So God Made A Farmer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

A farmer generally would be incentivised to renew his animals and grass

A fisherman is really only incentivised to catch fish

---

Use your googlefu and search "fish farming" or "fiskeoppdrett" which is our name for it.

I visited a fish farm belonging to my extended family when I was a small boy... it's more than 30 years ago. It is very much alike raising cows/bulls.
You have a facility on land where you milk fish for eggs, fertilize them and hatch them in large tanks. then you move them around to other tanks as they grow. When they are large enough you place them in fenced areas (pods) in the fjord itself.. much like cows on land. You feed them ... and harvest the fish pods when the fish are large enough.

There are university degrees here for this industry and we train many foreigners which take this knowledge home to start their own fish farms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Use your googlefu and search "fish farming" or "fiskeoppdrett" which is our name for it.

I visited a fish farm belonging to my extended family when I was a small boy... it's more than 30 years ago. It is very much alike raising cows/bulls.
You have a facility on land where you milk fish for eggs, fertilize them and hatch them in large tanks. then you move them around to other tanks as they grow. When they are large enough you place them in fenced areas (pods) in the fjord itself.. much like cows on land. You feed them ... and harvest the fish pods when the fish are large enough.

There are university degrees here for this industry and we train many foreigners which take this knowledge home to start their own fish farms.

---

Yes, but I'm inclined to believe that fish farms are also subsidized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Yes, but I'm inclined to believe that fish farms are also subsidized.

---

It's the other way around - they pay 1 million euro per license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It's the other way around - they pay 1 million euro per license.

---

Now you got me intrigued. I have to explore this further.

EDIT:

Couldn't find the data for Norway, but it seems fish farms in all other countries do receive subsidies. British Columbia gave more than 110 million in subsidies to fish farms. In India, government covers 40% of the cost for new fish farms. they're subsidized also in other Asian countries, so I find it hard to believe that they aren't subsidized in Norway.

Also, wild fishing's also subsidized in EU.

Here, have a SSB-report on the subject, conveniently written in both viking and english.

I must warn you though, SSB is apparently part of the multicultural alliance who seeks to massimport muslims and cause a genocide on the native population. Not sure if that effects salmon or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by issaikhaan

Oh, and Kralizec- go grow your own damn food then, if you don't want anyone else getting some help to feed you. Or better yet, try running a productive farm as a livelyhood and make enough to keep up with all the big boys that have eaten up your neighbor's land.

---

Not a chance. I reserve the right to complain about any trade or industry, even if I use its products. I will complain about unethical practices in the pharmaceutical industry and still take any medication I may require. I’ll still criticize oil companies like Shell for poisoning the soil of civilians in Nigeria or BP for polluting the oceans, despite the fact that I use gasoline. I’ll whine and bitch about the financial sector even though I have a bank account.

Farming subsidies should only exist to prevent shortages, not in order to protect these buttholes from economic realities that apply to every industry and profession in the world.

It depends on what the subsidies are. Some artificially lower food costs. The alternative would be for farmers to band together and not offer produce at low prices. Of course this usually results in the food being thrown out and causing shortages.

Farmers make less on their crops than the brokers who sell them on.

Still, for the most part, subsidies are a bad idea. Just as bad as governments telling farm owners what and how much they can plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Here, have a SSB-report on the subject, conveniently written in both viking and english.

I must warn you though, SSB is apparently part of the multicultural alliance who seeks to massimport muslims and cause a genocide on the native population. Not sure if that effects salmon or not.

---

Well, my horn-helmeted friend, I concede - it does say that aquaculture in Norway is subsidy-free. Now, it doesn't say whether it was subsidized in the past. On the whole, like in most other cases, Norway should be treated as an exception, rather than the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Well, my horn-helmeted friend, I concede - it does say that aquaculture in Norway is subsidy-free. Now, it doesn't say whether it was subsidized in the past. On the whole, like in most other cases, Norway should be treated as an exception, rather than the norm.

---

Exception? Yeah, we have a wage level way above yours, and the fish from fishfarms are made for export. So actually, you guys have an easier life in this area, we have no advantages other than knowledge and experience(since we've been doing it for almost half a century).

Was it subsidized in the past? No idea. New technology usually is subsidized in some way or another though, so I'd be surprised if the first company to start fishfarms didn't get some manner of state support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Farmers make less on their crops than the brokers who sell them on.

---

There's the issue! It is why things like "Fair-Trade" exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Exception? Yeah, we have a wage level way above yours, and the fish from fishfarms are made for export. So actually, you guys have an easier life in this area, we have no advantages other than knowledge and experience(since we've been doing it for almost half a century).

Was it subsidized in the past? No idea. New technology usually is subsidized in some way or another though, so I'd be surprised if the first company to start fishfarms didn't get some manner of state support.

---

50 years head start + billions of dollars available to invest in research and subsidizes until the industry can finally stand on its own two feet. Aquaculture is still new and it will be interesting to see what's gonna happen in the next 50 years or so when more countries develop their own. So far, you're competing with traditional fishing for the most part, we'll see what's gonna happen when you compete with other fish farms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

There's the issue! It is why things like "Fair-Trade" exists.

