buyers.[1] Farmers are caught in the middle, with little pricing power on either side. There's not much question about this. There are antitrust cases, but wi…

Yes, and they equipment size keeps becoming bigger and more expensive, making it harder to afford for smaller farms. Meanwhile, China is disrupting this by building small and affordable farm equipment for the rest of the world, thus lowering international prices. Also new technology is helping previously nonviable soil to be useful.

Equipment makers in the US have been hammered by tariffs too, and they even manufacture in the US. Tells you something about how absurd the tariffs (taxes) are.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bleached chicken I don't understand this meme that appears whenever US vs "Europe" food/crop standards are discussed. I Googled for more info, and I found this quote: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/15/nx... > Less than 5% of poultry processing facilities still use chlorine in rinses and sprays, according to the National Chicken Council, an industry group that surveyed its members. (Those tha…

> What do European chicken meat plants use to reduce bateria load? I'm sure it's just salt and water. I don't understand why consumers will pay for a chicken breast which has been injected with salt water. It comes out when you prepare it. Also some people don't season food with salt (you can add salt at the table if you really need it). Meat with added salt taste very salty to me.

It's also down to vaccination requirements for EU based farms who take far more preventative measures than US ones.

It's why you can eat raw eggs and keep them out of the fridge in the EU/UK but not in the US, because the chickens are vaccination for Salmonella.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#267
post #107

Of all the guns that rural Americans love, the humble foot-gun is the most beloved. --- Someone else can argue the morality, ethics, economics, and politics of it all, but VERY simply, US Federal Government Agencies are machines for redistributing wealth from cities to rural areas. Rural America voted quite heavily to stop those subsidies. That's what efficiency means. --- Maturity means suspending judgement and list…

There was a NYT article about farmers going to a town hall meeting where they met their federal reps.

One farmer mentioned how they've done these meetings for years and nothing changes, maybe they get a handout from the feds, but he says they effectively just go to support the monopolies that they as farmers sell and buy from.

Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces except the idea that he might want to vote for someone else ...

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People outside of the US look down on inferior products like HFCS, bleached chicken, hormones used in beef cattle, prevalence of GM crops, the preventive use of antibiotics in poultry, hen battery cages, and permissive-by-default use of additives. If at least all those bad farming practices would lead to very affordable food, then one could make an argument for it... but currently the US just does worst of two worlds…

Interesting Side Note: bleached/chlorinated chicken The things which makes this a no go in the EU is ironically not the chlorination per-se, but the fact that chlorination is needed. Like basically the EU thinks the way the US allows farmers to keep and raise chickens is so bad/unsanitary that chlorinating them isn't sufficient to make them safe for (repeated) consumption. Which makes sense given that some of the thi…

> but the fact that chlorination is needed.

You're wrong. The whole point is this: in EU, you cannot chlorinate your chickens. This means that to sell chicken, you need to make sure that your chicken is good to eat without chlorination (by making sure your whole production chain is sanitized up to sufficient level).

In the US you don't need to make sure your production chain is super high sanitation quality because you can chlorinate the chicken afterwards. This means that you don't have to spend money/effort cleaning up your chains, because you can dip them in chlorine after.

From a health perspective there is honestly not that big of a difference. The resulting product in both cases is chicken that's safe to eat.

The real reason for the difference in policy is the incentives that it creates for the meat-producers. In the US there is no incentive to keep sanitation up in the production chains because the chicken will be chlorinated anyway. This actually incentivizes sloppy (cheaper) production methods over ones that are more sanitized but more costly.

On the other hand, in the EU you cannot wash chicken meat, so it needs to be kept clean and sanitized throughout the production process.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GOP has long pursued a strategy of getting rural whites to vote against their self interest. This is why they play up cultural issues such as trans people using women's bathrooms and such other topics that uneducated people can readily grasp.

Can urban liberals please tell us how to vote? You can come and help our fingers push the buttons. Seriously, do you think this works? Do you think urban people living in poverty vote against their interests as well?

You should read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank [1] that discusses this topic at length. Yes, I do think it works: It is possible to persuade people to vote against their material or economic self-interest by inflaming passions around simple, emotionally charged "hot-button" topics that are easy for most voters to understand and react to instinctively.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-Ame...

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and in some cases on immigrant labor. Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people? I find it a bit weird looking at the US how they seem to kneejerk into different camps depending on what the other side does with some old outliers like bernie who retain their line. >Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had fede…

> Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people? It is interesting that you immediately jumped to "illegal people". When I read it, I thought about the US H-2A via for temp farm hands. This page: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-d... ... says 385,000 visa holders in 2024. That is a lot! Since you…

> It is interesting that you immediately jumped to "illegal people".

USDA estimated 42% of farm hands is doing illegal work few years ago. Other sources estimated to 50-60%. That is a fuckton and has an incredibly significant impact on wage pressures. It was also brought up in the context of GOP policy "the party that hates them" which has focused heavily on illegals and caused quite the uproar. It's hard to not jump to it in that cotnext and also more than those "US H-2A via for temp farm hands" i believe.

>how many native-born Belgians are still performing low-skill manual labour on a farm?

It's mostly migrant work indeed same as in the meat industry I observed. They proudly had giant old black and white wall covering pics of locals doing the work decades ago but now among more than a hundred there were maybe 2 belgians on the factory floor at any given moment. That said here in belgium I suspect the amount of illegal work in agriculture is lower than in the US and places like Italy.

>Call me cynical, but I am not nostalgic for the "smaller independent farm". If farms want to be smaller and independent in the 21st century, they need to distinguish themselves with product (usually: organic or "free range"), branding, and value add (example: create a cheese brand that only uses your special organic cow's milk). If they cannot or will not, then they will need to sell their business to the mega agg corps.

Call me cynical as well but that doesn't help for the most part.

I follow some such farms that do exactly that. 2 examples from sweden I know jump trough hoops for those organic and "free range" labels. Hoops that are made specifically for the massive operations. So the giant poultry halls get to add some square meters of semi outside space, pull in a big proportional subsidy and aquire the free range label whilst the guy trying to differentiate himself has to add elaborate construction to his chicken tractors for his free roaming chickens to follow the spirit of the law made for the massive operation.

I personally know and helped a peppers/tomatoes and respective seed operation. All heirloom, mostly organic and they too almost had to close their books because they suddenly needed seed passports and a load more paperwork and the legislators apparently hadn't considered that this was something that was also done by corporations that count with numbers smaller than 1mil. That's not me being hyperbolic. They straight up confirmed they hadn't thought it possible that someone might run an operation without boatloads of employees or an upstart.

Also small is relative in the context i described. Many of these were still big expensive operations making investments costing hundreds of thousands, operating a lot of land. Just run by a normal family rather than a big coporate structure.

Mind you the meat company i worked for was also a family operation but the family all drove Brabuses that cost more than my house and had spare money to invest in retirement homes, etc....Puts it a bit in perspective.

> If they cannot or will not, then they will need to sell their business to the mega agg corps.

I do not wish to live in a corporatocracy nor do i fancy a form of capitalism where healthy competition is impossible since nobody can enter or maintain in certain vital sectors.

Post reply on HN