You're viewing a single thread.
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).
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.
This article about the study:
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.
And then the Actual Study HERE:
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.
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.
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.
You don't know why Industrialized farming is Industrialized? Are you for real, right now?
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.
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?
I have around 15 acres I work on. Mostly alone, with a tractor. I have let parts of it go wild.
I quit my day job, I have a sick father and brother to take care of.
Yes, farming is really hard work, and animals need attention all the time. My farm isn't making me any money, I get some subsidies though.
But my fruit trees are over an acre. I keep ducks, pigs and sheep. I have a woodlot. It all makes me happy, that's why I do it.
We still buy groceries, we could go 3 months without that. But I'm not a prepper.
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.
Absolute nonsense. Hyperbole is not helping your argument.
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.