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

1% of farms operate 70% of world's farmland

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 222 posts

Re: 1% of farms operate 70% of world's farmland

#41

Post by xenocratus »

kebman wrote: post #32
oblio wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, as a simple example, you can't efficiently plow or mechanically harvest lots of land which are very small or have a weird shape. If you aggregate them, it becomes much more efficient. Same thing goes for purchasing equipment or supplies, you can buy in bulk for a large farm. Modern farms ARE factories.

What you are saying is true, but a lot of people hate the thought, since a farm has historically been a family working within a small community or a village, first and foremost for their own benefit, with the surplus going back to the village or greater society through trade or cooperation (or later by force through taxation by the Lord of the land). This was a good and healthy life that produced strong people. For t…

> a lot of people hate the thought

Source?

> For thousands of years the farm was the producer of civilization and culture.

The producer of "civilization and culture"? In what sense? Farms produce the goods we eat, how does that lead to culture and civilization? I'm not that knowledgeable at history - if that is the case, then I'd really like to read more about it.

> Today, on the other hand, it has been reduced to a factory

Given your previous assertions about farms losing their status as cultural hotspots, I bet you hate Andy Warhol :)

Re: 1% of farms operate 70% of world's farmland

#42

Post by [deleted] »

fsloth wrote: post #23
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t the solution to increase these farms’ economies of scale? So the same civilisation-enhancing forces that drove development 10,000 years ago can show their force more broadly?

What economies of scale specifically do farms have? A farm is not a factory where you can create a uniform process...

[deleted]

Re: 1% of farms operate 70% of world's farmland

#43

Post by mellavora »

cm2187 wrote: post #30

Industrialisation of farming is a good thing more than a bad thing. You don't want the cost of food to go up, or the supply to go down. You kind of want large scale industrial farming. It's like complaining that large factories are taking over small artisans.

Maybe true in glorious future where the industrialized farm can support increased biodiversity. Currently, however, this promotes large-scale monoculture. Which is inherently harmful on almost every level, including the ability to keep the cost of food down and and the supply up.

Food diversity is much much less than it was 100 years ago. Nutritional content of food is down significant levels from 30 years ago.

Re: 1% of farms operate 70% of world's farmland

#44

Post by mellavora »

fsloth wrote: post #22
zpeti wrote: post #16

And if they didn't, food would probably be a lot more expensive.

Does a strong argument exists for this? To my understanding agriculture was turned into big business in the beginning of 20th century because of political process, not because it was obviously a more efficient way to produce food at the time.

If it does, we should also ask if that strong argument continues to hold on a 50-year plus time-line.

Re: 1% of farms operate 70% of world's farmland

#46

Post by xenocratus »

mellavora wrote: post #43
cm2187 wrote: post #30

Industrialisation of farming is a good thing more than a bad thing. You don't want the cost of food to go up, or the supply to go down. You kind of want large scale industrial farming. It's like complaining that large factories are taking over small artisans.

Maybe true in glorious future where the industrialized farm can support increased biodiversity. Currently, however, this promotes large-scale monoculture. Which is inherently harmful on almost every level, including the ability to keep the cost of food down and and the supply up. Food diversity is much much less than it was 100 years ago. Nutritional content of food is down significant levels from 30 years ago.

> Nutritional content of food is down significant levels from 30 years ago.

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...

> Currently, however, this promotes large-scale monoculture.

This can be good or bad, depending on what is produced in a large scale, I guess(?) Especially at this point in time we should focus on foods that don't mess with the environment/don't fuel climate change.

Re: 1% of farms operate 70% of world's farmland

#47

Post by yorwba »

opencl wrote: post #38
fsloth wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What economies of scale specifically do farms have? A farm is not a factory where you can create a uniform process...

Ecen a pretty basic set of modern farm equipment and facilities will run into the millions of dollars, and will have very low utilization on small farms. A single modern combine can harvest >100 acres per day. With multiple big fields of crops that have different harvesting times your equipment will spend much less time idle.

