Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomdata | Hacker News Reader

As a grain farmer in Canada, I see this year as being one of the better years for commodity prices.

Wheat was back to levels we haven't seen in a long time. Corn has held a little above average. Soybeans have taken a big hit in the last couple of months, but there were some good marketing opportunities earlier in the year. Unless harvest is a complete failure, there doesn't seem to be much to worry about. A welcome change from the last few years when the price was lower.

Not being in the US, I don't necessarily see the effects of the trade war like the US farmer is seeing, so I am unable to comment about that. But as far as the regular market price goes, which the article also raised concern about, I really don't see the issue. The grain farmers should be positioned fairly well right now.

View on HN

Yes. But if you're going to do whatever one else is doing, that's not a plan to prosper. It's suicidal.

For example, I didn't see a single mention of "...so we're going to go organic..."

Again. Don't get me wrong. Food supply is important. One article does not a trend make. That said, sharing a bad idea with 100 or 1000 other people (farmers) still makes it a bad idea.

I realize change isn't something most farmers seek, none the less, they are not immune to the definition of insanity.

So you're saying, "Grow something unusual."? Something like... water chestnuts? Or mint?

Convert your wheat crop to mint?

Commodities are commodities because there is such a huge demand for them. Niche products are not some super easy to get rich with scheme.

If you want to succeed in the mint market, you'd better do you homework, execute perfectly, and get lucky. Just like in the commodities market.

> "Commodities are commodities because there is such a huge demand for them."

True. However, that doesn't mean, per the article, they are profitable. And if they are unprofitable, doesn't that mean supply is greater than demand?

Growing an unprofitable commodity and then saying "I'm not making money" doesn't make sense. Even if there oversight (e.g., Uncle Sam) and you trust that oversight (which we know is inconsistent) I would think it makes sense, if you want to be legitimately profitable, you'd try to mitigate the risks.

Farmers are being paid to grow food that gets destroyed. The masses are eating so much cheap food they're becoming ill more often and/or dying younger. The status quo doesn't feel sustainable.

> For example, I didn't see a single mention of "...so we're going to go organic..."

Going organic is nearly a decade long process during which time you are paid regular market price while having to burden the added cost of organic processes. If you have the millions to get going it can be a good deal long-term, but a farmer who is already struggling is going to be broke long before they ever meet certification.

What about futures contracts? I didn't see that mentioned at all and I thought that was the primary means that farmers used to remove uncertainty over what they would be paid for their harvest?

Update: this is discussed in another sub-thread on this page.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com