[tw3464575686]

Not really. Small-scale sustainable farms produce more food per hectare than industrial farming. However, they are usually less profitable, since they need more manpower per hectare. Efficiency in terms of money earned is not the same as efficiency in terms of food produced, and with a growing population and a diminishing area of arable land, one seems more critical than the other, especially when you consider that industrial farming tends to destroy topsoil and emits quite a bit of CO2, whereas small-scale sustainable farming usually does the opposite.

[jahnu]

> Small-scale sustainable farms produce more food per hectare than industrial farming.

I thought that was only true in poor and developing countries but that large industrial farms in highly developed nations produced way more than everybody else. Have you a source you could share as this is a very interesting point?

[goda90]

Gabe Brown claims he can get more calories per acre than monoculture farms[0]. He also claims that it's more thought, but not much more physical work overall. His profits probably depend somewhat on premium pricing that wouldn't hold up if everyone followed his model, but a shift in subsidies could help that.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk

[tw3464575686]

Yes, i found several people making that claim (or similar). Couldn't find any hard data to back it up, though (although i didn't search too hard since i'm at work :P)

[tw3464575686]

Ha, no, you're right. Don't remember were i first heard it, but looking for the sources now, it seems that small farms are more productive in poor countries, but less productive than industrial farms in developed nations. However, the source i found for that [0] doesn't mention what techniques are used, and seems to only focus on size. So now i'm curious if there is reliable data looking at differences in yield between farming techniques? (e.g. industrial/chemical vs organic vs permaculture)

[0] https://grist.org/food/do-industrial-agricultural-methods-ac...

[jahnu]

Good article, that.