That's right, but it's not necessary to aggregate small farms into large ones to maximize machine utilization. It's also possible to separate the machine-owning part from the other aspects of farming and aggregate only that, by forming an association of farmers who share equipment. (Shared ownership of the means of production, so to speak.) In German, that's called a Maschinenring. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maschinenring Not sure whether the concept is unpopular in the English-speaking world, or just not considered noteworthy enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article.

Re: 1% of farms operate 70% of world's farmland

#48

Post by usrusr »

opencl wrote: post #38
fsloth wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What economies of scale specifically do farms have? A farm is not a factory where you can create a uniform process...

Ecen a pretty basic set of modern farm equipment and facilities will run into the millions of dollars, and will have very low utilization on small farms. A single modern combine can harvest >100 acres per day. With multiple big fields of crops that have different harvesting times your equipment will spend much less time idle.

But there's only so much farmland. Those super efficient machines increase the efficiency of its operator, not the efficiency of the land.

Re: 1% of farms operate 70% of world's farmland

#49

Post by nemo44x »

mellavora wrote: post #43
cm2187 wrote: post #30

Industrialisation of farming is a good thing more than a bad thing. You don't want the cost of food to go up, or the supply to go down. You kind of want large scale industrial farming. It's like complaining that large factories are taking over small artisans.

Maybe true in glorious future where the industrialized farm can support increased biodiversity. Currently, however, this promotes large-scale monoculture. Which is inherently harmful on almost every level, including the ability to keep the cost of food down and and the supply up. Food diversity is much much less than it was 100 years ago. Nutritional content of food is down significant levels from 30 years ago.

It’s also dangerous from a national security point of view. Consolidating farming and relying on monocultures certainly has economic benefits but it also creates an increasingly fragile system.

A new parasite or disease could easily destroy enough of a years harvest (or more) and now the nation has a food shortage. Because so much of our food is derived from or reliant on the monoculture it would have cascading effects. It would be a disaster on many levels.

Of course this is preventable but who has the courage to stand up for something that could happen when the political capital is won dealing with the cleanup. Food diversity isn’t just a “feels good” thing or an “ought to be” thing - it’s very much important in creating a resilient food supply which in my opinion is a matter of national security.

Re: 1% of farms operate 70% of world's farmland

#50

Post by kwhitefoot »

bboygravity wrote: post #29
qsort wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of your comment but the final paragraph is a bit ???? > if farming in the Western world wasn't heavily subsidized, it wouldn't exist in the Western world It probably would change, but it's weird to suggest it would stop existing without governmental subsidies. Most farming in the West is either intensive mass-production of commodities or sectorial, high-margin goods like wine. For the most part, agr…

> Again, not to say subsidies are wrong per se, but I don't follow your reasoning there. The reasoning is that it is so much cheaper to produce food in some low income countries (less/no regulations, lower wages) that the Western world would never be able to compete with it without subsidies. I'm not an expert on farming at all, but as far as I know at least in the EU, all farmers are dependent in some way or another…

> Why would you subsidize food production within a geographical region for any other reason than food security?

Here in Norway food security is only one of the reasons, at least it seems that way. Another very important one is that a farm requires workers, machinery, and material. The workers need doctors and their children need schools, the machinery needs mechanics, the material (fuel, fertiliser, cement, wood, etc.) needs transport. So by subsidizing a farm thousand metres up a mountain we generate enough business to keep a small community alive and prospering where otherwise there would be no one. This in turn means that there will be people nearby who will see an opportunity for other businesses such as tourism.

This means that on the 700 km journey through the mountains from Oslo to Trondheim you are rarely more than a few tens of km from the nearest petrol station, fast food outlet, hotel, and that it is rare to drive more than a few km without seeing a house or cabin.

Without farming in the valleys there would be no secure employment in these areas because the only other income is from tourism which is very seasonal and also easily disrupted by events such as COVID or any downturn in the economy.

Post reply on HN