An important point that’s missed in this is that these small farms are a vital part of the US’ food security. So regardless of what an analogous business in another sector may choose to do, we really want small farms to be sustainable all over the country.

▲

Terr_ a day ago | parent | next [-]

> these small farms are a vital part of the US’ food security

Hmm, that's only true if the kinds of crops those small farms are regularly growing are the kinds we'd want to have already in the ground as an unexpected "food security" crisis occurs. In other words, durable staples with long shelf-lives, as opposed to cash-crops for export, quick-spoiling luxuries, etc.

Are there any stats that might confirm/disprove that? Because if most those small farms are geared to pistachios or asparagus or hemp, then they aren't really serving as a national safety net.

▲

runako a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If they are so important to US food security, why do they care what happens in China?

This is sort of a tricky way of pointing out that they largely do not grow food for the US.

▲

throwawaysleep a day ago | parent | prev [-]

What is the basis for the idea that small farms are vital for food security? Farms, sure. Small farms? We need low-productivity small farms for food security?

▲

jay_kyburz a day ago | parent | next [-]

I'm no expert in the field, but if asked, I would prefer thousands of small farms protecting our food security rather than a handful of companies too big to fail.

When you have more diversity, I imagine you would get more resilience, more competition, and market forces work properly.

(pun intended)

▲

sagarm a day ago | parent | next [-]

I don't get the small businesses fetishism. Large companies are efficient, resilient, more likely to follow the letter of the law, and more scalably prosecutable if they don't.

	▲	Starman_Jones a day ago \| parent [-]
		The US is currently experiencing a fairly extreme security threat across multiple industries due dependency on a single provider. Boeing and Intel jump to mind, for example.

▲

Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If that's your answer then you're vastly underestimating how much farmland there is. We have 1.6 million small farms, averaging a couple hundred acres. Large farms usually have a couple thousand acres.

If every farm in the US was around 3000 acres, we would still have a quarter million farms. Even 100k acre mega farms would leave us with 8000+ farms.

▲

jay_kyburz a day ago | parent [-]

"“Seed, chemicals or fertilizer, it’s all in the hands of a few companies that are the only game in town."... "“They all tell me they’re aware of a monopoly problem, and they don’t deny it exists. But they do nothing."

sorry, when I said "thousands of small farms" I meant thousands of small companies producing Seed, Chemicals and Fertilizer.. as well as actually growing plants and animals.

	▲	pfdietz a day ago \| parent [-]
		So if that's the actual problem, what's the motivation for preserving small farms? Those small farms are still being supplied by those large suppliers.

▲

XorNot a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Small farms are inefficient though. Farming needs a diverse range of skilled labor but infrequently: the industry as a whole trends towards larger land holders being serviced by specialist labor forces which work seasonally or regionally.

And then within that bucket, it's fairly obvious that larger holders are going to be much more resilient to regional problems if they have diversified land holdings where one area can support a downturn in another.

This is all Renaissance era knowledge.

▲

jay_kyburz a day ago | parent [-]

Inefficient from an economic perspective may not be what we need as a society.

Perhaps we need more farmers living the the county, spending money in small county towns, with more work for people with those special labor skills. Get people out of the city and more people into primary industries.

▲

XorNot a day ago | parent [-]

No straight up inefficient. They produce less. More land is occupied for non productive buildings. Heavy equipment cannot be used at scale. Farms which go bankrupt and fall into disrepair don't produce, and the fields degrade.

They straight up make less food.

▲

jay_kyburz a day ago | parent [-]

According to food bank Australia, we make 3 times the amount of food we need, and 70% of the food that is wasted is perfectly edible.

Update: I also recognize that nobody wants to pay three times the price for all their groceries. I'm not advocating anything, just shooting the shit.

	▲	pfdietz a day ago \| parent [-]
		The only way what you wrote could make sense would be if it's referring to crops grown for animal feed, and comparing that to if the crops were directly consumed by people. So, the claim is thinly veiled propaganda for vegetarianism.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]