Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[10ebbor10]

It's a rather common use, and indeed quite nonsensical.

But anyway:

1) Why is even more efficient use of space necessary? I was under the impression that land was not currently one of the limiting factors in food production.

Population and food consumption are increasing, while agricultural area is declining. Efficiency thus needs to go up, if we don't want to cut further into nature.

2) Why would small farms be more efficient than large ones? Both largely use the same technologies, and then economics of scale kick in.

Well, it's not small farms per se. It's just that small farms use more manpower/area, therefore allowing high intensity non machinable techniques like multicultures and compagnion planting and such. You can do that on a large scale farm as well, but it won't be cost effective.

I mean, if someone is self employed, the system is legally allowed to "pay" him less.

3) What about the cities?

Agro-towers, vertical farms.

4) What about foods that need to be imported, like pineapples, tomatoes, coffee (okay, not technically a food), anything fresh during the winter months...

Business as usual, I suppose. I mean, this is why the concept of food mile reduction is flawed. People think they're reducing their environemental impact by choosing local products, but that doesn't work if you don't change you consumption patterns.

I mean, growing bananas in the UK isn't very sensible.

[XXSockXX]

(Regarding Scotland's lack of democracy, it has 18 local councils. Compare that to the 4,032 cantons of France. Power is concentrated in regional hubs among politicians who's concerns are distant in a very geographical sense from those they are meant to represent.)

Might have to do with Scotland having a much smaller population and not being very densely populated. France may have a lot of administrative divisions, but it is still very centralized, despite some decentralization efforts in the past decades. Compared to Germany, regional governments can decide almost nothing on their own, without Paris approving it. Also France itself is not that densely populated either for the most part, so you have the same distance issue there.

4. Yeah, I'm not a self-sufficiency extremist here: I'm just saying that there isn't a need to import food hundreds of miles. This may become more important if fuel prices continue to rise.

Actually I don't even think we import that much basic food (flour and potatoes), more stuff that doesn't grow here like fruit.

1. Land is a limited factor for everything surely— populations rise, land doesn't. I think I'm missing your point.

In Europe populations shrink, so that is not a problem here (as opposed to Africa for example).

5. If a family have land then they have a livelihood. The fencing of the commons and the widescale appropriation of land that has happened in Britain especially and is happening globally has forced people off the land and at the mercy of others for sustenance. We cannot be a society of equals while most of the land is taken up by agrocorps and landed gentry (many proudly descendent from the Norman invaders 1000 years ago and still reaping the rewards of conquest).

That's what I mean by specific local problem. We don't have remnants of the former nobility owning that much land here, except for forests, which can by law just be used for forestry. I don't think we have many relevant agrocorps either, at least in terms of land ownership.

[Sheb]

Another thing on the raise here, is outsourcing the actual production of food. Owners will pay a agro company to grow food on their land. Of course, in this case, any benefit of smaller farm is lost.

[XXSockXX]

Another thing on the raise here, is outsourcing the actual production of food. Owners will pay a agro company to grow food on their land. Of course, in this case, any benefit of smaller farm is lost.

AFAIK here it often is the other way round, small local farms selling their products to big food companies. I'm by no means an expert in agriculture, but the problems in that area in Europe are very different from the problems in other parts of the world.

5. If a family have land then they have a livelihood. The fencing of the commons and the widescale appropriation of land that has happened in Britain especially and is happening globally has forced people off the land and at the mercy of others for sustenance. We cannot be a society of equals while most of the land is taken up by agrocorps and landed gentry (many proudly descendent from the Norman invaders 1000 years ago and still reaping the rewards of conquest).

That's what I mean by specific local problem. We don't have remnants of the former nobility owning that much land here, except for forests, which can by law just be used for forestry. I don't think we have many relevant agrocorps either, at least in terms of land ownership.

To expand on that, there is even the theory that having the parts of the country where nobility still held considerable influence and land (ie Prussia) surgically removed after WW2 was an important factor in establishing democracy in Germany.
Otherwise we do have a long tradition of free farmers in southern Germany, even in feudal times, so that might also be a reason why that's less of a problem here.

