Actually on oats...they do pencil out for many farmers. Oats, like everything else, take a certain weather and land combo that does not work for every farmer (as we sadly found out). But in northern Iowa, they do make a lot of sense, especially now that Canada is the big grower of oats and well, we might not be getting much from Canada.
The issue is really rotation and diversity. No one thing is good for anyone all the time. A smart farmer diversifies their farm. But the subsidies and expensive machinery favor sticking to one (or two, in the case of corn and soybeans) crops, year in and year out.
Thanks for your continued work on this Sarah. And for the great podcast now too.
Your comments about fad crops in production ag also hold for small farms. Or maybe not fad crops, but crops heavily promoted as the Next Big Thing.
For small farms in the Upper Midwest two examples are elderberries and hazel nuts. There is a small industry in elderberries in Missouri, but in Minnesota there is no processing capacity, no harvesting equipment, and no significant planted acres. I've been hearing that those are right around the corner for years.
Similarly, hazels have been promoted for 15 years. Good work has been done in WI on hybridizing the American Hazel with other varieties to get bigger, more uniform nuts from bushes that yield more consistently. There's even processing capacity, and some growers. I'm not jumping to plant them yet though until yields are more consistent and plant propagation is more widespread.
Thanks for your article. So many stars have to align to make a real change happen in agriculture.
Have you seen any evidence of the Gartner hype cycle penciling out for some of the crops you mentioned? That after initial expectations collapse there's a minor, but more sustainable, rebound?
You make some good points here. Totally agreed that there's no such thing as a bad crop -- just bad farming practices. Unfortunately, most farming is like that these days.
I would add that subsidies also play a big role in what is grown. Corn for ethanol, for example, doesn't really pencil out without subsidies.
Enjoyed your informative article very much. Notably, the fact that the crops themselves aren’t the problem; the way we produce, manage and utilize them are. As for people’s preferences for which foods they enjoy most, I suggest it’s a somewhat specious argument.
Because of scientific combinations of additives selected to increase cravings rather than healthy nutrition, the “traditional dietary preferences” you alluded to, have been adulterated by the companies that create consumables, the contents of which, being very unlike those of the past. Branding masquerades their appearances, while suggesting comfort and tradition. And, although familiar in name, they’re quite different in terms of dietary ingredients and requirements. The seed, corn oils and syrups are both very utilitarian and profitable. However, the poisoning of our air, water, and land provides examples of unintended consequences. Just like the precipitous rise in diabetes mellitus, cancers and obesity, for example. New, doesn’t always equate to fads, but sometimes may be subtle ways of challenging norms and pioneering “new” eating habits and behaviors.
Sarah, your recent piece on “fad crops” touches on many real dynamics in agriculture. I agree with the central thesis: crops don’t change systems, people and policies do. But I also believe the piece dismisses too easily the complexity, potential, and progress that so-called “fad crops” bring to American agriculture. Mask-off – I’m the CEO and Founder of Victory Hemp Foods, which is building a domestic supply chain with the “fad” crop that you seem intent on burning...
I’m reading this and realizing the same can be said for elementary education in this country. So many fads when our intellectual energy might be better spent on refining what we know works, but nobody wants to listen to teachers or farmers in the trenches. Both systems are subject to political whims as well.
Actually on oats...they do pencil out for many farmers. Oats, like everything else, take a certain weather and land combo that does not work for every farmer (as we sadly found out). But in northern Iowa, they do make a lot of sense, especially now that Canada is the big grower of oats and well, we might not be getting much from Canada.
The issue is really rotation and diversity. No one thing is good for anyone all the time. A smart farmer diversifies their farm. But the subsidies and expensive machinery favor sticking to one (or two, in the case of corn and soybeans) crops, year in and year out.
Thanks for your continued work on this Sarah. And for the great podcast now too.
Your comments about fad crops in production ag also hold for small farms. Or maybe not fad crops, but crops heavily promoted as the Next Big Thing.
For small farms in the Upper Midwest two examples are elderberries and hazel nuts. There is a small industry in elderberries in Missouri, but in Minnesota there is no processing capacity, no harvesting equipment, and no significant planted acres. I've been hearing that those are right around the corner for years.
Similarly, hazels have been promoted for 15 years. Good work has been done in WI on hybridizing the American Hazel with other varieties to get bigger, more uniform nuts from bushes that yield more consistently. There's even processing capacity, and some growers. I'm not jumping to plant them yet though until yields are more consistent and plant propagation is more widespread.
Thanks for your article. So many stars have to align to make a real change happen in agriculture.
Have you seen any evidence of the Gartner hype cycle penciling out for some of the crops you mentioned? That after initial expectations collapse there's a minor, but more sustainable, rebound?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle
You make some good points here. Totally agreed that there's no such thing as a bad crop -- just bad farming practices. Unfortunately, most farming is like that these days.
I would add that subsidies also play a big role in what is grown. Corn for ethanol, for example, doesn't really pencil out without subsidies.
Enjoyed your informative article very much. Notably, the fact that the crops themselves aren’t the problem; the way we produce, manage and utilize them are. As for people’s preferences for which foods they enjoy most, I suggest it’s a somewhat specious argument.
Because of scientific combinations of additives selected to increase cravings rather than healthy nutrition, the “traditional dietary preferences” you alluded to, have been adulterated by the companies that create consumables, the contents of which, being very unlike those of the past. Branding masquerades their appearances, while suggesting comfort and tradition. And, although familiar in name, they’re quite different in terms of dietary ingredients and requirements. The seed, corn oils and syrups are both very utilitarian and profitable. However, the poisoning of our air, water, and land provides examples of unintended consequences. Just like the precipitous rise in diabetes mellitus, cancers and obesity, for example. New, doesn’t always equate to fads, but sometimes may be subtle ways of challenging norms and pioneering “new” eating habits and behaviors.
Sarah, your recent piece on “fad crops” touches on many real dynamics in agriculture. I agree with the central thesis: crops don’t change systems, people and policies do. But I also believe the piece dismisses too easily the complexity, potential, and progress that so-called “fad crops” bring to American agriculture. Mask-off – I’m the CEO and Founder of Victory Hemp Foods, which is building a domestic supply chain with the “fad” crop that you seem intent on burning...
https://open.substack.com/pub/chadwrosen/p/fads-or-the-future?r=v77ki&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I’m reading this and realizing the same can be said for elementary education in this country. So many fads when our intellectual energy might be better spent on refining what we know works, but nobody wants to listen to teachers or farmers in the trenches. Both systems are subject to political whims as well.
Spot on Sarah