Hacker News Reader

Comment by dauertewigkeit | Hacker News Reader

From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming.

From a personal standpoint, the sensible thing to do is to scale it down to subsistence gardening for yourself and your family. That is what my family does. I remember, when I was still young, they still used to sell some produce. Nowadays it is entirely consumed by the family or gifted out. The benefit of this, is that you are free from economic demand. You grow whatever you please, because you want to have it at the dinner table.

View on HN

You're right, from an economic standpoint, at least on the surface. But what of the social and ecological benefits of keeping alive small communities and small fields with diverse crops? The problems with large-scale monoculture farming are well known. A counter-argument is that food is too cheap. That obviously doesn't feel correct for someone struggling to pay the bills each month, but still... Workers are being squeezed on one end and small farmers are being squeezed on the other, and the gains go somewhere else entirely while small communities fall into despair and die out.

> Workers are being squeezed on one end and small farmers are being squeezed on the other, and the gains go somewhere else entirely while small communities fall into despair and die out.

This seems to have all started when we turned the dollar into a melting iceberg jn 1913 (created the Federal Reserve, which is basicaly a cabal of private banksters with a veneer of government), and it intensified when we decided to make dollars our primary national export product in 1971 (when Nixon closed the gold convertibility window for foreign central banks). Since then, workers are squeezed for working hard and trying to save for the future, but not understanding that if they're saying in dollars they'll never get ahead.

My guess specific to farming is that federal subsidies for corn and energy have driven prices up in ways that price smaller-scale farms out of the market.

This comment has a very biased tone and lacks an understanding of basic economics

Could you elaborate on how it is wrong?

First, a typo "jn" for in.

Second, the Federal Reserve is not a cabal, let alone a shadowy one.

Third, it's existence is to ameliorate recessions. Your great-great grandparents, if in the US at the time, were very much in favor of it.

Fourth, the US doesn't allow for sovereign banks, so a private Federal Reserve is already the classical liberal/libertarian solution (anarcho-capitalists are typically the ones calling for abolishing the Federal Reserve/returning to commodity as a standard).

Fifth, a lender of last resort is a fantastic backstop allowing more investment and risk taking, which has pushed the US' investment dominance for over a century.

Federal subsidies may contribute, but average farm size has increased, and employment decreased, over a much longer scale - century plus - than any farm program I'm aware of. It's a massive secular trend longer than the monetary items mentioned as well.

Technology/automation is a commonly cited cause, although in this context you'll see references to mechanization.

If you look at the US’s richest (or the world’s for that matter) they’re not usually bankers, which raises a few questions about your hypothesis

That and maybe specialty farms. Where I live you can't throw a rock without hitting a small farm or nursery that does very specific things and they seem to do okay in their niches.

Depends on the type of small farm. Commodity crops? Sure there’s no sense in doing that small scale.

But a diversified direct to consumer small farm is actually significantly better than the commodity farm business model.

Not to mention commodity farm businesses are Very dependant on debt and the hurt is only beginning for these types of farms as interest rates continue to rise. Small direct to consumer farms? They’ll be thriving

This is not a struggling family farm. These are landowners who farm as a tax dodge or a hobby.

For those on the thread who keep pointing out that this is not in Boston and the real estate isn’t worth that much, I would counter that it’s difficult to believe that a family who’s held real estate in Massachusetts for 350 years is not doing ok.

> These are landowners who farm as a tax dodge

This is exactly what it is here in NJ. They’re called ‘fake farmers’ here, and a quick google search will show you they cost the state tens of millions in lost tax revenue per year. Its all the usual suspects too, you know, the kind of celebrities that lecture you on giving and their politics. Those quaint farm stands are just a ruse to keep their tax bills to a minimum on >5 acres if expensive land in wealthy counties.

I rather like having access to the "quaint farm stand" a couple miles down the road from me in the summer. Not everything needs to be about the quest for efficiency.

Sure. I'm just not sure why their existence depends on cheating the remaining tax payers out of tens of millions of dollars every year.

Let's suppose that these people are not, in fact, making a good faith effort to make their land agriculturally productive, and they shouldn't get the agriculture exemption.

Ok, fine. They don't get the benefit, and they pay more in taxes...or they sell, the houses are demolished, and the land is put to more "productive use" (i.e. sprawl/suburbs). The county or the city or what have you gains more in property taxes, and the evil rich people are no longer getting away with not paying more taxes.

But now instead of uncultivated land (remember, it was a fake farm), you have concrete, asphalt, hardy board, one or two species of grass, crepe myrtles...you get the picture.

If anything, there should be a national wildlife sanctuary tax exemption program, so that this is actually codified.

> From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming.

So long as there is residual value in the "hand-me-down" equipment, there will be economic value in operating it. At the same time it is not economically sensible for large scale farming to continue to operate old and outdated equipment, so the smaller scale farm actually fills a useful role in the economy.

The economic value from operating it will generally not match the opportunity cost of not doing other things.

And those operating it will learn the cost of this the hard way when they fail to have access to the niceties of modern society that require exchanging what you've produced for something produced by others. Like, say, the computing device that you used to post your opinion.

> The economic value from operating it will generally not match the opportunity cost of not doing other things.

Trouble is finding a better opportunity. From personal experience, my small acreage and old equipment, on average, nets me half of my developer income for just a couple of weeks per year of work. That's really hard to compete with. What else are you going to do instead?

It doesn't scale in the sense that if I put in more time I won't make more money, but the nice thing about small farms is that time commitment is also small. Fantastic income relative to the time commitment, and still leaves you the ability to do other things the rest of the year.

A friend who was an agricultural banker and financial advisor, who would regularly suggest to farmer customers that they could truly be better served financially by taking all the equity out of their farms, put it into an index fund and go to work at WalMart, or better still the post office.

