Global Agricultural Land Use v. Agricultural Production [OC]Submitted by rosetechnology t3_xvgmuw in dataisbeautiful
Sininenn t1_ir1qdm1 wrote
Reply to comment by Potato_Octopi in Global Agricultural Land Use v. Agricultural Production [OC] by rosetechnology
It also doesn't show whether we actually are being more efficient at feeding people.
It shows production value by its monetary value, which can only be determined by selling it for money, and therefore, often profit.
Potato_Octopi t1_ir1sl8e wrote
You're feeding people with less land. You could drop the $ line, but it's nice to have some output benchmark.
Sininenn t1_ir288vb wrote
But we don't know that, because this graph doesn't say anything about the amount of food produced per land area unit.
It only says that the overall monetary value of all food produced has increased, while the land use decreased.
Saying it's because we're farming food more efficiently is an assumption, that cannot be supported by this data.
Potato_Octopi t1_ir2vhso wrote
Did humanity suffer a mass starvation over the past two decades and no one told me?
Sininenn t1_ir337wc wrote
No one is saying that we're not getting better at producing food.
But this graph does not show food production efficiency, it shows agricultural products' overall monetary value...
As such, saying it is all attributed to efficiency increase in farming from this visualization is pure assumption. There are many more factors which contribute to monetrary value, other than productivity or efficiency.
Potato_Octopi t1_ir3euqv wrote
It's as good as any other shorthand. Weight, volume and calories are all insufficient, as different crops output different values. $ value of an agricultural commodity index hasn't changed radically over the decades.
Sininenn t1_ir3uftd wrote
It's not good enough.
And it sure as hell does not give a clear picture, as hiking prices would have the exact same effect than production efficiency.
And from this graph, you have no way of distinguishing which reason it actually is.
That's why it is a wrong metric to choose.
Potato_Octopi t1_ir3v5ax wrote
What would you prefer? Corn or wheat yields as a proxy?
Sininenn t1_ir402ub wrote
Overall yield, either average or median of all grown crops, in tonnes or calories, for example.
To show efficiency, possibly along with water usage needed and normalized per square kilometer.
CustomerComplaintDep t1_ird6o50 wrote
The monetary value is a representation of how much value it brings consumers. That includes the value of calories, vitamins, minerals, flavor, general enjoyment, etc. Monetary value is a far richer metric than just calories.
Sininenn t1_irdfu3g wrote
No, the monetary value is a representation of how much value the consumers bring to vendors, shipping companies, food processing companies, and farmers.
It is richer in muddling factors too, such as profit increases across all levels of the supply chain, price changes due to crop losses, and all other possible market fluctuations which influence the price.
As such, it is a bad metric of value, quantity, quality or volume of food or agricultural production.
Or anything other than money, really...
CustomerComplaintDep t1_irfkkiw wrote
Since producers and consumers agree on a price, we can deduce that the price is a value that is at least as much as the value to suppliers and no more than the value to consumers. So, while this does not capture consumer surplus, we can say that the value to consumers is at least this much.
Sininenn t1_irfry94 wrote
Producers and consumers do NOT agree on a price.
Price is much, much more complex than a mere agreement, which implies negotiations, which there are absolutely none taking place during final customer purchase...
You can haggle the price when buying on a large scale, but try going into the supermarket and asking them to sell you food for less than the set price.
A price in and of itself brings zero value to customers...
Using monetary value to judge the production levels is misleading.
CustomerComplaintDep t1_irhektx wrote
Why would there need to be negotiation? Suppliers offer a price and consumers take it or leave it. Supply and demand causes the price to be set where both producers and consumers are satisfied. Of course the price does not, in itself, bring value. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that the value is implied by the price. No consumer would buy it unless they perceive that the value is greater than or equal to the price. So, the fact that they buy it tells us that the value is at least as high as the price.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments