You must log in or register to comment.
Counterpoint: if you, personally, can save some dollars so you’re mainly spending on the things you can’t grow, that’s hardly a bad thing. Also, working with soil is known to be good for you. Exposes you to soil bacteria that are known to boost mood.
And it sounds corny as fuck and I didn’t really take it seriously until I did it, but homegrown produce can be so incredibly much better than what you get off an industrial farm.
Just let people feed themselves and be happy, fuck.
They’re not feeding themselves, though, they’re primarily reliant on buying what they cannot produce themselves.
Ironically Jerusalem artichokes
It’s better to encourage native fauna by planting native flora than plant a vegetable garden that you give up on after 2 months and then gets overrun with foreign weeds.
Where’s that 4chan post where all the BLM rioters tried to set up a new community in Seattle or something. Then they had everyone give there skills and what that want to do in the new world, everyone was saying they can grow food. Then there was the crappest plot of veggies I have ever seen.
CHAZ was such a bizarre fever dream
For an entire community space without any centralised leadership that lasted about one calendar month, the garden looked alright:
https://crosscut.com/environment/2020/06/seattles-chaz-community-garden-takes-root
Edit: further interesting background https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2020/06/12/43897621/meet-the-farmer-behind-chazs-vegetable-gardens
There was definitely a crappier looking photo than that.
It looks like an abandoned building plot, a small one.
I recall the one you’re thinking of, but did not find it. This is a textbook case of how photography is just another aspect of journalism that can be very biased depending on what you decide to show and the context in which you place it.
For my part, isn’t it more interesting to know that it was started by a scholar of energy and sustainability who used the opportunity to promote gardening skills and raise awareness of the history and politics of land use rights?
There is a whole thing about land use rights and energy and sustainability. But just because one guy was right on that doesn’t mean the whole movement wasn’t a complete disaster from the start.
As much as this website hates capitalism I’m still pro capitalist. But even I admit a lot needs to be changed. Land is one of the big things I have been contemplating lately. Having said that, there wont be any meaningful food production in cities for anything but mental health reasons.
What can I say except that I hope you’re wrong about food production? The allotment system in the UK is a good example of this, and could be expanded on to good effect for the overall goal of more mutually supportive communities. Obviously we’re not going to turn every city into homesteaders, but reducing the imbalances in our economic systems is worthwhile.
As for CHAZ/CHOP, I find it more useful not to judge it based on whether an impromptu short-lived anarchistic community can govern itself perfectly during that chaotic moment in time (especially as police had every reason to try and subvert it - after all, they did lose that precinct), but based on its vision and the hope it gave people. It only lasted a short while, but hopefully the memory of it can live on as a hope for what could be, and as a part of the dialogue between communities and state forces going forward.
Wow, 4chan would post a bad photo of something people on the left did?
Alright? That’s the saddest “garden” I’ve ever seen!
Who the fuck prioritized efficiency over quality in their backyard garden?
My handmade solid maple and walnut furniture will never reach the yield or cost-effectiveness as IKEA. I guess I’ll just have to burn my shop down
Funny enough ‘efficiency’ industrially tends to just mean what makes the most money anyways, so most crop’s have been trained to be nutrient sparse, yet large
Who the fuck prioritized efficiency over quality in their backyard garden?
The Billions of human beings who rely on it to live.
You are missing the point.
It’s not about your shop. It’s about everyone making their own furniture… which doesn’t scale and isn’t feasible.
This is a totally specious argument. Everyone doesn’t have to make 100% of their own furniture any more than every one has to grow 100% of their food.
If I make two chairs it’s more efficient than 1 chair and I only need to spend maybe 70% more time than 1, not 100% I sell/barter one chair to my neighbor, who, because they have grown 6 tomato plants instead of 4 (at most 10% more of their labor), has excess tomatoes and gives me some in exchange.
Sometimes. You cannot go to a store and buy the freshest, most mouth watering and delicious fruits because they cannot handle being shipped even locally.
A warm, juicy peach right off the tree is an amazing experience.
Also, you know 100% of what what was and what wasn’t done to your stuff.
That said, I don’t have the time or will to grow all my own veggies that I like daily.
I can, however make enough other stuff that’s saleable so I can afford fresh veg year round.
Great but that has nothing to do with keeping a population of 8 Billion People happy and healthy.
Neither does industrial farming? We grow more than enough food to feed the world every year, but don’t because that’s not the point of industrial farming. The point of increasing the amount of industrial level farming every year is to increase the profit margins of large agriculture conglomerates.
I
Imagine if the powers that be actually tried to solve for “How do we keep 8 billion people happy and healthy.” Lol
Surely, it stretches the imagination…
Oh, those dastardly powers that be! Haha, such scoundrels.
I mean the government could open up facilities for cooking meals or processing food for cold storage that would otherwise be thrown out, and regulate both farming and grocery stores so that anything that would get wasted instead goes to feed homeless people or something. Its a massive yeah right though. All industrial farming has done on this side of this rock is pump us full of ready roundup and microplastics, crush small independent grocers, drive up water and other resource consumption, and people are still going hungry regularly. Corporate america will never let people be happy and healthy without wealth divisions on this continent, and likely as much of the others as can be influenced.
Yes, we can call these structures “Food Pantries” and we can have a system that allots it fairly and evenly called a “faring well” system.
Judging by the median quality of life (rat race, anybody) and the obesity epidemic (and related diseases), neither “happy” nor “healthy” seem to be objectives and it looks a lot more like it’s just “alive and energized enough to work”.
Industrial Food (and that includes the Intensive Farming and Cattle Rearing side) in the US is particularly bad at the healthy part, and even in countries with better food regulations the industrial stuff (and again that includes the products of intensive farming and livestock ranching) is still significantly worse in that sense than the non-industrial kind but at least they don’t shove corn so hard that it adds up to over 70% of the human food chain directly and indirectly like in the US.
Not that I’m saying that the World can sustain this big a population without intensive farming. I’m just disputing that the modern version of it even tries to have “happy” or “healthy” as objectives, much less have succeeded in achieving either.
Some things are ridiculously easy to grow in some places and we should for exactly that reason. It’s like drinking bottled water when you have an amazing spring in your backyard of great tasting clean water.
Become Polish and embrace the art of “jumanie”.
The art of what now?
That’s what roadside fruit stands are for
Haha no.
The fruit will not travel.
Some produce has to be enjoyed immediately or preserved immediately.
If you mean at the farm where it came from then sometimes.Youd have know when it was picked.
The best sweet corn is heated, not cooked, within minutes of picking at peak quality.
Agree, but also do plant something that you’ll use just a small amount from time to time, like herbs, spices, scallion, chive, and so on. Thing that you’ll want it fresh but you can never use it all before it compost. Don’t even need a garden, just plant it in pot.
I have screwpine leaf, lemon grass, coriander, and scallion in my garden, and i can harvest the onion when i need it.
Why subsidized? A fair comparison would be subsidized home farming vs. subsidized industrial farming, or neither are subsidized.
The exact problem was discussed in Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott, where he reached a very different and nuanced conclusion. You can have a read if you are truly interested.
Subsidizing home farming isn’t really possible with our current society, and not subsidizing industrial farming could be disastrous and lead to famine. The subsidies guarantee that food options will be available at all times.
New Zealand stopped subsidizing farmers, and survives. So we have at least one data point showing that it is possible.
New Zealand only grows meat and most of it goes to export. Growing veggies is not effective in general.
The more you grow and eat at home, the less the food industry needs to burn fuel to ship. I know you folks in the US hate doing anything to help out with the world, but if you took the saying of be the change you want to see, imagine the tens of millions of acres being wasted on lawns being put to environmental and nutritional use. Imagine instead of putting leaves into plastic bags to get shipped to a landfill, or burning, houses normalized having compost piles. You get to put waste paper and cardboard in there too instead of bagging it.
I challenge all of yall to grow beans this season. They grow fast, they grow easy, theyre pretty nutritionally complete, they fertilize your soil themselves. Make use of your land.
Yup we shoud normalize gardening and canning. It’s a thing my grandparents knew. Their families survived times of world wars, dust bowls and the great depression. They probably didn’t have much choice in the moment but even when times got better they kept up a wonderful little garden. Kid me didn’t get why they didn’t just buy the things they needed.
I love the conveniences of modern farming and I use it every day. But like all big industialized systems they can be fragile. Covid was a huge problem for a lot of indistries and thankfully farming wasn’t really one of them. But if it was countless people would have struggled.
I’m not really a prepper or anything crazy but I don’t want to forget the lessons learned just a few decades ago- gardening is great and worth the effort.
What a bullshit blanket rude comment. Lots of folks in the US are working hard to affect change at their personal and local level. You should edit your comment because it’s nationalistic and disparaging.
Notice how the US is among the largest polluters per capita by quite the margin.
Are we calling out the qatari, bahraini and UAE assholes here aswell?
I’m comfortable saying yes to that
Based
Don’t leave out Australia and Canada, since Australia is worse and Canada is next on the list after the USA.
Go ahead and tell everybody how Australia, USA, and Canada are such bad countries.
Meanwhile, with the freedom afforded to me as a land owner in the USA I work from home, harvest solar energy with solar panels to run my electronics, and am growing my own produce and eggs in a backyard farm. As an individual I’m probably doing more for the environment than most people reading this whole Lemmy post.
Lol. Check your privilege.
