• ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      The idea is to remove weather as a risk for farming. It’s remarkably hard making reliable predictions for yields with climate change on the horizon.

      • meyotch@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 days ago

        Yes that’s the idea, but perhaps it’s not actually a good idea.

        I think the plummeting market price per pound of cannabis in Colorado is an interesting case. It has become so cheap that the cost of goods for indoor grown cannabis is higher than the market price. The outdoor growers are the only ones with a favorable balance of costs and product price for the long run.

        Anyone want to buy some used lights?

        • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 days ago

          It’s been the same in Oregon for years. The only reason why this crop was ever expensive and grown primarily indoors is that it was illegal and now with enough distance from illegality and enough competition, the price plummets. Your state may start implementing license and growing restrictions to counteract this as they’ve done here because the state loves their tax revenue and wouldn’t want to jeopardize this cash cow.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 days ago

        Agricultural land specifically. Growing stuff in the city is just not a great idea from a land use perspective.

        • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          20 days ago

          Agricultural land isn’t cheap either which is why most farms are owned by massive corporations these days. They’ve bought up most of the good growing land.

            • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              20 days ago

              Those numbers can be quite skewed considering their definition of a “farm” is one that generates as little as $1000 in revenue per year, so anyone with a few chickens in their suburban backyard that sells eggs to their coworkers would fall under this definition. They even outline that 80% of these small family farmers have full-time jobs outside of farming. They also claim giant companies are “family owned” simply because a few family members control a majority stake. One could call Walmart or News Corp “family owned businesses” using this same definition and claim Walmart is a tiny portion of the retail space because there are 500k individuals selling keychains on Etsy versus their single company.

            • Nalivai@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              20 days ago

              By your link, 90% of farms produce 21% of producs. So yeah, most farms are owned by corpos, if we apply the meaning correctly

                • Nalivai@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  19 days ago

                  “Small family maps” correspond to almost 90% in the “number of farms” graph and 21% in “value of production” graph, how else can anyone read it?

                  • ikidd@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    19 days ago

                    Take family farms in total. A 3000ac farm run by 2 brothers is still a family farm that the kids are inheriting. Nobody here has a clue how farms in us and Canada work.