8 ms·

I cannot wait for the day that the US seriously revisits the farming subsidies and agricultural practices we've adopted. Everytime I read about modern, large sc

by brd 8y ago

I cannot wait for the day that the US seriously revisits the farming subsidies and agricultural practices we've adopted. Everytime I read about modern, large scale farming I'm a little more disturbed by the norms we're establishing. Surely there are better, healthier ways to grow food that are still economically viable. I say the US specifically because unfortunately we seem to be the origin for almost all of the modern, disturbing practices that have become ubiquitous. We've been setting the standard and hopefully we'll make a 180 and start raising the bar.

fzeroracer 8y ago
Unfortunately I think this will only arise if/when we have a major crisis that results in a large amount of Americans being poisoned. We're really, really bad at preventative measures instead opting for short term profit over long term stability and health. The amount that farms end up poisoning local rivers, streams etc I thought would be enough of a wake up call but I guess I was too optimistic. Organic foods aren't the answer either sadly, since a lot of the time that's the result from unfounded fears.
- brd 8y ago
  I'm hoping for a single solid study establishing either A) alternative farming practices that are reasonably efficient and profitable to highlight a way for smaller scale farmers to thrive. B) the negative health effects of some of these choices in our food supply that causes people to actually get up in arms about it and force some regulation with real teeth. I can only hope you're wrong and that we don't hit a point of mass poisonings before we do anything but I can very easily see that coming to fruition.
  - artificialLimbs 8y ago
    Regarding A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GMXqgQIU9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GMXqgQIU9c
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  One cynical/cute view is that farming subsidies will start disappearing when Iowa is no longer the first primary state.
  - briandear 8y ago
    However that theory was challenged when Ted Cruz opposes ethanol subsidies and still won the state. The problem is that most politicians aren’t as courageous to fight for what is right (in their view) as opposed to what they think Iowa voters want. But you are correct: Iowa’s status as the first caucus state has a lot to do with the state of farm policy.
- stefs 8y ago
  the question is, though, whether the slow mass poisoning isn't already happening since a couple of years and the symptoms are just misattributed to other factors?
  - wnoise 8y ago
    The rapid rise of self-diagnosed "gluten intolerance" for instance.
- cmrdporcupine 8y ago
  The poisoning is happening. It's just not yet happening to humans, it's happening to our rivers and streams and oceans that are receiving all the phosphorous runoff, and to the wild herbaceous plants that are caught in the drift of dicamba, glyphosate or 2-4,d. (p.s. I live rural, have a hobby orchard/vineyard, and live next to two cash crop farms)
  - artificialLimbs 8y ago
    > It's just not yet happening to humans. It isn't? https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05852 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05852
    - bsbsbsbs 8y ago
      Not according to the abstract in your link. "In none of the investigated samples were glyphosate residues above the limit of detection found."
      - artificialLimbs 8y ago
        Nickname checks out.
- nradov 8y ago
  I don't know what you would consider a "large amount", but 32 people were recently poisoned by what authorities suspect was contaminated lettuce. https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2018/o157h7-11-18/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2018/o157h7-11-18/index.html
mitchty 8y ago
> I cannot wait for the day that the US seriously revisits the farming subsidies and agricultural practices we've adopted. As someone that grew up on a farm, can you explain why? And also explain why the practices, aka fallow fields, are incorrect? A lot of the subidies and practices we have in place today are direct results of things like the dust bowl. > Surely there are better, healthier ways to grow food that are still economically viable. Have you validated such assumptions? I can guarantee that large scale farming is a lot more nuanced than one can assume in an arm chair style. Until you've seen what pests can do to a field that hasn't been treated with fertilizer or say herbicide, its really hard to understand why they get used. It is the difference between having a crop to sell, and going out of business and selling off your farm. This black and white thinking that comes from people that haven't any experience in the chosen field is honestly more annoying. Should we improve? Sure, no farmer would disagree, but would you be ok with increasing your food costs by 5x? 10x? even more? These are the things you ultimately have to consider when you knock modern practices. There is no free lunch (pun intended) if you ban modern practices. There is a good chance that requiring the things you want makes large scale farming impossible, and results in more people without food at all. I'm not sure that is an overall net positive.
- ip26 8y ago
  Monocropping field corn to feed cattle has always stood out to me as a big one. Monocrops are inherently vulnerable, beef is a luxury good not a necessity, and the total input for a pound of beef is extremely high compared to most other food items. I haven't personally done the math, but I understand beef production enjoys significant subsidies at multiple steps. Another topic, a common desire among ecologists is to incentivize more natural habitat at the margins to support native plants, insects, and birds. It's fairly simple, easy to measure the cost & implementation, and the goal would be it would ultimately be better for everyone, with healthy predator populations and so forth.
  - tyu1000 8y ago
    Ranching is way better for natural habitat than cropping. Cattle in the North American prairies graze on native grasses where on cultivated land (in Saskatchewan, for peas, wheat and canola) all native grasses are ripped up for crop and riparian and wetland areas are destroyed to increase acreage.
randomdata 8y ago
> I cannot wait for the day that the US seriously revisits the farming subsidies Like the 2014 Farm Bill? I farm outside of the US, but from an outsider’s perspective that seemed like a huge change.
AngryData 8y ago
I think subsidies are a good thing, however our current application of them is definitely backwards. Corn is one of the worst crops to subsidize, the whole reason we grow corn is because how absolutely robust and resilient it is as staple crop. However the trade off for being such a strong crop is poor input-output efficiency. I think subsidies need to be applied to more vulnerable crops, some should go to staple crops other than corn, but I think the larger portion of it should go to fruit and vegetable production. I would also like to see some of it given to more sustainable farming practices, with an emphasis in reducing artificial irrigation, reducing artificial fertilizer usage, and maintaining or increasing topsoil depth and soil health, although I have no idea how to properly implement those practice.
- bluGill 8y ago
  When you grow a crop that takes nutrients out of the soil they must be replaced. When you eat the crop in the same location (substance farming) there isn't a problem as your excrement is fertilizer. When you live in the city that doesn't happen - nobody transports sewage back to the fields. It isn't necessarily a good idea to try: the energy to transport sewage back to the fields needs to come from somewhere; sewage needs to not have harmful chemicals/heavy metals from other processes mixed in.
thecopy 8y ago
I have read somewhere, and i agree with the argument, that the subsidies given to farming in the US is partly in place in order to secure food in case of imported foods not being an option due to sanctions, war or any other reason. So as long as the farms in the US fulfills this criteria there is no urgent reason for the government to restructure the subsidy criteria, incentives and payouts.
hyperbovine 8y ago
That will never happen unless people start voting with their feet. Look into CSAs in your area. The guy that runs mine is fanatical about using traditional practices—“just compost and hard work”. It’s incredibly satisfying.