A. Do a carbon footprint analysis of your life, if it’s above 2,5 tons coe/year you’re a net burden on the planet. My country is as well, although considerably lower than the US.
B. It is possible for you to be a paragon of environmentalism and still live in a country with inefficient systems for water, infrastructure, zoning, industry and food production. Not to mention live in a culture of unsustainable lifestyle. Many Chinese or Indian persons are simply too poor to have a major impact on the environment, but their national industrial practices drive up the average pollution to levels comparable to the US (although still lower). Most US people aren’t as poor, and also have shitty industry standards, and also the means to change that without losing your standing internationally.
C. Multiple countries are shitty, in fact most of the non-developing world countries are a net burden.
D. As opposed to the other countries at the top, the US has had the economy, data, and access to resources to be able to something about it for generations, whereas most have had half the time and considerable need of modernising.
E. The US is much larger than the other countries, and could with quite simple measures make great impact and help pressure other great polluters.
I checked my privilege, and found that it was cool. I don’t have a carbonometer to check the other stuff so you can work on that if you want.
Again that doesn’t change shit. My point is that a nation is not a monolith.
You wouldn’t make a statement like they did about a race, or a people from another country, so it isn’t appropriate here either.
Edit It is simply untrue that all Americans “hate to help the world”, and therefore that statement is bullshit.
Nah Americans need to do better
It makes sense for it to be the same as solar power: just because most of energy generation is done in big facilities and even some kinds of solar generation (such as solar concentrators) can only be done in large facilities, doesn’t make having some solar panels providing part of one’s needs (or even all of one’s needs for some of the time) less cost effective in Economic terms or a good thing in Ecologic terms.
So it makes sense to grow some of one’s food, but maybe not go as far as raise one’s own beef or even aim for food self sufficiency, both for personal financial reasons and health reasons. That it’s also good in Ecological terms (can lower the use of things like pesticides and definitelly reduces transportation needs) is just icing on the cake.
Im pretty sure the easy decentralization of solar is a big reason its gotten so much pushback from politicians and lobbyists.
Can’t have people give less of their income to rent-seekers…
Imagine instead of putting leaves into plastic bags to get shipped to a landfill, or burning, houses normalized having compost piles.
I appreciate your argument but there’s no need to throw in a strawman. Leaves in plastic bags have been illegal in most US states for decades. Yard waste must be in paper bags.
Ive never seen yard waste in a paper bag, I have seen loads of plastic bags. pumpkin faces for autumn are extremely popular here.
These states and cities have yard debris bans:
maybe its an enforcement issue but from what I’ve seen in Arkansas its all plastic bags. Video with examples https://www.thv11.com/article/news/local/little-rock-stop-yard-waste-pick-up/91-4745aa35-0cd5-4261-b87a-8ac44a2cfc3a
Quality ≠ quantity
Is probably true. However, one should question their world view if they measure everything as a minimization problem with respect to cost efficience and yield.
I think it’s less about ruthless efficiency and more about which system will enable even the poorest in society to have nutritious food.
as if this system has done so…
Not saying anything about the system, just about which farming method has the most potential to equitably distribute resources.
I get what you mean. Our system produces a ridiculous amount of quantity, which should be great! But in the context of where it’s firmly placed within existing socioeconomics, stupid things happen like “destroying all the product to keep the value from crashing” and the “distribution problem” that feeding the poor isn’t profitable.
Maybe industrial agriculture wouldn’t be so terrible if food production for the human race didn’t operate on the same metrics as handbags or funkopops. =\
I agree that commodifying food, especially locking nutrition behind class walls is barbaric. I also get that the current iteration of industrial farming is scary (don’t get me wrong, it sucks shit) and that “small scale farming solutions just haven’t been tried!” but clearly small scale farming is a long term fantasy that would take many decades of work and public acceptance, not even to mention the process of decommodifying the agriculture industry. All I’m saying is that if I’m playing in the same space, the method that would be the most environmentally friendly and efficient (not in an economic sense) is large scale industrial farms.
I mean. It has? Even the poorest of the poor eat better than they did a couple hundred years ago
Borlaug’s green revolution of the mid-20th century did lead to a rapid reduction in famines across Asia and Africa…
250 years ago people would rent pineapples for parties as status symbols because they cost $8000.
Nowadays the most expensive pineapple you can get is barely $400.
That’s progress
If it helps, I could sell you a pineapple for more than that.
I’ll have to see what my social status raising fruit budget looks like.
No you couldn’t, they would never buy an 8000$ pineapple today because he could get one down the street for a couple bucks.
Is that Canadian toonies?
if they measure everything as a minimization problem with respect to cost efficience and yield.
Well to be fair, that 3rd home in the Hamptons and a bigger yacht are not going to pay for themselves.
Have you tasted store bought vegetables? Farmers market may be grown, may be store bought. I have 2 4x2ft planters full of veggies, out $200 this year setting it up. Next year just the price of seeds.
