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

371–380 of 432 posts

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#371

Post by array_key_first »

tw04 wrote: post #128
tw04 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would appear that to remain competitive they had massive consolidation, and with that an increase in animal density leading to major issues with water pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CraFarms So I guess yay deregulation, now with more capitalist privatized profits with socialized costs!

Downvoting without engaging in a discussion kind of directly violates both the spirit and rules around here. I've posted pretty solid evidence that dregulation, did not, in fact improve the agricultural situation for New Zealand. It absolutely made a subset of corporations and mega-farmers extremely rich at the expense of the natural resources the rest of the country shares. Would LOVE to hear the arguments about how…

Just to expand on this idea with more historical context: part of the reason agriculture is regulated like it is in the US is because it used to be much more deregulated. And then speculation and profiteering in agriculture in the 1920s contributed to the great depression and caused the dust bowl. Then, it became a national food security issue. The New Deal is where a lot of the regulation and subsidies originate, but we didn't just do it for kicks. We have, actually, tried the alternative, and it was a disaster.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#373

Post by 9rx »

lithocarpus wrote: post #369
9rx wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if big ag subsidies were phased out, small local farms would have a better chance of being viable. Maybe. The subsidies that we always hear about is a portion of insurance premiums paid by the government. Presumably if the government pulled out of the subsidy, the risk/reward of insurance would tilt towards not having it. Many farmers already forego having insurance even with the reduced price. Which would mean not…

I'm for subsidizing agriculture that improves long term soil quality and abundance. i.e. kind of the opposite of what most big ag row crops do now. It's tricky to implement any subsidy in a way that's not exploited by big companies. But a place to start would be not subsidizing synthetic fertilizer and pesticides or anything that degrades soil long term, to encourage farms of every scale to focus on natural long term…

> i.e. kind of the opposite of what most big ag row crops do now.

From what I'm seeing out there, the big row croppers are largely leading the pack in bringing sustainable improvement to soil quality. It has become abundantly clear that, even if you aren't concerned about the soil, that these modern practices are actually leading to higher yields, improved efficiency, and ultimately greater profitability. — It is small farms that are often struggling to adapt, lacking sufficient capital and/or cashflow needed to transition away from their old tools and methods.

Which big farms are you basing your comment on?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#374

Post by anthem2025 »

ActorNightly wrote: post #370
sellmesoap wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of it comes down to the rural/urban divide, in a rural setting there's a lot less convinence, fewer services. A need to be more self suficcient. While urban settings have many amenities and services, they also tend to be hotspots for mental illness, crime, lack of housing for those who don't or can't make enough money to afford increasing rent and food costs, it's harder to police (more resources needed…

>A need to be more self suficcient. The thing is, while most people in rural lands think they are self sufficient, they still depend on technology and government services plenty, as well as money coming in. But yet they are on the high horse of thinking they don't need any of that. Until that changes, they aren't going to change their mind. >I think that starts with people using their empathy and curiosity to underst…

[dead]

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#375

Post by yetihehe »

9rx wrote: post #288
yetihehe wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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…

You said "You can't have both" on "consumers get stable and somewhat realistic prices [...] while farmers also get stable income."

So, you say a country can't have stable income for farmers and realistic prices for consumers? Allowing to waste some produce and subsidizing farmers seems to be working in Europe (and probably in Canada). We have stable (but higher) prices. When you said we can't have that, I thought you are from USA, they are famous for having problems that are solved everywhere (like universal healthcare and gun violence) and it's a very known meme[0][1][2].

[0] https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1116082388344422400

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/l55sv4...

[2] https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED206/66c508dbb70...

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#376

Post by wahnfrieden »

BearOso wrote: post #317
throwaway2037 wrote: post #182

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…

My understanding was that the meat-packing process in the US involves a butchering method that results in more fecal matter contamination, posing the risk of salmonella, which necessitates the wash. Those bacteria occur naturally, so you can't avoid that without being careful with butchering, which is probably what the EU standards require. But I doubt the big meat conglomerates like Tyson will want any hit to produc…

Mechanically separated meat bluntly ruptures the digestive tract and smears the flesh with feces. So they soak the feces and flesh together in a chlorine or acid bath to sanitize it. It's disgusting.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#377

Post by autoexec »

WarmWash wrote: post #297
autoexec wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone loves the mom and pop businesses but shops at walmart for those rock bottom prices. People shop where they can afford to shop. Walmart is famous for not paying people enough to shop anywhere except walmart. The fix is to make sure that people earn a living wage and to actually enforce the Robinson–Patman Act and aggressively go after price fixing. Suddenly walmart's prices won't undercut the mom and pop pl…

>People shop where they can afford to shop. No, they shop where they can get the most stuff for the least amount of money. Temu and Shein didn't fill some kind of product availability void, they filled the relentless consumerism void of people.

