Hacker News Reader

Comment by londons_explore | Hacker News Reader

Rice isn't a very profitable crop unless you either have super cheap labour (not in the UK) or massive fields and lots of automation.

The UK has small fields and complex land ownership arrangements which mean the 100,000 acre farms of the USA won't happen there.

Overall, I think that unless the UK wants to subsidize rice production or use big Japan-like rice import tariffs, the rice industry is dead-in-the-water.

Maybe there's a little market for restaurants and high value products which want to advertise 'under 100 food miles' or similar. But such things tend to be very economically inefficient, so the government would be wise to discourage such production.

View on HN

The UK is trying to reestablish tidal marshes to control storm surges which will only get worse with climate change.

I’m sure there are some scenarios where rice fields could be added as additional depth to this buffer, via farm subsidies. It doesn’t matter if it’s profitable, if it’s nearly profitable and it reduces damage from ten, twenty, or even fifty year storms. You can divert money from remediation into prevention.

Does this mean they have to expect sudden floods of salt water? Pokkali rice in Kerala is supposed to thrive in that.

Restoration wise, you’re going to want actual salt marshes on the coast. Up to the historical range of those biomes at least.

The USDA reworked their fallow fields program a couple decades ago to pay for fallow fields low in watersheds, to reduce erosion and eutrophication. My reasoning is that you could use rice paddies to similar effect. Because they serve as containment ponds.

So in this hypothetical you restore the coastline, then approach the farmers you didn’t displace about what to grow in their lowlands.

Why should the goverment discourage such production instead of leave people free to pursue it? Do you expect (high) social costs from a failure there?

Farming sector in the UK was heavily subsidised in the past, not sure of today or what if any support rice farmers might be able to get.

I agree it shouldn't be "discouraged" (as a private enterprise) but it seems reasonable to debate whether they should receive subsidies or grants etc.

EDIT: this looks more like research than production, so I think it makes sense for it to be supported by grants.

Farming sector as a whole is heavily subsidised in most of Europe, but that doesn't mean everything you do as a farmer (and every crop) is subsidised.

Eg potatoes grown for eating are almost completely unregulated and unsubsidised in the EU. Similar with grapes grown for eating. In comparison with potatoes grown for starch and wine grown for grapes. It's crazy.

To be fair, without subsidies only fools would grow wine for grapes! (Sorry, just my way of pointing out a minor typo. If you edit without replying to me I'll delete this.)

In general food production enjoys heavy government support...

... but then again, many industries do too. Libertarian tech bros think they are "self made" even in fact the government supported them with absolutely massive support, from government tech purchasing to supporting R&D and higher education to tax breaks to deregulation and more.

Rant off.

The fact that you wrote this in reply to me makes me think you missed the point of my comment, which didn't actually have anything to do with subsidies - I was just pointing out they "growing wine to make grapes" is the wrong way round ;)

Your average industry can't enjoy net subsidies: the money has to come from somewhere, so you have to tax at least as much as you subsidise. (Modulo shifting taxation around over time via debt.)

Though I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your comment? Just because someone is in favour of reducing subsidies, doesn't necessary mean they want to abolish the government?

Just like Bob being in favour of a weightloss diet for a morbidly obese Alice, friend doesn't mean Bob wants their normal sized friend Charlie to starve himself to death (nor does Bob want Alice to continue losing weight once she reached a healthy weight).

>>subsidize rice production or rice import tariffs

>Why should the goverment discourage

These are government measures to encourage rice production, not discourage it.

> But such things tend to be very economically inefficient, so the government would be wise to discourage such production.

Absurd comment. Governments should subsidise local food production to whatever extent necessary, especially when it's economically inefficient, because stable staple food supplies should not be external dependencies.

Rice isn't exactly a staple food in the UK.

And you can still have efficient food production in the UK, it's just that small artisanal "under 100 food-miles" farming is inefficient.

Unless there is direct food security issue, not sure why inefficiency as such would warrant government interference.

Have you been paying attention to the farming sector in the last 5yr?

There's plenty of problems reminiscent of the 30s after the whole chain has been kicked around due to labour from Brexit, supply due to Brexit, access to markets from Brexit and then the joy of dealing with the cv19 lockdowns.

The sector is still facing real financial problems and none of the last few governments have seen farmers as anything other than land owning cash cows.