by brd 8y ago

fzeroracer 8y ago

Unfortunately I think this will only arise if/when we have a major crisis that results in a large amount of Americans being poisoned. We're really, really bad at preventative measures instead opting for short term profit over long term stability and health. The amount that farms end up poisoning local rivers, streams etc I thought would be enough of a wake up call but I guess I was too optimistic. Organic foods aren't the answer either sadly, since a lot of the time that's the result from unfounded fears.

brd 8y ago
I'm hoping for a single solid study establishing either A) alternative farming practices that are reasonably efficient and profitable to highlight a way for smaller scale farmers to thrive. B) the negative health effects of some of these choices in our food supply that causes people to actually get up in arms about it and force some regulation with real teeth. I can only hope you're wrong and that we don't hit a point of mass poisonings before we do anything but I can very easily see that coming to fruition.
- artificialLimbs 8y ago
  Regarding A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GMXqgQIU9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GMXqgQIU9c
BurningFrog 8y ago
One cynical/cute view is that farming subsidies will start disappearing when Iowa is no longer the first primary state.
- briandear 8y ago
  However that theory was challenged when Ted Cruz opposes ethanol subsidies and still won the state. The problem is that most politicians aren’t as courageous to fight for what is right (in their view) as opposed to what they think Iowa voters want. But you are correct: Iowa’s status as the first caucus state has a lot to do with the state of farm policy.
stefs 8y ago
the question is, though, whether the slow mass poisoning isn't already happening since a couple of years and the symptoms are just misattributed to other factors?
- wnoise 8y ago
  The rapid rise of self-diagnosed "gluten intolerance" for instance.
cmrdporcupine 8y ago
The poisoning is happening. It's just not yet happening to humans, it's happening to our rivers and streams and oceans that are receiving all the phosphorous runoff, and to the wild herbaceous plants that are caught in the drift of dicamba, glyphosate or 2-4,d. (p.s. I live rural, have a hobby orchard/vineyard, and live next to two cash crop farms)
- artificialLimbs 8y ago
  > It's just not yet happening to humans. It isn't? https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05852 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05852
  - bsbsbsbs 8y ago
    Not according to the abstract in your link. "In none of the investigated samples were glyphosate residues above the limit of detection found."
    - artificialLimbs 8y ago
      Nickname checks out.
nradov 8y ago
I don't know what you would consider a "large amount", but 32 people were recently poisoned by what authorities suspect was contaminated lettuce. https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2018/o157h7-11-18/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2018/o157h7-11-18/index.html