It's not about "product availability" it's about "product affordability"

> "Google Trends data shows that ultra-fast fashion clothing retailer Shein is searched more often in states with high poverty percentages." (https://cnsmaryland.org/2022/11/17/popularity-for-shein-surg...)

That's not to say that rich people don't enjoy a deal, but poor people shop where they can afford. I try not to go into Walmart, but when I have its hard not to notice that the people shopping there don't look very wealthy (In fairness, people with money who buy things at Walmart tend to order online). Even Walmart admits this (https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-says-food-stamps-ar...). 1 out of every 8 Americans is on food stamps, Many of those not on food stamps are struggling to stay off of them. A lot of Americans would love to pay a little more to shop at nicer places.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#378

Post by withinboredom »

twobitshifter wrote: post #355
FireBeyond wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? On HFCS: While glucose is used by nearly every cell in the body and has tight regulation by insulin, fructose is largely processed by the liver, where it more easily is converted into fat, triglycerides and uric acid. Intrinsically this messes with our bodies insulin resistance, for a start, contributing to diabetic issues, as well as increased fatty liver disease, and elevated triglycerides. It bypasses our bo…

I still don’t see your evidence of these claims. HFCS is also known as glucose-fructose syrup - it’s not all fructose, either 42% or 55% typically. Glucose and Fructose often go together in your body, so the signal would be there. In your gut, sucrase breaks sucrose (table sugar) into glucose and fructose. In drinks, when sucrose is exposed to CO2 and other acids it turns into fructose and glucose before it hits your…

Nobody also sees your evidence…

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#379

Post by 9rx »

yetihehe wrote: post #375
9rx wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You said "You can't have both" on "consumers get stable and somewhat realistic prices [...] while farmers also get stable income." So, you say a country can't have stable income for farmers and realistic prices for consumers? Allowing to waste some produce and subsidizing farmers seems to be working in Europe (and probably in Canada). We have stable (but higher) prices. When you said we can't have that, I thought you…

> So, you say a country can't have stable income for farmers and realistic prices for consumers?

The topic is supply management. Supply management cannot offer both consumer price stability and stable incomes for farmers at the same time, as was explained in more detail in the previous comment. At least not in a world where the non-supply managed markets aren't also stable. Of course, if non-supply managed markets are also stable, then this whole thing is moot. The original premise was that non-supply managed markets cannot be stable, thus why it was said supply management is necessary.

> subsidizing farmers seems to be working in Europe (and probably in Canada)

The whole idea behind supply management is that there isn't a (direct) subsidy. Technically the government compelling consumers to buy from an organized monopoly is still an indirect subsidy, granted, but indirect subsidies lose the control that direct subsidies have. You are right that in theory a direct subsidy scheme could allow both stable incomes and stable consumer prices at the same time, but that is not the system Canada uses here.

> I thought you are from USA

Why? What would someone from the USA know about Canadian agriculture? I expect most Canadians don't even know anything about this topic. If I weren't a Canadian farmer, I sincerely doubt I would have been able to contribute anything.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#380

Post by xnx »

ryandrake wrote: post #362
labcomputer wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Despite all this farmers will continue to vote republican this year, and in future years. I presume they have reasons, but I confess they are hard to understand. All farmers are rich. You have to understand that "farmer" doesn't mean "someone who works on a farm". It means "someone who owns a farm". If you own a farm today (meaning, you didn't go bankrupt sometime in the last 150 years and move on to something else…

I think the public still has a wildly inaccurate picture of what a farmer is. When people think "Farmer" they still think of the romantic picture of 1930's Ma and Pa dressed up in work clothes, working the land like in American Gothic or some Norman Rockwell painting. So, of course we should help subsidize good ol Ma and Pa to live off the land! Be kind to these fictional figures in the painting! The general public a…

> I think the public still has a wildly inaccurate picture of what a farmer is

No thanks to media (NPR is very guilty of this) that consistently interviews people that fit this stereotype. Corporate farmers are happy to sit out these interviews and let the myth continue.

Post reply on HN