Seeds and amendments. You gotta add more nutrients to the soil or else your yields will start to suffer. Although, there’s a lot of permaculture ways to add nutrients for free.
All hail the compost worms!
Blessed be our wormy overlords!
Unless you live somewhere with 0 soil quality or literally never do any work to fertilize it’s not that much extra cost to fertilize and keep soil doing well
Run a compost heap and you’re practically going to supply yourself with everything needed for free if you can scale it enough (which is like, 2 2x4 beds and remembering to dump organic food remnants too)
Oh for sure. You don’t need much. I just recently watched a cool video about tossing all your weeds in a couple of small water barrels to make liquid fertilizer. It doesn’t take a lot.
I ate a garden grown cucumber for the first time. I couldn’t believe how refreshing it tastes!
The supermarket version tastes like filler food.
I grew up hating tomatoes until we started growing our own. It’s like it’s an entirely different food
We grow the vast majority of our own veggies, eggs and chicken. Our kids hate store bought food, it’s even hard to go to restaurants. We sell a little bit from an on site farm stand to help pay for supplies mostly. Our seeds were $600 this year though. It’s a rather large and diverse garden.
@FiniteBanjo it is true, but what no one has directly mentioned yet is, that home grown provides a high bar on what industrial agriculture can ask for as a price. If it gets so expensive that growing your own is more cost effective for yourself, you don’t need to pay for overpriced products. That’s a possible competition, obviously only for those that are fortunate enough to have the fitting and needed resources to grow(being poor is expensive).
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’re easier to mechanize and run at scale. But if your goal is just to produce food and have the farmers make a living, small farms are actually better even economically (in addition to 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.
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.
Absolute nonsense. Hyperbole is not helping your argument.
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.
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.
Went to a local farmers’ market over the weekend. Everything was very good, y’all should give it a try
Yeah, a lot of farmers are good hardworking people.
And for the inevitable “it’s too expensive” and related comments:
- Find the markets where you are buying directly from the farmers, not aggregators/resellers.
- Shop around and buy things that are less in demand. You can ask what’s not selling and try to negotiate a little and if you go right at the end, say 15-30 minutes before vendors have to pack up, you will find lots of bargains.
- Build relationships with growers. You will get better deals and freebees.
Not to mention, per kilogram, it’s more polluting than simply buying at a grocery store
It depends how you measure it, and what counts as ‘polluting’. Does broad-scale habitat destruction count? Because there’s a lot more of that in industrial agriculture. Also yields are prioritised over quality, so you’re literally not comparing apples with apples if you’re getting local heirloom varieties from nearby orchards, compared with apples grown in the PNW for the broader market and kept chilled until ready for sale. These are generalisations of course and there are staple crops that are much more efficient when produced with broadacre cropping.
Not to mention, per kilogram, it’s more polluting than simply buying at a grocery store
Absolute nonsense. If you are going to make such ridiculous claims you should probably take the time to back it up with some kind of data. Good luck with that.
Simply adding up the food miles gets you more “pollution” with store bought than local farms.
If you’re saying local farmers pollute more then I think you’re mistaken. Local farmers by definition are local so they drive closer.
It’s the same situation as when you grow a pear in Argentina, send it to Malaysia and back to usa.
Boats are simply too big
A local farmer doing restocking trips, buying and transporting, you on trips buying the stuff needed to make those sweet iron and vitamin deficient mini tomatoes, soil, fertilizer, etc, consume lots of energy. Which might seem like a little but multiply that effort by the proposed method of “everyone planting and harvesting their own shit” and you soon see that it was kinder to mother earth and the climate to just transport shit over a cargo ship burning 400 trucks worth of fuel in one trip and transporting the equivalent of 9000 trucks, than you doing the 400 trucks worth of fuel trips and transporting, well 400 trucks worth of goods
It’s basically about scale. Shipping container ships run at low speed and maximize fuel efficiency.
When you drive, most of the fuel is used propelling the car forward, backwards, upwards and downwards. You make up a small amount of the stuff moved. You also change speeds. You come to full stops, take turns, maybe even go the wrong way. All of that is “wasted” energy that goes to the polluting impact of your vitamin deficient mini tomatoes.
However, a ships engine mostly works way more in per portion to move product across the oceans. Importantly once it maps out it’s routes and hits speed, it doesn’t deviate. Once the ship is up to speed getting it to keep going forward isn’t very hard.
It’s almost (because of need if preexisting infrastructure) the same with rail. The ability to carry a ton of stuff and maintain the same course and speed saves so much fuel, lowering the carbon footprint of any transported goods to your place to something miniscule you could never actually achieve by your own machinations
That’s why they pollute more. That’s right your homegrown tomatoes are more polluting than those of a mega corporation