mitchty 8y ago

> I cannot wait for the day that the US seriously revisits the farming subsidies and agricultural practices we've adopted. As someone that grew up on a farm, can you explain why? And also explain why the practices, aka fallow fields, are incorrect? A lot of the subidies and practices we have in place today are direct results of things like the dust bowl. > Surely there are better, healthier ways to grow food that are still economically viable. Have you validated such assumptions? I can guarantee that large scale farming is a lot more nuanced than one can assume in an arm chair style. Until you've seen what pests can do to a field that hasn't been treated with fertilizer or say herbicide, its really hard to understand why they get used. It is the difference between having a crop to sell, and going out of business and selling off your farm. This black and white thinking that comes from people that haven't any experience in the chosen field is honestly more annoying. Should we improve? Sure, no farmer would disagree, but would you be ok with increasing your food costs by 5x? 10x? even more? These are the things you ultimately have to consider when you knock modern practices. There is no free lunch (pun intended) if you ban modern practices. There is a good chance that requiring the things you want makes large scale farming impossible, and results in more people without food at all. I'm not sure that is an overall net positive.

ip26 8y ago
Monocropping field corn to feed cattle has always stood out to me as a big one. Monocrops are inherently vulnerable, beef is a luxury good not a necessity, and the total input for a pound of beef is extremely high compared to most other food items. I haven't personally done the math, but I understand beef production enjoys significant subsidies at multiple steps. Another topic, a common desire among ecologists is to incentivize more natural habitat at the margins to support native plants, insects, and birds. It's fairly simple, easy to measure the cost & implementation, and the goal would be it would ultimately be better for everyone, with healthy predator populations and so forth.
- tyu1000 8y ago
  Ranching is way better for natural habitat than cropping. Cattle in the North American prairies graze on native grasses where on cultivated land (in Saskatchewan, for peas, wheat and canola) all native grasses are ripped up for crop and riparian and wetland areas are destroyed to increase acreage.

randomdata 8y ago

> I cannot wait for the day that the US seriously revisits the farming subsidies Like the 2014 Farm Bill? I farm outside of the US, but from an outsider’s perspective that seemed like a huge change.

AngryData 8y ago

I think subsidies are a good thing, however our current application of them is definitely backwards. Corn is one of the worst crops to subsidize, the whole reason we grow corn is because how absolutely robust and resilient it is as staple crop. However the trade off for being such a strong crop is poor input-output efficiency. I think subsidies need to be applied to more vulnerable crops, some should go to staple crops other than corn, but I think the larger portion of it should go to fruit and vegetable production. I would also like to see some of it given to more sustainable farming practices, with an emphasis in reducing artificial irrigation, reducing artificial fertilizer usage, and maintaining or increasing topsoil depth and soil health, although I have no idea how to properly implement those practice.

bluGill 8y ago
When you grow a crop that takes nutrients out of the soil they must be replaced. When you eat the crop in the same location (substance farming) there isn't a problem as your excrement is fertilizer. When you live in the city that doesn't happen - nobody transports sewage back to the fields. It isn't necessarily a good idea to try: the energy to transport sewage back to the fields needs to come from somewhere; sewage needs to not have harmful chemicals/heavy metals from other processes mixed in.

thecopy 8y ago

I have read somewhere, and i agree with the argument, that the subsidies given to farming in the US is partly in place in order to secure food in case of imported foods not being an option due to sanctions, war or any other reason. So as long as the farms in the US fulfills this criteria there is no urgent reason for the government to restructure the subsidy criteria, incentives and payouts.

hyperbovine 8y ago

That will never happen unless people start voting with their feet. Look into CSAs in your area. The guy that runs mine is fanatical about using traditional practices—“just compost and hard work”. It’s incredibly satisfying.