---

That's not an issue, that's a fundamental aspect of how markets can and do operate. It goes something like this:

Farmer Joe wants to grow and sell some wheat. In order to get to the stage wherehehas wheat to sell, he will have paid for three things:

1. Landrate, what the farmer pays for using land. This may or may not be something the individual farmer actually pays for, but it's always factored into the price.
2. Capital, things like machinery, seeds, etc.
3. His own wage. Obviously.

When all that's paid for, Farmer Joe will also factor in the standard return rate on capital investments for his area. If he didn't, he would put his capital into other businesses, wouldn't he?

Now let's move on to John the Miller. He will buy Farmer Joe's wheat, with the intention of selling the flour. He too pays for the same three things:

1. Landrate, meaning his mill.
2. The capital needed to buy the wheat from Farmer Joe.
3. His own wage.

And he too will add the standard return on capital investments to the total price before selling the flour. Now, while this rate will be the same percentage, its value in dollars will be higher, since he must have investmented more capital into his business. That's because his invested capital covers all of Farmer Joe's investments and earnings.

Thus, the closer you are to to customer, the more you will earn from your business. This explains why material-rich africa is so much poorer than production-rich Europe, China and the US.


Finally, I'd like to call my bluff on Sarmatian: we do have an advantage over others when it comes to fishfarming. Wages are an irrelevant cost in that business, the biggest expenditure is food. And we happen to have a fertilizer giant in Yara...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

50 years head start + billions of dollars available to invest in research and subsidizes until the industry can finally stand on its own two feet. Aquaculture is still new and it will be interesting to see what's gonna happen in the next 50 years or so when more countries develop their own. So far, you're competing with traditional fishing for the most part, we'll see what's gonna happen when you compete with other fish farms.

---

Ah, no worries, we already own most of the farms in other countries anyway ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Use your googlefu and search "fish farming" or "fiskeoppdrett" which is our name for it.

I visited a fish farm belonging to my extended family when I was a small boy... it's more than 30 years ago. It is very much alike raising cows/bulls.
You have a facility on land where you milk fish for eggs, fertilize them and hatch them in large tanks. then you move them around to other tanks as they grow. When they are large enough you place them in fenced areas (pods) in the fjord itself.. much like cows on land. You feed them ... and harvest the fish pods when the fish are large enough.

There are university degrees here for this industry and we train many foreigners which take this knowledge home to start their own fish farms.

---

Where does the fish food for the salmon or trout come from in the fish farms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Where does the fish food for the salmon or trout come from in the fish farms

---

The last trout farm went bankrupt a month or so ago. It was shortlived, as was all the other attempts. Trout is way too cheap due to excellent fishing in Lofoten. Fish farming is for salmon.

The food is the same as the pellets for cattle, basically, found and made in the same way. It's an unholy mix of other fish, animals, veggies and drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

To be honest, not to be disrespectful, but that is such a bull****statement. It takes a lot of balls for a 1st world citizen living in the land pf plenty to suggest that we need to stop making so much food/stop subsidizing it.

It is because of subsidies and large scale corporate agro-business that much of food science, including genetic modification, has come about, providing vast improvements in the lives of non 1st world citizens. Cases like golden rice make me extremely hopeful for the future of food. Sooner or later, subsidies which led to our current problem of HFCS and cheap garbage food will provide a path for more nutritional foodstuffs becoming harvested on a more economic scale, likely due to clever genetic modifications.

I find it funny that we have this idealized version of the family farmer that would never serve horse meat. As if economic incentives only caused perverse results in large scale companies and not for Joe farmer who is trying to make his own payments for the next month.

---

Rubbish I didn't say we should reduce food production or discard science.

You can have cheap if you want but you have to discard other notions as a result.

Genetic modification will merely reduce a products input cost, but with populations rising in size and income it wont reduce the cost in your supermarket trolley. Also it would be naive to think agribusiness wont force unfavourable contracts on the growers of these wonder foods in the future.




My gripe is about unrealistic goals of extremely cheap food regardless of the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The last trout farm went bankrupt a month or so ago. It was shortlived, as was all the other attempts. Trout is way too cheap due to excellent fishing in Lofoten. Fish farming is for salmon.

The food is the same as the pellets for cattle, basically, found and made in the same way. It's an unholy mix of other fish, animals, veggies and drugs.

---

But does the fish for the pellets not come from the sea and they overfish that too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

But does the fish for the pellets not come from the sea and they overfish that too

---

Most of it is soya now(probably gmo) as far as I know.

Overfishing is caused by ineffective or corrupt regulation of fish, not consumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Most of it is soya now(probably gmo) as far as I know.

Overfishing is caused by ineffective or corrupt regulation of fish, not consumption.

---

And the perverse incentives in farming are also being removed to but were only now waking to the consequences of squeezing at both ends.

At one end we squeeze producer but we cannot afford to let a massive beef processor go bust now can we, so we give a subsidy to the producer.

The subsidy distorts the market naturally which means the beef processor has security of supply BUT the producer is now dependent on the subsidy.

