The food would be just enough for all of the people to eat. There would be no reason for extra food in this process.
Alot
85
Farmers help city dwellers survive so much that with out farmers city dwellers (well actually EVERYONE) would die. Farmer produce all of the food that we eat, so with out farmers there is no food and without any food we'd starve.
Banning of food exports in order to lower local food prices damages the livelihood of local farmers and discourages them from producing food. Which can lead to decreased food production and decreased food security. Providing subsidies to local farmers in order to disadvantage foreign farmers can decrease food security in poor countries who can't afford to subsidize their farmers to the same extent. Putting up tariffs and taxes on imports and exports of food in order to manipulate food prices in favor of consumers often puts farmers at a disadvantage and discourages them from producing food. Which decreases food security. It's not so much economic reforms that decrease food security as it is manipulation and interference in food markets in order to damage the livelihood of some farmers for short-term benefit of consumers or for long-term benefit of some other farmers. Banning of food exports in order to lower local food prices damages the livelihood of local farmers and discourages them from producing food. Which can lead to decreased food production and decreased food security. Providing subsidies to local farmers in order to disadvantage foreign farmers can decrease food security in poor countries who can't afford to subsidize their farmers to the same extent. Putting up tariffs and taxes on imports and exports of food in order to manipulate food prices in favor of consumers often puts farmers at a disadvantage and discourages them from producing food. Which decreases food security. It's not so much economic reforms that decrease food security as it is manipulation and interference in food markets in order to damage the livelihood of some farmers for short-term benefit of consumers or for long-term benefit of some other farmers.
Banning of food exports in order to lower local food prices damages the livelihood of local farmers and discourages them from producing food. Which can lead to decreased food production and decreased food security. Providing subsidies to local farmers in order to disadvantage foreign farmers can decrease food security in poor countries who can't afford to subsidize their farmers to the same extent. Putting up tariffs and taxes on imports and exports of food in order to manipulate food prices in favor of consumers often puts farmers at a disadvantage and discourages them from producing food. Which decreases food security. It's not so much economic reforms that decrease food security as it is manipulation and interference in food markets in order to damage the livelihood of some farmers for short-term benefit of consumers or for long-term benefit of some other farmers. Banning of food exports in order to lower local food prices damages the livelihood of local farmers and discourages them from producing food. Which can lead to decreased food production and decreased food security. Providing subsidies to local farmers in order to disadvantage foreign farmers can decrease food security in poor countries who can't afford to subsidize their farmers to the same extent. Putting up tariffs and taxes on imports and exports of food in order to manipulate food prices in favor of consumers often puts farmers at a disadvantage and discourages them from producing food. Which decreases food security. It's not so much economic reforms that decrease food security as it is manipulation and interference in food markets in order to damage the livelihood of some farmers for short-term benefit of consumers or for long-term benefit of some other farmers.
yes
No. The decrease in the number of farms (and, thus, farmers) in the last century or so is due to several factors. For one thing, farms are much more efficient than they used to be, growing eight or ten times as much food and other crops on much less acreage. This itself is due to better methods of farming, crop rotation, mechanization, and the use of pesticides to control bugs and diseases that killed crops. One farmer with a modern tractor, combine, and other technologies can grow as much food as 100 manual farmers who need to plow, plant and harvest by hand. Modern farming methods, crop genetics, and other technologies are one reason why there is so much food available today. Despite what you might think, hunger is not a food production problem, it's a food DISTRIBUTION problem.
The same then as now: to provide the local and/or wider community with food. The main difference between then and today (at least in industrialized nations) is that today's farmers are much fewer but those remaining produce on a much larger scale and with a much higher return in crops.
indian farmers use hand labours and they need much time in agriculture sector because no developed mechine are not yet available . but farmers in us use modern tecnologies and machines in agriculture sector which saves time and labour
How much do farmers get payed in Ecuador? What is the most common salery?
The farmers did not earn much.
Canada helps with food security by supplying farmers with oil to fuel their crop machines. Other than that, not much can grow in Canada due to its climate.