But why would that lead to the government discouraging rice farming?

> not sure why inefficiency as such would warrant government interference

Agreed

Food security issues dont necessarily give you enough time to prepare.

> Rice isn't exactly a staple food in the UK.

Rice is now very much a staple food in the UK.

> And you can still have efficient food production in the UK, it's just that small artisanal "under 100 food-miles" farming is inefficient.

Economically inefficient, but diversity of local supply in a key factor in food security, and as a hopeless food insecure country, the UK should be diversifying as much as possible, especially to crops that will thrive in the coming climate.

> Rice is now very much a staple food in the UK.

I knew a Brit who described chicken tikka masala as the national dish of the UK.

What about Rice Krispies?

Staple foods tend to change with circumstances, they aren’t set in stone.

Lotta people who eat more rice than legacy Britons have moved there though.

I'm glad Singapore doesn't subscribe to this notion.

What are you talking about? The Singapore Food Agency was created primarily to increase domestic food production even though it is extremely economically inefficient singularly to try to improve food security, which is completely dependent on imports and the precarious freedom of navigation in the straits.

Sure, they might want to increase it a bit, but I don't think anyone sane is going for autarky in Singapore, ie 'stable staple food supplies should not be external dependencies.' Not even the Singapore Food Agency.

I think you made a flippant comment not realising how seriously a threat that food insecurity poses to Singaporean independence and now feel you can't back down, but you're just wrong on this one.

30X30 aims to supply 30% of nutritional needs by 2030 using only 1% of the land precisely to make progress towards 100% calorie self-sufficiency.

No they should really really be discussing things like this.

This is like trying to claim bioethanol is somehow carbon negative.

It's broken from a farming standpoint (and we're a nation starting to face issues with production. Notice how I say starting not we're starving there's several world's of different yet)

It's broken from an economic standpoint because you're going to try and take on the whole of Asia who could crush you in a single shipment.

It's broken from a mindset perspective. British wine may be one that grabs interest over here like British vodka. But people will not pay 10x or more for British rice. It will be seen as a stupid concept or idea.

It's broken because again... Who in Britain is clamouring for more rice options? This is a product type which is already over saturated at the normal supermarket, let alone the choices when you're willing to shop online.

If there's no discouragement to projects like this idiots will run the land into ruin, lose a lot of money. Drive away needed capital from farms looking to turn around their fortunes and damage the sector.

I'm not saying British farms are about to collapse and we're all about to starve here, but the sector is struggling.

> But people will not pay 10x or more for British rice.

Unless and until it's the only carbohydrate source available due to some global war or disaster. All countries should be aiming for domestic food security and diversity.

And fuel diversity. And manufacturing diversity. And mineral extraction diversity. And so on and on. But at which point this becomes ridiculous?

The UK Energy Security Plan does at least try to cover essential energy needs (food production, hospitals, defence, civil powers and authorities, etc) indefinitely from domestic supply.

The Defence Industrial Strategy does the same for essential manufacturing capabilities.

Raw material supply security is the purview of many government bodies, including MOD, BGS, and more.

> But at which point this becomes ridiculous?

Securing the food supply to your population, the absolute most basic of human needs along with the water and shelter, is the furthest thing from ridiculous.

> British

> domestic food security and diversity.

Aside from switzerland who else is so well placed for this in geographical Europe?

ITS AN ISLAND

Britain can't feed itself. Blockade is the greatest threat to Britain.

Most EU countries can feed feed themselves.

I've got a lovely bridge to sell you, only slightly used...

Please educate yourself because that statement is just factually incorrect. That's not a talking point, that's just wrong.

I am a former knowledgeable CBRN person and sat on advisory panels for my own countries energy, food, and medical security policies, so while certainly not a food security expert, I probably have more exposure than most to the food security challenges of island nations in the East Atlantic.

Great Britain, which excludes NI, has a roughly 60% calorie self-sufficiency ratio and quite literally cannot feed itself without imports.

Ireland and Northern Ireland can many times over, in principle even if spare parts and fuel were blockaded, although it would be an uninspiring diet.

I am certainly open to further education as this area interests me and my country is woefully unprepared for any interruption to global supply chains, especially in relation to fuel and medical supplies, so I continue to make policy submissions in this area.

No.

That's comparing production means today with an inflated population due to uncontrolled migration. (Main confronting factor to pop growth in last few years so can't be avoided as topic).

Comparing blockade numbers to peace time production is a false equivalency.

Am I saying there won't be unrest no, but you just started a scenario by blockading Britain. If you think we don't produce enough food, it's about the only thing we actual do produce here other than empty city promises and patents. The country would eat itself before the means of food production hits the top 5 of our problems if honestly bet.

The country has capacity to engage in intensive farming of several means which we currently do not because of animal rights concerns, lack of manpower etc. In a blockade scenario animal rights go out the window to a starving populace. Food waste is addressed in several means and we start engaging in battery farming and crop yields yes move to calorific content vs serving the Ritz their flav d'jour.

And let's not pretend NI is included under any sensible scenario other than the British military blockading and subsuming control of RoI. There's no scenario where a blockade of Britain as an island would leave us "struggling to feed NI with RoI being supported by the European block" as another absolutist.

> The country has capacity to engage in intensive farming of several means which we currently do not because of animal rights concerns, lack of manpower etc. In a blockade scenario animal rights go out the window to a starving populace. Food waste is addressed in several means and we start engaging in battery farming and crop yields yes move to calorific content vs serving the Ritz their flav d'jour.

Not to be rude, but your Government, MOD, and think-tanks disagree with you. The latent capacity of UK agriculture is estimated to be able to feed approximately 80-90% of the population, which for context is similar to the amount of food available (including external aid) in South Sudan now.

> And let's not pretend NI is included under any sensible scenario other than the British military blockading and subsuming control of RoI. There's no scenario where a blockade of Britain as an island would leave us "struggling to feed NI with RoI being supported by the European block" as another absolutist.

The UK does not have the ability to militarily conquer Ireland, let alone survive the consequences, so this is, well, delusional.

I honestly do not think you are well informed enough to form a valid opinion on this topic, which explains your reactive and emotion-driven comments

80%+ at peace time. I.e. not with mandated farming practices and not with a national focus as part of priority to fix this.

Unlike the Sudan we don't produce the remaining 15%+/-5 because we're a wealthy nation and can engage and have become semi-reliant a little on trade. And our tastes have changed as a result of the availability of luxury goods. This is wildly different to not having capacity or infrastructure which can be tweaked. (I'm not saying magically tonnes of milk and honey appear from nowhere) And this is ignoring the scary word of rationing.

Sudan either can't, won't or is constrained from producing the missing part of the food required to feed their people. But that's more linked to US foreign policy than this hypothetical discussion otherwise.

Edit in not even touching RoI vs UK army. I'm not pretending any show down would be bloodless, but the UK has a few plain numerical overwhelming superiorities. Again stating simple facts.

> 80%+ at peace time.

No, in any time, as is the definition of latent capacity.

> Edit in not even touching RoI vs UK army. I'm not pretending any show down would be bloodless, but the UK has a few plain numerical overwhelming superiorities. Again stating simple facts.

The Cold War British Armed Forces were unable to hold the farmland of Northern Ireland against 3,000 members of PIRA, let alone the current forces against the island now. Those are the facts in the history books.

You are delusional, living in a worldview that never matched reality and diverges more each day.

Latent capacity of system as it stands.

Changes mean things change!

It's wild that you got downvoted for this reasonable take.

Right next door, Ireland had a little problem with potatoes and a massive famine resulted from it. Had the island had a more diverse mix of crops, things probably would've been a little less severe.

There are currently pests and infections spreading around the world and destroying crops. Bananas are undergoing a repeat of their last global crop failure and isolated pockets of uninfected bananas are becoming more valuable. Natural rubber had a disease that wiped out most rubber trees. It's not impossible for wheat in Europe to be hit with a plague in the near future and absolutely wipe out crops and food sources for hundreds of millions. There's war in Eastern Europe that risks spreading, and if it does, embargoes are possible. Investing now in alternative local food sources is simply smart.

Profit now isn't everything. The problem that's gutting the west now is how countries shipped off every industry to other cheaper countries because it was "more profitable and nothing bad will happen." Now the youth are left with less than their parents had.

Plus the article addresses this being done as a climate change-proofing measure. With the UK getting hotter, rice grows better and better. Other crops may not.

