Wow I was so excited to try this out until I saw the absurd level of permissions you require
I immediately lost interest
I find it very disconcerting that you have no response to other comments asking what your board game app could possibly need to use my fingerprints and other biometrics for
Some stuff you can def grow yourself easily and not have to buy at the store. I don’t have to buy tomato’s all summer just from a few plants. Never buy herbs. But yeah sustenance farming I am not. Support local farmers!
That’s cool, I wanted to point out that saying cheap and then a price point without reference isn’t really helpful because price varies so much.
Also, 270 per week per person!?!? What the fuck, that can’t be true, that’s more than what I extrapolated it would cost me in the European expensive countries when I visited and went to random grocery stores. As always, the american dream seems to be a scam fetish xD.
I spend 1/3rd of that on all of my groceries combined per month. If I was spending that much per week I would be over 1000$ in debt after a single month. Is the average person really that rich? And what food are they buying that they need to spend that much?
This is baffling to me as a poor person.
I’m thinking that price is per household not person. I hope that’s the case. But I’m seriously impressed that you can swing $90/mo for food. That’s amazing.
I live in a quite expensive Spanish area and we usually spend 50ish for 2 people’s worth of food. We do go out or order food on the weekend sometimes but being vegetarian we don’t spend more than 15€ on produce a week at most so 40 a week sounds a lot.
American grocery store produce is really expensive now. $40 for a week of veggies would be a good deal in my area. Plus you’re supporting local agriculture.
It’s not you who said I should assume, it was them who didn’t specify, implying we should asume, sorry if I made you think otherwise. Canadians and Australians afaik aso use dollars, just not USD.
In any case, this was quite the small complaint I had, so I’ll just drop it haha. Have a great day.
You mean, compared to what goes to the market for people?
I don’t eat much of not industrial agriculture products, even local farms only produce fruits, and I would say they are also industrial (not sure where is the line)
More than three-quarters of global agricultural land is used for livestock, despite meat and dairy making up a much smaller share of the world’s protein and calories. […] However, only half of the world’s croplands are used to grow crops that are consumed by humans directly. We use a lot of land to grow crops for biofuels and other industrial products, and an even bigger share is used to feed livestock.
I see, 25% is still not too little, I expected this to be less than 10% based on how you phrased the first comment. But you’re right, it’s possible to greatly reduce strain on land
As per the article two thirds of that 'agricultural land' is graze-lands, so like a 12.5% of that agricultural land is actually farmland dedicated to feed livestock.
Not only that. But our agriculture is so centered around animals that we also have a huge surplus of manure (the animals’ feces, horn shavings, basically anything left of them) that we then use on all kinds of plant crops. It is so baked into the system that it will be a long way before we can really get a animal-free agriculture…
This is certainly true for our modern agriculture today. But is this really true for any possible industrial agriculture? Couldn’t we also have a plant based industrial agriculture leaving domesticated animals out of the equation altogether? Sure, we are a far way off from that. But I think it would be achievable and that we should aim for it.
Fun fact: IDK about like a backyard vegetable garden, but small family-sized farms are actually more productive per unit of land than big industrial agriculture.
The farming conglomerates like to enforce big farming operations because they make things easier for the managerial class, and let them be in charge of everything. But if your goal is just to produce food and have the farmers make a living, small farms are actually better even economically (and not just for like 10 other reasons).
Aragón conducted a study on farm productivity of more than 4,000 farming households in Uganda over a five-year period. The study considered farm productivity based on land, labour and tools as well as yields per unit area of cultivated land. His findings suggested that even though yields were higher for smaller farms, farm productivity was actually higher for larger farms. Similar research in Peru, Tanzania and Bangladesh supported these findings.
What explains these divergent findings? Answering this question is important given its consequential policy implications. If small farms are indeed more productive, then policies that encourage small landholdings (such as land redistribution) could increase aggregate productivity (see the discussion in Collier and Dercon, 2014).
We argue that these divergent results reflect the limitation of using yields as a measure of productivity. Our contribution is to show that, in many empirical applications, yields are not informative of the size-productivity relationship, and can lead to qualitatively different insights. Our findings cast doubts on the interpretation of the inverse yield-size relationship as evidence that small farms are more productive, and stress the need to revisit the existing empirical evidence.
