Because you have no idea of the scale of food that goes through your store to feed your town and none of it will actually be cheaper. And that’s ignoring you’ll face a much smaller selection of food in the winter.
Why don't communities build massive gardens for food? That way it would undercut the price of big retail stores.
Submitted 11 hours ago by Patnou@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
makeshift0546@lemmy.today 6 hours ago
Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 10 hours ago
Free food? That’s communism! That will cripple a billionaire income!
Jokes apart, have you done gardening at scale? That requires massive labour or very expensive machinery, expertise, and resources like land and water.
At least on the scale to feed a significant number of people.
Your own garden can produce some stuff, but far from what would undercut retail stores business. Unless you scale it, it just stays that way.
Yeah, might be fun and also a good community project, but not more.
jimmy90@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
this is not a stupid question but this is the level of stupidity you’re average commie actually believes
Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 4 hours ago
I believe it’s just ignorance. And understandable also… Today’s people really think food grows in the supermarkets.
And its not their fault, read caves of steel from Isaac Asimov…
I am that old.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 hours ago
Back in uni I had some teachers that had actually done a scientific study on the possibilities of urban food growing, and the results were that it was unsuitable for anything more that just a recreational activity.
peacepath@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Was it in the USA? Proving that in Europe would be very fun, and actually I would really like to read the study itself!
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 hours ago
Spain.
I’ve been trying to find it but no luck for now. I will quote again if I find it!
Pofski@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
I really don’t understand why people are so quick to dismiss community gardens as nothing more than a hobby. There’s actually quite a bit of research showing just how much food you can grow in relatively small spaces.
A 2022 review of 200 studies found that urban agriculture can produce as much, and sometimes considerably more, per square metre than conventional farming. There’s also research from Sheffield showing that urban growing could potentially cover more than half of the city’s fruit and vegetable needs.
And that’s without really getting into what’s possible with greenhouses, hydroponics, vertical growing or simply preserving what you harvest.
Of course you’re not going to replace an entire supermarket with a few vegetable beds, but why is that even the standard we’re using? If a community can grow a meaningful part of its own food and spend less on groceries, isn’t that already a pretty good reason to do it?
I find it strange how quickly people jump from “it can’t solve everything” to “it’s completely pointless.”
Sources:
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9540868/
JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 hours ago
So much of the grocery store is just overprocessed junk anyway, it’s ok to let doritos die.
GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
You do know community gardens exist, yes? Lots of people contribute a few hours of labour and or funds for a share of the produce. Some cities shut them down with zoning laws or bury them in red tape, but plenty don’t. It’s usually seen as a liberal plot and attacked by conservatives, but they’re quite nice in places where they don’t burn you as a witch for growing things as a community.
makeshift0546@lemmy.today 6 hours ago
That would last all of a day if you tried to eat a full 2kcals a day 🙄
That’s a hobby. Not a food source capable of feeding a population.
tankfox@bookwyr.me 5 hours ago
You don’t use the garden to grow all the food you’re going to eat, you buy bulk goods like rice and beans, pasta, etc that you can get for low cost in bulk and then replace the greens and veggies a healthy person would get at the store with food from the ground which has a fixed labor cost instead of a ballooning dollar cost.
Yaky@slrpnk.net 10 hours ago
By “undercut” do you mean these communities would sell their own produce? Local farmers can sell to decent grocery stores and co-ops.
But either way: massive gardens would require massive amounts of labor. If you wish to reduce labor, you need machinery, which is expensive, and organized fields, which requires some management and oversight. And crop management. And so on. I don’t think any small-scale farm can “undercut” a massive conglomerate that produces enough potatoes a year to fill Ohio three layers deep. (Exagerrating of course, but you get the idea)
remon@ani.social 7 hours ago
Well, who’s gonna care for and harvest all the food?
There is no point in undercutting retail prices when it means I have to work more.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 9 hours ago
might be very difficult, as you need significant more sources the larger the garden is, plus it might as well be a FARM at that point. you start have to think about pests, diseases, weeds, and other things. because the larger your gareden is the more pests, diseases it attracts.
strocker89@piefed.world 10 hours ago
They are called farms and require serious hard work to maintain.
The reality is not always as easy as the idea.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
As a small farm owner(essentially part time), came here to say this.
deHaga@feddit.uk 6 hours ago
I think the term is market garden. Intensive growing on small plots