> Right next door, Ireland had a little problem with potatoes

Common misconception: Ireland actually had a little problem with the British. Even during the most intense parts of the famine Ireland was still exporting food. The British absentee landowners simply did not care that their peasants were starving. The ruling party wanted to let the "free market" solve it, with some politicians considering it "divine providence" or a "lack of moral character". This was made even worse by refusing aid to small landowners, which killed sustenance farming.

People often forget that it was a European famine, rather than an Irish one. The Irish potato yield was reduced by 30%, while the potato yield in Denmark was reduced by 50%, The Netherlands by 71%, and Belgium by 87%! Tens of thousands died in those countries, but it is only Ireland where the population was reduced from 8 million to 4 million.

Monoculture (as decided upon by the absentee British landlords) was indeed the direct cause, but it only got as bad as it did because the British elite chose to let them die. Had they imported alternative crops to feed their peasants, or even just stopped potato export, it would've been far less severe.

Yes, the fact Britain was brutal to the Irish is no secret.

But had Ireland not had a monoculture that all rotted away, things would've been less severe. And what you've said only further proves the point I was making: you should grow other crops so that you're not dependent on imports. Britain wouldn't let the Irish import food. It's not impossible for a situation to arise where a country doesn't let Britain import food. Growing alternative grains is the British looking at their own brutal history and learning from it.

> But had Ireland not had a monoculture that all rotted away, things would've been less severe.

Ireland didn't have a monoculture. It exported other crops and meat throughout the famine and required calories never exceeded food production on the island.

The only monoculture was on tenant farmer's personal gardens, which were monocultures by necessity.

Should they incentivise rice, which doesn't grow great in the climate of economic environment of the UK, or wheat, which does?

Generally both, but rice will grow well, potentially better than wheat, in the coming climate.

Unless the North Atlantic current dies. Ooof.

If this is the case why is rice one of the 4 major crops of the world? (genuine questions)

Because Asia is full of cheap labor ?

Rice can give you very high yields per acre, even if the yield per man-hour isn't necessarily that high.

If your climate is suitable, you can have multiple rice crops per year on the same field. Eg 3 crops per year is common in Thailand.

Ah, I got the impression from the comment that it was not space efficient (massive fields).

It seems like smaller fully automated fields could also do?

Oh, the bigger fields still have very high yield per acre.

> It seems like smaller fully automated fields could also do?

In principle, yes, but your machines will probably be idle much of the time, if there's not enough land to keep them busy. So it's not worth it, unless the machines get really cheap.

The reason you see people planting rice seedlings in wet fields in movies and TV is that the rice being planted is already the second or third crop of the year. Someone somewhere sowed rice seed densely in a single plot, to use to replant several times as much acreage by transplanting.

They can also in some cases raise fish in the same terrace, and herbs or other crops on the walls between them.

Farmers of Forty Centuries is an out of copyright book from ~1903 that details the findings of a research group from IIRC England who wanted to understand how the Chinese have been farming the same fields for four millennia without exhausting them. They were doing three crops a year back 120 years ago. A lot of it is down to accumulating silt over time by irrigating with silty water, and dredging the irrigation canals every so often to start new fields with the take.

The rice attract bugs. The fish eat the bugs. The fish excrement fertilizes the rice.

Fish-rice farming is an excellent example of Harmony in design.

My African violets were always amazing when I still kept fish. Any time they were looking ragged, a cup of fish tank water would not only restore them but force a bloom within a handful of weeks.

> The rice attract bugs. The fish eat the bugs. The fish excrement fertilizes the rice.

How does this square with conservation of matter?

Venus fly traps work because insects have a larger range to forage and they bring protein to the plants in an environment where soil nitrogen is a challenge.

It also might depend on what they mean by yield. Rice has a high yield in terms of resulting food content/calories but rice is generally pretty cheap per kilogram. Other higher profit crops may result in a higher yield in terms of revenue but lower yield in terms of calories/nutrition.

"On a per acre basis, rice produces the most calories at 14 million per acre." [1]

[1] Which California Crop Yields the Most Calories?

https://agdatanews.substack.com/p/which-california-crop-yiel...

Between the rices paddies and the fish ponds you can co-locate in the rice paddies, is why India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan have almost 1.7 billion people.

Or shrimp (in Louisiana)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com