Meaning the author is advocating for more scrutiny against the claim and against land redistribution as a policy stance with the intention of increasing productivity.
First, farmers have small scale operations (the average cultivated area is 2.3 hectares).
The definition of “small family farms” in this case is on average more than 5 acres, which would absolutely be under the umbrella of subsidized industrial agriculture in developed nations.
Yeah, that's why I included "per unit of land." It is in practice a little more complex, and a lot of times the smaller farms are more labor-intensive.
My opinion is that modern farming is efficient enough that we can very obviously sustain the farmer, and sell the food at a reasonable price, and it all works -- the only reason this is even complicated at all and we have to talk about optimizing for labor (certainly in 1st-world farms) is that we're trying to support a bloodsucking managerial class that demands six-figure salaries for doing fuck-all, and subsistence wages for the farmers and less than that for farmworkers, and stockholder dividends, and people making fortunes from international trade; and if we just fixed all that bullshit then the issue would be land productivity and everything would be fine.
But yes, in terms of labor productivity it's a little more complex, and none of the above system I listed is likely to change anytime soon, so that's fair.
My god it’s like they’re deliberately trying to make their paper unintelligible to other humans. If I am reading this paper correctly, it is in line with other research on the topic, by indicating that smaller farms tend to have higher yields due to greater labor inputs. While I’m sure an economist would think this puts the issue to rest, being able to feed more people on a smaller land area might still be beneficial even if it requires more labor. Economists often assume that the economy represents the ideal allocation of resources, but I reject this assumption.
By the way, 5 acres is minuscule compared to conventional agriculture, at least in the US. So these aren’t backyard gardens but they are likely quite different from agribusiness as well.
If you think 5 acres on average isn’t subsidized or industrialized then I challenge you to try it out of your own pocket: fertilize with shovels, till with a hoe, water and pest control without anything but hand pumps or windmills, reap the harvest with a scythe.
We do all by hand on a 1/2 acre of mixed veg. We feed our family of five and sell our extras. All the work is done by two adults. 5 acres would be insane and we are hard workers. I can’t imagine that size without a tractor.
Wait, 5 acres wouldn’t be all vegetables! Fruit trees, grains, grassland all spread in time so you can work on them when your vegetables don’t need attention.
Two people. No mechanical equipment. Even with using animals in order to maintain all that space. Then add harvesting and threshing grains by hand along with those animals. Good luck. Our entire working space is an acre with fruit and nut trees and chickens for meat and eggs. The workload is immense and if our lifestyle was similar to most (day jobs) there is no earthly way we could manage what we have let alone 5 acres. We have been doing this for decades and have systems in place to help us as much as possible and it just would not be physically possible. Just garden prep for us alone takes months at a half acre and simple maintenance and picking is a daily chore all season long. We start planting in February and grow until Oct/Nov. We don’t vacation in those months at all and we have seasonal jobs so we can put as much time as possible into food. Oh and we don’t get paid to grow food because we consume the vast majority of it ourselves so we need those real jobs too. Where are you finding all the time and money?
We live like this because this is how we live. We don’t use mechanized equipment by choice. We farm it so we don’t have to work as well. We do work but not like others. Seasonally mostly or odd jobs and only if we have to. We do the rest because it’s just normal life for us.
We have 250 acres total. A large portion is woodlot. Animals are all small because about 6-7 years ago I had cancer that paralyzed me for a while. Kinda messed me up. I just grow food now. Anyone seeing our income would consider us extremely poor. We aren’t really, we just spend our money differently than most. Our house and land are paid for as is our vehicle. We aren’t preppers this is just how we live.
I still disagree that 5 acres is possible without machinery in this day and age. We spend a literal month broadforking alone to get mixed veg in our garden and greenhouse for a family of five with a very small amount for sale. Adding grains and large animals would not be physically possible without mechanical equipment of some kind even if I was a whole person.
I don’t know why you’re assuming small farms need to be worked with medieval technology—that’s not what I’m saying at all. What I am saying is that 5 acre farms are far smaller than typical for modern agribusiness, and the differences in management are enormous. And I’ve actually worked on a farm that was 8 acres and we did much (though not all) of the labor by hand.
