Yes. But if you're going to do whatever one else is doing, that's not a plan to prosper. It's suicidal.
For example, I didn't see a single mention of "...so we're going to go organic..."
Again. Don't get me wrong. Food supply is important. One article does not a trend make. That said, sharing a bad idea with 100 or 1000 other people (farmers) still makes it a bad idea.
I realize change isn't something most farmers seek, none the less, they are not immune to the definition of insanity.
> For example, I didn't see a single mention of "...so we're going to go organic..."
Going organic is nearly a decade long process during which time you are paid regular market price while having to burden the added cost of organic processes. If you have the millions to get going it can be a good deal long-term, but a farmer who is already struggling is going to be broke long before they ever meet certification.
> "Commodities are commodities because there is such a huge demand for them."
True. However, that doesn't mean, per the article, they are profitable. And if they are unprofitable, doesn't that mean supply is greater than demand?
Growing an unprofitable commodity and then saying "I'm not making money" doesn't make sense. Even if there oversight (e.g., Uncle Sam) and you trust that oversight (which we know is inconsistent) I would think it makes sense, if you want to be legitimately profitable, you'd try to mitigate the risks.
Farmers are being paid to grow food that gets destroyed. The masses are eating so much cheap food they're becoming ill more often and/or dying younger. The status quo doesn't feel sustainable.
For example, I didn't see a single mention of "...so we're going to go organic..."
Again. Don't get me wrong. Food supply is important. One article does not a trend make. That said, sharing a bad idea with 100 or 1000 other people (farmers) still makes it a bad idea.
I realize change isn't something most farmers seek, none the less, they are not immune to the definition of insanity.