[petewailes]

Rural person here. We've been having this argument in the UK for the last... Oh, 400 years at least. It basically boils down to, some muppet in Whitehall shouldn't be making laws about what to do with sheep/cattle/pasture/abattoirs/grain coatings...

There's a lot of truth in it. You think there's bad regulation in tech? It's nothing compared to regulation on farming and ag generally.

In terms of solutions, the only one I've ever seen proposed which I think could work would be to have governing bodies for rural areas (and this could apply more broadly to areas of society), where they are free to make laws as it pertains to the area of responsibility of the group, with a coordinating body overseeing the groups to design for efficiency and arbitrate where conflicts arise.

[cmrdporcupine]

Also a rural person living next to working farms, I'll just say this: Many things make more sense when you realize that farming is industry (and a workplace) and has to be managed by the state as an industry with similar regulatory, health & safety and environmental concerns.

The bucolic picture of farms as family homes combined with a flock of peaceful sheep, a family dog, and some silly chickens and a hard working sole proprietor is really hobby farming and a primarily aesthetic thing at this point.

The real world of the countryside is one of industrial extraction/production, but where somehow homes are mixed in. Not saying this is ideal, but a lot of the conflict that arises is around the disjoint nature of our traditional view of "the countryside" vs what it's actually "for" (industrial farming + future suburban development + mixed residential uses)

[engineer_22]

>The bucolic picture of farms as family homes combined with a flock of peaceful sheep, a family dog, and some silly chickens and a hard working sole proprietor is really hobby farming and a primarily aesthetic thing at this point.

I think the truth of your statement depends on local environment. In the area I grew up there are still small families running dairy operations. They have admitted it's getting harder to keep the farm competitive.

I agree farming has consolidated considerably since the mid 20th century. It's consolidation by design - the federal gov't has pursued policies to encourage consolidation. From a cost efficiency standpoint, it makes a lot of sense, but it has cost a lot of people their livelihoods.

The joke is, to make a million dollars in farming, start with two million.

[mistrial9]

> really hobby farming and a primarily aesthetic thing

no one can say that with certainty, you use the same rhetorical trick as people in politics when "progress is inevitable"

bad news for everyone -- the industrial world has spoiled the nest.

[giraffe_lady]

Believe it or not governments have a pretty strong interest in knowing this sort of thing so the data is certainly there!

It's been a while since I looked at it and it depends on what you consider a "small farm" to be. But when I last checked a few years ago, farms employing little or no outside laborers were a small minority. And more significantly here, those households were both above median household income and half or more of their income came from outside-the-farm sources.

You can twiddle with it if you want but to me that seems like a pretty reasonable definition of "hobby farming." Which is not a value judgement per se. Not being strictly dependent on farm income allows these farmers to pursue traditional or sustainability-focused practices that may not be economically viable otherwise.

But just be clear-eyed about it. The ideal of the small, self-sufficient, productive and profitable family farm is just that, an ideal and to a large extent a myth. In a very serious way it's not how things ever worked and, maybe unfortunately maybe not, it's not how they're going to now either.

[randomdata]

> The ideal of the small, self-sufficient, productive and profitable family farm is just that, an ideal and to a large extent a myth.

Depends on your debt load. My small farm is now sufficiently profitable with most of its debts paid off. If you are carrying massive debt like many farmers you need to grow bigger and bigger just to eke out a small margin as most of the potential profits are handed away to creditors.

It also depends on what you want. Often farmers purposefully drown themselves in debt in order to have amassed extensive wealth later in life. They could keep a tidy "mom and pop" business but want more. It's a question not unlike that faced in tech: Do you aim for nice little business that keeps you comfortable or try to blow up to be the next FAANG?

The profitable small farm is common enough, particular among the older generations who have their debts paid off, but, of course, those who remain small are much less visible. The casual onlooker only notices the big farmers with the big equipment, big buildings, and big acres. That no doubt skews perceptions.

