But it doesn't need to have a better overall yeld or lower price. It can work as a complementary production, to bring variety, resiliency, and protect local crops and pollinators.
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.
Although I have certainly mentioned that 40+ acres are required to sustain a family agriculturally I believe that it is still worth it to grow food and herb and spices where one can. Just don't expect it to change the direction of inflation.
it's therapeutic and it helps - fucking cucumbers are just co2 and a few random minerals from the soil my man, grow that shit, it's easy af
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 participate in feeding themselves and be happy, fuck.
EDIT -- to make a pedant happy
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.
A lot of industrial produced food is cheap because of child, forced, and otherwise exploited labor (undocumented workers, for example). Heavily mechanized farming (mostly used for grains) is cheap because of the vast amount of fossil fuel "energy slaves" used. And that's only cheap because the costs are externalized.
Anyways, growing your own food can definitely be cheaper than buying it. Of course, not if you start plants under lights, build raised beds and fill them with purchased soil, buy organic pelletized fertilizer, or stuff like that. It can be nearly free to grow your own food (if you don't count the cost of your own labor) by saving seeds and intercepting materials from waste streams (wood chips, lawn clippings, manure, used coffee grounds, etc) to "feed your soil."
Given the sheer volume of food waste produced to begin with: it sure don't have to be as 'efficient'.
And still a vastly more efficient use of our resources than chemical-fest irrigated lawns.
The quality and variety of what produce you can eat will be much higher, though. There's a lot of cultivars that don't make financial sense at scale but are wonderful to eat.
You can have both and it doesn't need to compete with industrial farming or meet some business model. It just needs to meet your needs and/or goals.
Gardening lets you grow the stuff you want how you want and eat it fresh without taking days and trucks on a highway to get it to you.
I'm thankful for the conveniences of modern agriculture but if gardening didn't have any positive impact why did they push victory gardens so much in WW2?
It feels good, teaches valuable skills, makes your neighborhood more resiliant and gives you healthy things you want to eat. It's more than simply therapeutic.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