But not all decisions are purely financial.

That is definitely true if you are farming on debt. The big time operator is happy to see no more than index fund-like returns, so he is quite content to dump everything else into interest payments. Which means you also have to in order to compete. I am less convinced by your friend if you are not trying to service debt with your labour input.

That said, you can leverage the debt. It is much harder to get someone to loan you money to invest in index funds. With the huge run-up in asset values over the past decade, I expect the farmer with a small holding 10 years ago, who then bought up everything he could with the bank's money, is now considerably further ahead than he who invested the same amount of money in index funds 10 years ago and took a job at Walmart to try and top up those investments.

But you are right that not all decisions are financial. I expect the Walmart job is far less stressful and that is worth quite a bit.

> half of my developer income for just a couple of weeks per year of work

That is a very high hourly wage. Wow.

Calling it an hourly wage is misleading. It’s akin to having a rental property that you fix up and lease out for a year with a single payment.

There could come a point where modern society is so degrading that sacrificing complex niceties becomes worth it to live off the grid.

Many are already there.

> The economic value from operating it will generally not match the opportunity cost of not doing other things.

Not everyone evaluates their life choices like an arid economist.

In particular, not everyone would regard leaving an outdoor lifestyle for sitting at a desk all day at someone's beck and call an "oppirtunity"

> And those operating it will learn the cost of this the hard way when they fail to have access to the niceties of modern society

Actually, in many places it is possible to operate a small farm without being destitute. The point is that all the "nicities" are particularly necessary, and outside of education and healthcare you can get by ok buying second hand and mending and making do.

Heck, even the homeless have mobile phones, so your example is pretty poor

Are there really that many innovations in how to harvest a wheat field?

Yes.

https://www.geoforce.com/how-can-gps-be-used-in-precision-fa... https://wheatfoundation.org/innovation-to-feed-the-future-a-... https://www.corteva.us/Resources/graininnovations/grain-inno...

And a whole lot more.

Didn't they just recently start desiccating with Glyphosate at the end of the growing cycle to speed their harvest up by two weeks and putting glyphosate into food a few days harvesting it (causing a higher concentration in food than previously)?

Recently like in the past 30 years or so? It has certainly been common practice for at least that long.

I have vague recollections of our farm still pulling whites in the early-to-mid 80s, so perhaps not that far back. But that may have simply been a product of our farm being hesitant to try new things, which wouldn't be out of the ordinary. Unfortunately, I was a bit too young at that time to understand the motivation.

My understanding is it's mostly a thing in the northern latitudes -- England and Canada, and some northern US states, especially North Dakota.

In eg Indiana and Iowa the growing season is long enough there's no need to desiccate -- the weather isn't going to turn before the crop has a chance to dry.

Desiccation may also be used to deal with uneven ripening. Edible beans in particular are notorious for that problem. Harvest is generally in late summer, so weather isn't typically a problem, but by the time the late bloom is ready to harvest the early bloom may have already spoiled.

Yep. For decades. Plus frequently _before_ planting, Glyphosate is used to clear weeds and volunteer cereals from the fields.

Then, e.g. during the cereal growing phase there are regular applications of fungicide, insecticide, growth regulators and so on.

Bottom líne, if you are not buying 100% organic this is the reality of your food chain.

(Full disclosure: I do not buy organic)

> From an economic standpoint, there is no sense in small scale farming.

I don't think this is true everywhere. It likely requires the right supply chain to work, but here in France small family farms are doing fine for instance. They have to go sell their products to local markets on top of growing them, but it's a sustainable business.

Without subsidies none of those would survive, especially the French ones, who are notorious for their 'traditional' (i.e., inefficient) farming practices.

I'm not sure US agro-business would survive at scale without the massive federal subsidies it receives. The little guys in the US don't get the benefit of the government money on anywhere near the scale of the big firms. Large agricultural corporations are among those lined up to grow from the Cantillion effect of being very close to the government money printer---and everyone who's further from that spigot gets squeezed as the purchasing power of the US dollar is destroyed.[1]

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SA0R

> notorious for their 'traditional' (i.e., inefficient) farming practices

Do you have sources?

I like gardening and have been a very small-scale gardener my whole life, but mostly flowers and a couple of tomato and bean plants. How much space would you need for a true subsistence garden? Like a family of 4, producing all your own produce (or you know the vast majority of it, excluding that which cannot grow in your conditions), plus giving a small percentage to friends and neighbors. A quick search does not seem to be super helpful.

Converting in US units, 10 to 12 acres should be enough? Maybe a bit more if you want well fed chickens (the trick is to let them go ham in your fields in between crops (my parents both farmed their peas this weekend and will probably plant salads behind next weekend, and in the meantime, the chickens enjoy the field). It's easier if you eat meat and know how to kill your chickens, as you can 'rotate' them out every 2-3 years, my mother's chickens have one egg a week max.

The 12 acres figure is with trees and berries, as well as some decorative plants.

Also people still steal chickens if its easy enough, so clip their wing and try to keep them on your property.

So about 4-5 ha?

We do not eat meat really. Maybe at a restaurant, or some fish at home, but not really otherwise.

I could handle raising some chickens for eggs or otherwise as pest control when they are infertile. I used to tend to the chickens on my grandma's farm throughout my childhood. How many chickens for 5 ha of gardens+trees+berries, do you think?

Depends on the chicken type. You ought to ask local farmers. My father have very aggressive black chickens, a rare breed named after a town 10 km north. 2 of them do the same damage as 6 factory chickens.

And it depends on your needs in eggs too. 3-4 chickens for a family of 4 is enough if you only eat eggs occasionally. My grandmother bought 12 chickens every two years for a family of 3.

Is that true?

Small farms benefit from greater attention and incentives of their owners.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com