[SlickNixon]

>The profitable small farm is common enough, particular among the older generations who have their debts paid off

The purchase of said farms and the paying off of said debts wouldn't happen to be enabled by a long career in tech by said older generations, would it?

[randomdata]

My farm has been enabled by tech. Certainly I see many doctors, lawyers, etc. down at the grain elevator playing the same game.

However, what I was referring to is that many older farmers just slogged through many years of making nothing until the debt was paid off. Not a whole lot different to what the indebted younger farmers are doing, as described in my previous comment, just that they're 40-50 years deep into the process and now sitting on that wealth.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

> seems like a pretty reasonable definition of "hobby farming.

No more than saying that a two-income household is "hobby working." The reality of a farmer needing multiple sources of income (including non-farm income) does not make it a hobby farm. A hobby farm is a very specific thing and includes the word "hobby" for a reason: the primary goal is not to generate income, like any other hobby.

[cmrdporcupine]

The thing is they've almost always been a small minority except for brief periods in history, and in certain places, that we tend to look at romantically. Looking back to Roman or Feudal estates, they were large operations run by dozen or hundreds of people. Yes, in Roman times there were smallholders, but they were never as efficient or large.

Farming is hard, low margin work.

[mistrial9]

this is not true - massive areas (larger than the mid-West of the USA) are being farmed that way right now.. South East Asia, midlands South America, large swaths in Africa, and large areas in modern India.. not counting whatever is happening in China territory..

[mistrial9]

> Believe it or not governments have a pretty strong interest in knowing this sort of thing so the data is certainly there!

professional researcher speaking -- your elementary-school approach is for someone else

> I last checked a few years ago, farms employing little or no outside laborers were a small minority.

news to no one

> You can twiddle with it if you want but to me that seems like a pretty reasonable definition of "hobby farming."

dismissal with faint praise, check

> The ideal of the small, self-sufficient, productive and profitable family farm is just that, an ideal and to a large extent a myth.

you now speak for all people in all ages, (edit) confident? If you want to show up as a voice of reason, you will need to show some better understanding of economic contexts over the last thousand years, not the latest NYTimes

[giraffe_lady]

Lotta shit talk but not a single refutation of any of these points. I said I'm not an expert and you said you are, care to show us?

[mistrial9]

among attorneys, this is a "burden of proof" moment. So now the burden of proof is on me, to show the history of farming economics. hmm

I will offer this -- economics as a science was invented to explain food trade, not the other way around! Food trade is the basis of empires, armies and abundance.. speaking of which.. while "family farming is a myth" the violence of armed warfare, its destruction and death, is not a "myth" .. maybe those humans who chose to wage war might have literally killed off the ones who attempted to wage "family farms"? History is written by the winners so, "family farms" are a myth while War gets daily headlines and new fresh billions in weapons and monetization ?

The burden of proof to refute that "family farming is a myth" in the face of daily war news in a place that is renown for fertile soils?

rural Mississippi might be part of this discussion, but so are the plains of Canada, and Argentina, and Eastern Europe. I have no chance of accurately describing histories in South East Asia, big parts of Africa or South Asian subcontinent.. but those people have "family farms" right now?

let's agree to set aside the personal indignations -- this topic is massive and I suggest, not at all solved.

[cmrdporcupine]

I never said I liked it. It's not a "rhetorical trick" because I'm not advocating anything. Just simply describing what is out there.

Myself, I am generally what you'd call anti-capitalist by convictions; but I've lived rural most of my life. And never in the actual "industry" that dominates the rural world, just... next to it.

[bombcar]

> In terms of solutions, the only one I've ever seen proposed which I think could work would be to have governing bodies for rural areas (and this could apply more broadly to areas of society), where they are free to make laws as it pertains to the area of responsibility of the group, with a coordinating body overseeing the groups to design for efficiency and arbitrate where conflicts arise.

