12 ms·

I've heard that permacultural practices can compete in terms of output, it's just harder to industrialize. I wonder if improvements in robotics could make this

by mkmk3 3y ago

I've heard that permacultural practices can compete in terms of output, it's just harder to industrialize. I wonder if improvements in robotics could make this sort of approach more feasible, or if it really is comparatively productive in any case

tommek4077 3y ago
> permacultural practices can compete in terms of output, it's just harder to industrialize Then they can't compete – yet.
- ummonk 3y ago
  I think they meant competitive in land yields, not prices.
  - tommek4077 3y ago
    If I need 50 workers instead of 1, I can't compete.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      Doesn't that just depend on whether income can pay for the 50 employees, and that you can find 50 people willing to work the job?
    - psychoslave 3y ago
      This is framing premises so that only this conclusion appear relevant. It's not a predefined unavoidable destiny that is to go through, that is all about what policies are chose with which agenda in mind. Unemployment didn't reach 0% anywhere last time I checked, and as it was already mentioned, no actor out there is playing without some public subsidiaries. This is all political decisions. Local short term optimisation of plutocrate revenues is one possibility. Perennial national sustainability is an other one. These two agendas however probably don't overlap much.
    - ummonk 3y ago
      Many of the practices proposed to reduce the impact on the environment are nonstarters because of low land yields (and indeed might actually be worse on the environment because you need to convert more land to farmland). If this method has equal land yields and less environmental impact but is highly labor intensive, perhaps there is scope for mechanization to make it competitive.
zmgsabst 3y ago
Maybe we could do three good things at once: - switch to this better method of farming - end the corporate oligarchy controlling food by having smaller farms - shift people out of net negative “services” into farming I don’t see the downfall of industrial farming as a bad thing — they’re a whole problem all on their own (including the recent push to take away family farms from the Dutch).
- ummonk 3y ago
  Because the Great Leap Forward was such a smashing success, we need to do it again?
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    This is why the West has such ossified systems. If you propose any systemic change, people dont actually evaluate the suggestion on it's merits. They just go China/communism!
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      The proposition is to expropriate landowners (sorry the “corporate oligarchy”), force people to move to farming and rationalise production methods with a top-down approach. The comparaison to the Great Leap Forward is not far fetched. I think it’s legitimate to point to disastrous precedent when people suggest things.
      - orwin 3y ago
        Rural landowners who didn't had a marketable crop/produce (wine) already got expropriated, and their land already incorporate 'rationalized' ag. I know of 6 person in my mother's village who killed themselves between the 80s and late 90s, because of 'revolver' credits (aptly renamed), and tbf the rest of their family (4 different families) got it worse imho, until the state swoopt in and forgave the debt. I think only one independent farmer still exist in the area, his wife work at the local post office/bank, so they probably were more difficult targets. It's not the great leap forward, it's the small choking of those left behind.
Lutger 3y ago
I don't think the problem is in output-per-acre (really, increase in yield per acre is shockingly low in the past 50 years), but rather in the amount of labor required. That, plus the inertia of vested interests codified as bureacratic regulation and protected by lobbyists. Essentially: intensive agriculture uses monocultures, extremely large machines and herbicides/fertilizers/pesticides in order to reduce or displace labor costs, which dominate. And it still can't really exist without heavy subsidies. Any kind of regenerative practice in the current market situation needs to be competitive on a labor per output basis in the first place, not on the output per acre. Lightweight machines and robotics are part of the equation for sure, but will not be sufficient. However, agriculture in Europe is already build on subsidizes and heavily regulated. So we have the tools, we just need to use them and defeat agro corps lobbying efforts. Not easy, considering a political party from an Agro PR firm won the elections in the Netherlands, and legitimized a toxic blend of corporate disinfo, conspiracy theories and populist violence. Moving beyond the path of destruction seems as hopeless as ever.
- tfourb 3y ago
  There are some interesting approaches to regenerative agriculture that somewhat sidestep the problem of labour cost. I.e. Mark Shepard runs a 46ha farm in US mid west that he says has been profitable basically from year one. Very small degree of mechanization (basically a tractor and some implements) and no use of chemical fertilizers or any other inputs (pesticides, herbicides, irrigation). They basically cut out a huge share of conventional farming's cost structure to be able to compensate for increased labour costs. I live in a rural place and the typical farmer here has mid to high seven figures invested in machines and implements and spends a lot of money on inputs, which in turn has contributed to farms getting bigger and bigger, which in turn requires more investment in mechanization, etc. On the other hand, we have founded a non-profit CSA market garden on 4.000m2 that can pay 1.5 people a decent salary. My personal impression is that for farming to become financially attractive to the practitioners again, we need to reduce size, reduce inputs, reduce capital expenditure and put quality and diversity back into focus.
raptorraver 3y ago
Joel Salatin and Richard Perkins (among many many others) have done great work by applying permaculture principles to farm scale. The ”movement” is called regenerative agriculture but you can also find lots of bullshit under that term (ie. Monsanto has used that term in their marketing)
- VBprogrammer 3y ago
  While I have a lot of time for those people (Gabe Brown is well worth adding to that list). I fear that for the most part those people are successful by selling the dream of better quality produce to people with the disposable income to afford to buy it, mostly direct to consumer. I suspect there isn't enough space in this market place for every farmer.
  - tfourb 3y ago
    There is certainly more space available than is currently being filled. I.e. I have lived in more than a dozen places around the EU and Africa and have never had access to one of these types of farmers, despite being heavily inclined to buy from them. I don't doubt that direct to consumer regenerative agriculture will never be 100% of the market, even in wealthy societies. But it still has tremendous potential to grow.
  - SuoDuanDao 3y ago
    direct to consumer seems like a huge growth field to me actually, there's much less need for a middle man (grocer) now that everyone can buy and sell via their preferred marketplace app.

