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

Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

fb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 432 posts

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#281

Post by rgblambda »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #180
rgblambda wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Here in the EU, farmers are giving away subsidized potatoes in Berlin currently. I looked into this story because it doesn't sound correct. It seems the potatoes were indeed sold but due to an unusually high yield this year, the trader decided not to pick them up so the farmer gave them away rather than try to find another buyer. And it was just one farm in Saxony. So this is not an EU or even a Germany wide issue.

I have some friends that picked up free potatoes. That's why I mentioned it. https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-germany-potatoes-eu-agriculture...

Hope you understand this is the equivalent of an ice cream parlour handing out free ice cream because the freezer broke. It has nothing to do with government agricultural policies or subsidies. Otherwise your friends would be getting their free spuds every week.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#282

Post by gruez »

legacynl wrote: post #268
dathinab wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

>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.

If there's no actual downsides from the chlorine, what's the issue? In many cities the municipal water source is local river that's polluted, and needs treatment to be drinkable. Part of that process might involve adding chlorine. I'm sure that all of this can be avoided if the water is sourced, at great expense, from a glacier or whatever, but nobody would suggest we should ban chlorinating water, and that allowing chlorinating water would be better because it forces the water source to be clean.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#283

Post by traceroute66 »

dathinab wrote: post #179
unglaublich wrote: post #166

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…

> the fact that chlorination is needed

Indeed.

High levels of bacteria are a symptom of poor hygiene and low animal welfare due to conditions which are not permitted in European farms.

If you know the chicken is going to be chlorine washed, then you end up being lax higher up the chain.

There is also a genuine argument to be had as to, for example, whether the practice contributes towards antimicrobial resistance.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#284

Post by gruez »

duxup wrote: post #267
csours wrote: 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…

>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 ...

I get it's funny to dunk on dumb Republican farmers voting for the same party for over and over again, and not getting what they want, but it's hardly a farmer or Republican issue. How is this any different than say, Democratic voters who want medicare for all (or whatever) and not getting that for decades?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#285

Post by watwut »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #275
jansper39 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Generally, I agree with your post. About "keep them out of the fridge": I thought this is mostly due to wash or not-wash the eggs before packing. I think washing removes a thin layer that makes the eggs last longer, but can be visually less appealing. Please correct me if you know better! Japan also vaccinates heavily for Salmonella, and they eat plenty of raw eggs in their cuisine.

> . I think washing removes a thin layer that makes the eggs last longer, but can be visually less appealing.

European eggs look just fine. The wash we talk about here is chemical, not just cleaning out mess with water.

But yes, this is about wash or not-wash thing. Just that is has nothing to do with visuals.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#286

Post by traceroute66 »

unglaublich wrote: post #166
cik wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, much of this is a political issue. America wants food standards that are different from many trading partners; fair enough. But it makes it impossible to export many farm goods as a result. This is outside of the current political climate, and has been going on for ages. It's just coming it a head now.

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…

> look down on inferior products

I object to the use of "look down on" in this context.

The products listed are inferior products, end of.

"Look down" suggests an expression of contempt. But there is no contempt to be had here, it is a simple fact.

> bad farming practices would lead to very affordable food, then one could make an argument for it.

I ... just... I ....have no words for what I just read there.

Its affordable so its ok .... really ? SERIOUSLY ?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#287

Post by dpkirchner »

delfinom wrote: post #230
bruce511 wrote: post #124

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.

A very high profile mainstream Republican proposed the most severe anti-gun policy I think anyone at his level ever has: taking guns without due process. And they still voted to reelect him twice. The idea that the GOP is not anti-gun is a fantasy.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#288

Post by 9rx »

yetihehe wrote: post #156
9rx wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consumers get stable and somewhat realistic prices [...] while farmers also get stable income. Which? You can't have both. Input costs are subject to the whims of non-supply managed markets. When, say, input costs rise either the farmer has to absorb that cost (unstable income), or the cost has to be passed on to the customer (unstable consumer price). > and supply Oh? https://www.ctvnews.ca/atlantic/article/some-m…

> > consumers get stable and somewhat realistic prices [...] while farmers also get stable income. > Which? You can't have both Maybe not in USA. Looks like another problem that only one developed country says is impossible to solve.

> Maybe not in USA.

Maybe not. I grew up on a Canadian dairy farm, and have continued to farm in Canada ever since, so that is beyond my expertise. I have not participated in US-based farming. I can only meaningfully speak to Canadian agriculture.

A connection to the USA is interesting, but what you are trying to get across is not entirely understood on my end. Perhaps not having ties to the USA means I don't have an implied context? Fill me in. I am curious.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#289

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

pjc50 wrote: post #225
mlrtime wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the first thing is removing identity politics, especially in replies or discussions. Also, not viewing it as "Come to my side". This isn't star wars, rebellion vs empire.

Convenient shorthand for a huge number of issues. OK then, how about convincing them to support: - impeachment and prosecution for high level corruption (e.g. the Presidential cryptocurrency) - prosecution of constitution-violating police and Federal paramilitaries, e.g. in Minnesota? - leaving LGBT people alone legislatively (at this point I'm not going to ask for improvements, just that the situation not be made wo…

[dead]

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#290

Post by therobots927 »

Throaway1982 wrote: post #274
UncleMeat wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats write constantly about trying to reach rural americans. I've never seen democrats meaningfully position themselves as the party for city dwellers. Instead I've seen democrats simply refuse to describe cities as hellholes full of crime, laziness, and sexual promiscuity like the republicans do.

The Dems dont actually do much to reach those rural Americans though.

That’s because they don’t appear to actually be trying to win. They appear to exist for the sole purpose of playing the good cop to the republican bad cop.
Post reply on HN