[Helgoland]

2) Why would small farms be more efficient than large ones? Both largely use the same technologies, and then economics of scale kick in.

Well, it's not small farms per se. It's just that small farms use more manpower/area, therefore allowing high intensity non machinable techniques like multicultures and compagnion planting and such. You can do that on a large scale farm as well, but it won't be cost effective.

So 'small farms are more efficient' is code for 'we should pay the agricultural workers lower wages'? Because that's what it sounds like - with lower wages, the difference between small and large farms vanishes - especially since the farming methods (use of harvesters and such, monoculture, use of pesticides and fertilizer, etc) are the same regardless of farm size.

As for vertical farms - has there ever been a successful proof of concept?

[Sheb]

Indoor cannabis farmer everywhere are a proof of concept of how to farm in a city. :p

[Arx]

Growing a crop that has an incredible price and thus incredible incentive and a lot of income to spend on infrastructure?

[Sheb]

Yeah. More generally, why growing potatoes in a city will probably never be worthwhile, higher-value crops like fresh vegetables may be profitable if grown indoor. New LEDs are way more energy-efficient, notably by not emitting in the green spectrum, and pests aren't an issue inside.

[Descan]

It hurts my brain to think of what a room full of growing plants would look like if it were lit by LEDs emitting everything but green.

Bright and sunny, with dark, black plants everywhere. >__________>

[Sheb]

you have articles on those already.

It look very nightclubby, pink light everywhere.

[Descan]

Yeah, that's what I thought it'd look like. The plants are a mass of undifferentiated pinkness, barely reflecting any light to allow you to tell one from the other.

[Owlbread]

Spoiler: Regarding land ownership in Scotland (click to show/hide)

It may interest you fellows that "crofting" is still a relatively common way of life in the Highlands and Islands. It involves farming livestock on a small scale. There are around 17,700 crofts with 13,000 crofters in total, the majority of whom are actually tenant farmers and do not own their land. In another era they would have been considered peasants.

As of 1993 crofters have the right to buy their house-area and garden and also to request an application to actually buy the "land" so they can keep farming, but the landlord has the right to refuse if it would "substantially damage the good management of the landowner's estate" or cause considerable hardship to him.

There is a family I know in one of the glens a bit further West. They rent their house and land from the Duke who owns most of the land in that area despite living for most of the year in South Africa. He actually owned my house at one time, but it went to a local nobleman (a Baronet possibly) who sold off the estate in bits to various people. The crofts that provided livelihood for most of the estate's population are scattered all around me in little ruins.

Spoiler: Regarding local government in Scotland (click to show/hide)

We do have a rather interesting system that we have changed god-knows how many times in the last 200 years. We actually have 32 councils, not 18. Tragically the majority of these councils have become labour party fiefdons, ruled by swines who are out of touch and verging on corrupt, elected by idiots who only know political tribalism.

[Descan]

... Wait, how can there be more crofts than the people working those crofts? Even assuming each croft only has one person, that's still 4'700 empty farms...

[Owlbread]

... Wait, how can there be more crofts than the people working those crofts? Even assuming each croft only has one person, that's still 4'700 empty farms...

Crofts generally provide insufficient sustenance and income to live off so many crofters rent two crofts at once. This can lead to serious problems because they only have the right to buy the house-and-garden area of one croft, not both, so if you live in one croft with your elderly parents and kids living in another you can see the problems this would lead to.

[notquitethere]

Sorry Owlbread, I looked it up and I saw it was 32 but for some reason I has 18 on the brain. It seems absurd to me that you don't have anything like Parish councils.

Yeah crofting is well and good, and it's nice they can buy their land now though the worry there that once land titles are drawn up and can be bought and sold, it leads inevitably to the accumulation and hereditary bestowment of large tracts.

Fun fact: back when you had to be a landowner to vote, in 1820 the Welsh electorate was comprised of around 18,700 voters. Scotland had double the population but only 2,889 voters. Scotland is still the least equitable country for land ownership in the West. Do you think that would change in an independent Scotland?