by mkmk3 3y ago

tommek4077 3y ago

> permacultural practices can compete in terms of output, it's just harder to industrialize Then they can't compete – yet.

ummonk 3y ago
I think they meant competitive in land yields, not prices.
- tommek4077 3y ago
  If I need 50 workers instead of 1, I can't compete.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Doesn't that just depend on whether income can pay for the 50 employees, and that you can find 50 people willing to work the job?
  - psychoslave 3y ago
    This is framing premises so that only this conclusion appear relevant. It's not a predefined unavoidable destiny that is to go through, that is all about what policies are chose with which agenda in mind. Unemployment didn't reach 0% anywhere last time I checked, and as it was already mentioned, no actor out there is playing without some public subsidiaries. This is all political decisions. Local short term optimisation of plutocrate revenues is one possibility. Perennial national sustainability is an other one. These two agendas however probably don't overlap much.
  - ummonk 3y ago
    Many of the practices proposed to reduce the impact on the environment are nonstarters because of low land yields (and indeed might actually be worse on the environment because you need to convert more land to farmland). If this method has equal land yields and less environmental impact but is highly labor intensive, perhaps there is scope for mechanization to make it competitive.

zmgsabst 3y ago

Maybe we could do three good things at once: - switch to this better method of farming - end the corporate oligarchy controlling food by having smaller farms - shift people out of net negative “services” into farming I don’t see the downfall of industrial farming as a bad thing — they’re a whole problem all on their own (including the recent push to take away family farms from the Dutch).

ummonk 3y ago
Because the Great Leap Forward was such a smashing success, we need to do it again?
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  This is why the West has such ossified systems. If you propose any systemic change, people dont actually evaluate the suggestion on it's merits. They just go China/communism!
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    The proposition is to expropriate landowners (sorry the “corporate oligarchy”), force people to move to farming and rationalise production methods with a top-down approach. The comparaison to the Great Leap Forward is not far fetched. I think it’s legitimate to point to disastrous precedent when people suggest things.
    - orwin 3y ago
      Rural landowners who didn't had a marketable crop/produce (wine) already got expropriated, and their land already incorporate 'rationalized' ag. I know of 6 person in my mother's village who killed themselves between the 80s and late 90s, because of 'revolver' credits (aptly renamed), and tbf the rest of their family (4 different families) got it worse imho, until the state swoopt in and forgave the debt. I think only one independent farmer still exist in the area, his wife work at the local post office/bank, so they probably were more difficult targets. It's not the great leap forward, it's the small choking of those left behind.

Lutger 3y ago

I don't think the problem is in output-per-acre (really, increase in yield per acre is shockingly low in the past 50 years), but rather in the amount of labor required. That, plus the inertia of vested interests codified as bureacratic regulation and protected by lobbyists. Essentially: intensive agriculture uses monocultures, extremely large machines and herbicides/fertilizers/pesticides in order to reduce or displace labor costs, which dominate. And it still can't really exist without heavy subsidies. Any kind of regenerative practice in the current market situation needs to be competitive on a labor per output basis in the first place, not on the output per acre. Lightweight machines and robotics are part of the equation for sure, but will not be sufficient. However, agriculture in Europe is already build on subsidizes and heavily regulated. So we have the tools, we just need to use them and defeat agro corps lobbying efforts. Not easy, considering a political party from an Agro PR firm won the elections in the Netherlands, and legitimized a toxic blend of corporate disinfo, conspiracy theories and populist violence. Moving beyond the path of destruction seems as hopeless as ever.

tfourb 3y ago
There are some interesting approaches to regenerative agriculture that somewhat sidestep the problem of labour cost. I.e. Mark Shepard runs a 46ha farm in US mid west that he says has been profitable basically from year one. Very small degree of mechanization (basically a tractor and some implements) and no use of chemical fertilizers or any other inputs (pesticides, herbicides, irrigation). They basically cut out a huge share of conventional farming's cost structure to be able to compensate for increased labour costs. I live in a rural place and the typical farmer here has mid to high seven figures invested in machines and implements and spends a lot of money on inputs, which in turn has contributed to farms getting bigger and bigger, which in turn requires more investment in mechanization, etc. On the other hand, we have founded a non-profit CSA market garden on 4.000m2 that can pay 1.5 people a decent salary. My personal impression is that for farming to become financially attractive to the practitioners again, we need to reduce size, reduce inputs, reduce capital expenditure and put quality and diversity back into focus.

raptorraver 3y ago

Joel Salatin and Richard Perkins (among many many others) have done great work by applying permaculture principles to farm scale. The ”movement” is called regenerative agriculture but you can also find lots of bullshit under that term (ie. Monsanto has used that term in their marketing)

VBprogrammer 3y ago
While I have a lot of time for those people (Gabe Brown is well worth adding to that list). I fear that for the most part those people are successful by selling the dream of better quality produce to people with the disposable income to afford to buy it, mostly direct to consumer. I suspect there isn't enough space in this market place for every farmer.
- tfourb 3y ago
  There is certainly more space available than is currently being filled. I.e. I have lived in more than a dozen places around the EU and Africa and have never had access to one of these types of farmers, despite being heavily inclined to buy from them. I don't doubt that direct to consumer regenerative agriculture will never be 100% of the market, even in wealthy societies. But it still has tremendous potential to grow.
- SuoDuanDao 3y ago
  direct to consumer seems like a huge growth field to me actually, there's much less need for a middle man (grocer) now that everyone can buy and sell via their preferred marketplace app.