The average US farm is just under 500 acres. It’s totally different to grow food on that scale.
I have no idea how this comment relates to what I was saying or what you are trying to communicate. I believe I do understand why industrialized farming is industrialized. Do you?
Industrialized farming is industrialized by definition as it involves the use of Machinery and Automation such as large vehicles. I’m sitting here in awe and disbelief at how stupid a person could be as to lecture others on this topic while not knowing why “[I’m] assuming small farms need to be worked with medieval technology” to be considered outside of the scope of Industrialized.
Every single comment you’ve made here has shown such a profound misunderstanding of what we’re discussing that it’s difficult to even understand where your thinking went wrong. While I probably could educate you, I lack the patience to deal with your consistently insulting and arrogant attitude. Please just read this conversation again and think twice before chiming in when you have such a poor level of understanding. You are likely to gain more from online interactions with a minimal level of politeness and humility.
Also, you can’t just look at the amount of food produced, but the amount produced vs waste, storage and transportation costs. Most things in the garden can stay ripe on the plant for a while and can be picked as needed.
Anecdotally, we were supplying about 80% of our fruit and veg needs on our own garden plot on our standard city residential lot with a family of 7. And we were literally giving tomatoes, citrus and zucchini away as fast as we could.
Have you tasted store bought vegetables? Farmers market may be grown, may be store bought. I have 2 4x2ft planters full of veggies, out $200 this year setting it up. Next year just the price of seeds.
Seeds and amendments. You gotta add more nutrients to the soil or else your yields will start to suffer. Although, there’s a lot of permaculture ways to add nutrients for free.
Unless you live somewhere with 0 soil quality or literally never do any work to fertilize it’s not that much extra cost to fertilize and keep soil doing well
Run a compost heap and you’re practically going to supply yourself with everything needed for free if you can scale it enough (which is like, 2 2x4 beds and remembering to dump organic food remnants too)
Oh for sure. You don’t need much. I just recently watched a cool video about tossing all your weeds in a couple of small water barrels to make liquid fertilizer. It doesn’t take a lot.
We grow the vast majority of our own veggies, eggs and chicken. Our kids hate store bought food, it’s even hard to go to restaurants. We sell a little bit from an on site farm stand to help pay for supplies mostly. Our seeds were $600 this year though. It’s a rather large and diverse garden.
Although I have certainly mentioned that 40+ acres are required to sustain a family agriculturally I believe that it is still worth it to grow food and herb and spices where one can. Just don’t expect it to change the direction of inflation.
That is true. But the cost of getting quality garden beds together from the soil without yard-fill toxic contaminants, the wood or metal for the beds, and the produce starts and seeds, the water, and the labor can make it a loss financially. That said it is a great hobby and does yield very satisfying results.
Yeah, with sufficient unthoughtfulness, refusing to do research, and with poor enough planning, you can fuck up literally anything? I’m not sure what your point is. I didn’t say it was suitable for everybody, or that it magically cannot fail, or that it will always be worth it in all circumstances (if your soil’s contaminated, yes, you will want to be careful about how you garden and your costs will likely be higher), or that gardening, unlike anything else, is a good fit for everybody’s brain and that every single person can do it effectively.
I just think it’s kinda dumb to go after home gardening as somehow not useful or valuable just because it’s not a complete, viable replacement for industrial agriculture. It’s a completely stupid false dichotomy.
Basically you need to think about how to do it cost-effectively and sanely. Just like anything else you do (you do think about that, right?)
You know you don’t need “beds” made of wood and metal to grow plants, right? You’d be shocked to know that most plants just grow right in the ground. Raised beds offer some benefits for sure, but are completely unnecessary for most home gardens.
The quality and variety of what produce you can eat will be much higher, though. There's a lot of cultivars that don't make financial sense at scale but are wonderful to eat.
If my home was on several acres of fertile land and I had modern machinery to cultivate it, I could reach pretty good production levels. But then I’d have way too much that would simply go to waste. If I had a small garden just big enough to sustain my needs, I would have no waste and not need as much land or resources to cultivate it.
lemmy.today
Oldest