This is basically subsidiarity which says to make decisions at the lowest possible level.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

[Neil44]

Without getting bogged down in specifics there's definitely a sense sometimes that laws and policies are set by people who rarely set foot outside London.

[walthamstow]

As an 'only-half-joking' London nationalist I feel compelled to tell you that London too is governed by voters in the rest of the UK who know nothing about the city, its economy or its people.

This isn't a disagreement, I'm just pointing out how great regionalism/federalism could be for the UK

[svieira]

You might like G. K. Chesterton's _The Napoleon of Notting Hill_ if you haven't already read it (neighborhood regionalism at its finest!)

[bowietrousers]

London gets its own way, with its own affairs, a lot - it already has a mayor, an elected assembly, and its own transport governance.

[walthamstow]

You listed offices, but not powers. Those bodies do not really have any substantial powers.

The GLA is not a legislative body at all.

The mayor is responsible for transport and, uhh, that's about it.

[uoaei]

This kind of pointedly naive questioning -- starting the conversation over at zero -- is an extremely unhelpful "discussion" (debate) tactic, and is really annoying to boot.

[walthamstow]

Fair enough. I've edited it.

p.s. FWIW I don't think you should be downvoted for this comment. You were right.

[tstrimple]

We have relatively few regulations on ag land usage so farmers saturate their fields with nitrates which inevitably run off into our water system to the point where there isn't a river in Iowa which isn't unsafe for swimming and drinking water becomes polluted.

https://apnews.com/article/politics-environment-iowa-des-moi...

Farmers don't care. They care about profits, not sustainability which is why they are fine letting the top soil just erode away. They know at some point they will be bailed out despite their complete irresponsibility in managing their resources.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-say...

Finally, there is some talk about gravel roads being the right choice for rural areas but that's not so clear cut. The cost for maintaining gravel roads is significantly higher than indicated and you often need more than just a grader and dump truck because these roads are prone to washing out which requires major repair. The initial cost of paved roads is higher up front, but the maintenance costs are lower over time. Gravel needs to be maintained yearly.

https://blog.midwestind.com/road-maintenance-costs-unpaved-v...

Rural residents rarely feel the actual cost of maintaining their lifestyle. Miles and miles of county roads servicing a handful of people a day. In Iowa roughly 40% of the population lives in rural areas and there are 98,000 miles of road to support them. While the other 60% of the population needs 17,000 miles of road to support their daily activities and that's putting all highways on the city side of the budget. Rural residents love to talk about how much cheaper their lifestyle is, but they are being heavily subsidized by people who live in the suburbs and urban areas while pretending to be "fiercely independent" and "self sufficient".

[LatteLazy]

I won't defend the mess of current rules. But let's not pretend here either: the reason agriculture has to be run more centrally is because farmers are actually amazingly bad at farming. There are entire offices filled with people who's job is to try and convince farmers to do things that work. From new crops to new technology to when to plant to climate change, farmers just refuse to budge. One of the longest UK radio programs is dedicated to getting farmers to farm better. We have a special program that pays farmers to retire, because it's cheaper than dealing with how bad they are at their jobs (imagine that in any other sector...).

That's the issue here.

We could solve it the way you say, but then we'd need an actual market, and when supplies ran low to import and to accept many farmers going bankrupt and their land being sold off to farmers who do do it right. That's been politically verboten for at least 50 years.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

This feels akin to architects armed with diagrams telling the developers who have been working on the system for 5+ years why they're wrong.

Maybe it's true, but how likely is it?

It's more likely the farmers have concerns that are not being addressed. I can easily see "You should do this because it will make more crops and we don't care about your increased financial burden from it".

[dredmorbius]

Agricultural decisionmaking is ... distributed weirdly in many contexts.

First, in many cases, the local operators (who are often not owners) are not especially autonomous, and may be acting on behalf of corporate concerns or decisions made far away, not infrequently in entirely different countries. To that extent, governmental regulation is a countervailing force to corporate power.