At the other end is the consumer who is hard pressed to put food on the table, there need is being hijacked by the multiples as a public good but obesity rates tell a differ story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Gbwz3f-7s

demading only cheap food causes perverse incentives as does demanding some kind of mass organic food too.

We havent figured out yet how to feed at a happy medium so were probably going to need to go all in for mass automation.

Fewer humans would also have positive effects, yanno....
Since we're ape(x) predators or summin', how about we start to kill ourselves again?
We didn't even have to discuss such silly problems before we stopped bashing our neighbors' heads in every other year.
A UN-wide 1-child-policy would be nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Fewer humans would also have positive effects, yanno....
Since we're ape(x) predators or summin', how about we start to kill ourselves again?
We didn't even have to discuss such silly problems before we stopped bashing our neighbors' heads in every other year.
A UN-wide 1-child-policy would be nice.

---

some economists are starting to ask if the era of cheap food or maybe that should be relatively cheap food is over

We know people spend less as a proportion of income on food and likely thats be a factor in the growth of an economy.

simply put if a waitress has to double her weekly shop there is less capital available for other products she might like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Fewer humans would also have positive effects, yanno....
Since we're ape(x) predators or summin', how about we start to kill ourselves again?
We didn't even have to discuss such silly problems before we stopped bashing our neighbors' heads in every other year.
A UN-wide 1-child-policy would be nice.

---

Number of humans isn't really an issue. There's a lot of fertile land that isn't used efficiently. If the land in Ukraine is used to produce food with Dutch efficiency, Ukraine alone could probably feed half the world's population.

It will be a very long time before we need to worry about the world's population becoming too big to feed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Number of humans isn't really an issue. There's a lot of fertile land that isn't used efficiently. If the land in Ukraine is used to produce food with Dutch efficiency, Ukraine alone could probably feed half the world's population.

It will be a very long time before we need to worry about the world's population becoming too big to feed.

---

With bread, potatoes and salad perhaps, but what about overfishing or the destruction of rainforest to put herds of cows on the land?
Either we're being too dumb, too demanding or too many. Turning the whole planet into nothing but concrete, desert and wheat fields isn't a great recipe for survival.

And gaelic cowboy, I struggle to see how your post relates to mine, I never even mentioned money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

With bread, potatoes and salad perhaps, but what about overfishing or the destruction of rainforest to put herds of cows on the land?
Either we're being too dumb, too demanding or too many. Turning the whole planet into nothing but concrete, desert and wheat fields isn't a great recipe for survival.

And gaelic cowboy, I struggle to see how your post relates to mine, I never even mentioned money.

---

Pretty much all foodstuffs are going up in price the causes are many but more mouths is at the bottom of it all

My point wasn't to save our pockets, but to save gaia, homo sapiens and countless other species from suffocation.
Once all forests are gone and the oxygen in the atmosphere is slowly being used up, money will be our smallest problem!
:soapbox:

Besides if we weren't 7 billion, we'd have more oil, more gas and more fresh air for everyone!

Kill all the unemployed?

Kill all the unemployed males between ages 15 and 35?

Kill all the unemployed males between ages 15 and 35 who have been unemployed for over a year?

Kill all the poor unemployed males between ages 15 and 35 who have been unemployed for over a year?

Kill all the poor unemployed males between ages 15 and 35 who have been unemployed for over a year and are on any form of state-provided aid?

Kill all the young unemployed African males?

Nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We as a civilization must have the moral fortitude to excise undesirable social elements as an ongoing policy. :brood:

Those are some scary ideas Montmorency, didn't expect that from you.
Personally, I'd prefer the UN-wide 1-child-policy I proposed in post #51, but whatever floats your boat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

My point wasn't to save our pockets, but to save gaia, homo sapiens and countless other species from suffocation.
Once all forests are gone and the oxygen in the atmosphere is slowly being used up, money will be our smallest problem!
:soapbox:

Besides if we weren't 7 billion, we'd have more oil, more gas and more fresh air for everyone!

---

my point was that economists have been noting there is an economic/food security consequence to larger populations.









Our present style of agriculture has only a few more efficiencies left to find to allow growth of food supply. Afterwards we might have to look at say growing meat in vats like in those old CIV games an I imagine there will be similiar efforts for vegetables and cereals. (of course we still might have problems with scale even then )

You could see a future where food comes from non-farm sources and actual farmed food is for people who want to splash out or grow there own supply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Those are some scary ideas Montmorency, didn't expect that from you.
Personally, I'd prefer the UN-wide 1-child-policy I proposed in post #51, but whatever floats your boat.

---

Government mandated birth control?

Perhaps medical screening and government genetics testing before they give you a license to have a child.

Government controls and policies on birth and bureaucrats to oversee them. How very democratic and open-minded you are.

If not the UN perhaps the EU would enact your policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Government mandated birth control?

Perhaps medical screening and government genetics testing before they give you a license to have a child.

Government controls and policies on birth and bureaucrats to oversee them. How very democratic and open-minded you are.

If not the UN perhaps the EU would enact your policies.

---

It is more a welfare state thing. The government only supports two children, any more comes from your back-pocket. Not having any income or benefits to supplement extra children will make it an incentive not to have more unless you really want them (and the economics to support them).