Secondly, ag, food production generally (e.g., fishing and grazing), and forestry are classic cases of the somewhat maligned "tragedy of the commons" situation. Localised decisionmaking absolutely can and has resulted in long-term and permanent degradation of ecosystems and populations. This includes the deforestation of the Mediterranean basin as well as much of Europe, old-growth forests within the US, much of the Amazon jungle, and tropical woodlands throughout the world. (That some of this has occurred due to or subject to government planning doesn't negate the fact that much of the interest is corporate and commercial.) Even local small-scale decisionmaking can be exceptionally detrimental. Collapses of fisheries such as sardines off Monterey, California, cod off the Grand Banks, and elsewhere, commercial whaling, overgrazing throughout much of the world, and decimation of wild animal populations including the North American bison and passenger pigeon.

Third, ag production is governed by a huge array of factors ranging from local soil quality and conservation (see the recent HN article on topsoil loss within the American Midwest), seasonal weather forecasts, and international trade policies, tarrifs, credits, and the like.

In all, there are strong arguments against strictly local decisionmaking, no matter how unpopular that fact may be locally.

In practice within the US, the Department of Agriculture is among the most distributed federal departments, with both a strong presence in the District of Columbia and numerous field, research, and teaching operations throughout the country. "Distant federal oversight" is a poor description of the actual situation.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

I was just pointing out that it's not likely the people doing the actual work don't understand the actual work.

What you're describing is different priorities, which I completely understand. But if those changes are forcing farmers to take on more of a financial responsibility (as an example), then maybe the ones making those decisions should be more willing to consider that in their decision making.

It's not a matter of these farmers not understand, but that they don't agree.

It's like security people telling developers they're not allowed to execute powershell scripts on their local machine. It's easy for them to make that decision because they don't deal with the pain of it.

[dredmorbius]

And I'm arguing that government ag and resource departments are not as ignorant as you seem to believe.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

I was responding to a poster, I made no mention of the ignorance (or lack thereof) for ag departments.

> the reason agriculture has to be run more centrally is because farmers are actually amazingly bad at farming. There are entire offices filled with people who's job is to try and convince farmers to do things that work. From new crops to new technology to when to plant to climate change, farmers just refuse to budge.

[LatteLazy]

The question in this case is who is right? If the science is in, and you'll get a better crop/profit/outcome by doing X, it doesn't matter that your grandfathers grandfather has been doing it a different way since 1066. And that's basically what this comes down to.

If farming were a market and farmers were self reliant like other businesses it would be none of my business how they ran things (within the usual bounds of not eating babies etc). But it's not, farmers get the majority of their income from government subsidies. So they're free to fuck up actually farming because they get those either way. In that environment, you need someone to actually be responsible for output who is motivated to care.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

> The question in this case is who is right? If the science is in, and you'll get a better crop/profit/outcome by doing X, it doesn't matter that your grandfathers grandfather has been doing it a different way since 1066. And that's basically what this comes down to.

absolutely not what I said, if you want me to engage you seriously please read back over and avoid the strawman.

[LatteLazy]

To be clear, I am not straw manning your argument here. I am just asking: who is the expert?

You have assumed it's the farmer. But he just inherited (or rents) some land. And since the majority of his income comes from subsidies, there is no reason to assume he is competent.

On the other hand you have actual experts with real field trial results.

That's my point here.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

I get to decide if you're straw manning my point (you are).

These subsidies were created to affect the behavior of farmers and now there's bitching that farmers want to keep the behavior that most benefits them and people are doing it by trying to argue these farmers are just bad for doing exactly what people initially wanted them to do.

If you think farmers are using the same techniques they were back in 1066 then perhaps you're strawmanning more than just me.

[Floegipoky]

> farmers are actually amazingly bad at farming

Remember that each farm is a complex system, often managed over multiple human lifetimes. Consider that farmers may have management goals beyond producing the optimal-on-paper calories/hectare this year, or whatever other arbitrary definition of "good" is chosen.