
Millennials ‘Make Farming Sexy’ in Africa, Where Tilling Soil Once Meant Shame - rmason
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/world/africa/farming-millennials.html
======
rmason
This is a great development for a number of reasons:

1\. You've got high unemployment and a homegrown agriculture will put people
to work.

2\. Citizens diet is less dependent on a long supply chain

3\. A local agriculture will drive down the cost of food. This will make a
measurable difference in everyone's life. In America we pay 6.4% of our income
for food, in Africa it's 60%. If the cost of food goes down people will have
more money for other things.

[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-
mu...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-much-each-
country-spends-on-food/)

~~~
bko
> A local agriculture will drive down the cost of food

Is this true? In my experience the cheapest food is rarely almost never
locally produced. It may be marketing and the demand for local food is higher.

Long supply chains have a lot of value add. Sure there is cost to transporting
and storing the food, but the process has other efficiencies that more than
make up for the cost. I've even read stories about Central American countries
exporting their produce only to reimport it back for the locals to conusme.

~~~
phil21
It really depends. In high cost of labor countries, the long supply chain
likely is cheaper due to many small compounding reasons.

In low cost of labor countries, I've seen the exact opposite. It's probably
not very profitable in the US to setup a vegetable stand for 12 hours a day
along a highway for $10/hr of sales. In many countries it is - you have a
market garden and put one of the grandparents/children/cousins/etc. manning
the retail operation. A single western tourist can make your entire day
profitable (including opportunity costs) assuming no other sales.

In my experience you pay a _huge_ premium in the US for locally grown (e.g.
weekend farmers markets) - but in other countries it's the opposite -
supermarkets are pretty expensive, and the "local farmer" markets are a
quarter of the price.

~~~
mikekchar
It gets even more crazy, though. Very frequently there are weird market
conditions that create massive losses for large suppliers. Random google link:
[https://www.freshplaza.com/article/9056981/india-tomato-
whol...](https://www.freshplaza.com/article/9056981/india-tomato-wholesale-
prices-dipped-54-this-year/) You can see that the price dropped as much as 74%
These things happen around the world surprisingly frequently.

Large supermarkets, etc, can get access to these ridiculous prices and so it
can cause prices to stay fairly low. However, it is not really healthy for the
farmers. If you live in a really rural area that doesn't have access to a
large world-wide market, the local food will be a lot cheaper because the only
outside food you have access to is super expensive.

For me, buying local is about agricultural sustainability. It's about making
sure that my neighbours can grow food, sell it and live comfortably. I'd also
rather have many small farmers producing the best quality produce they can,
than 1 super farmer that is trying to produce the cheapest produce they can.
This all adds up to higher prices, of course.

I often feel that we should have "fair trade" in food everywhere. I can buy a
pound of raisons from California for less than $2. The same grapes would be 4
pounds. $2000 of raisons at a retail price is 4000 pounds of grapes... And you
think for those tonnes of grapes... how much is the farmer getting? It gets a
bit crazy.

~~~
tbirdz
Maybe it's cheaper to transport raisins than grapes? They are smaller so you
could fit more of them on a truck. Also they are already dried out, so they
may be less sensitive to shipping conditions.

~~~
mikekchar
It certainly is, but imagine a pile of 1000 pounds of grapes. Imagine an
iphone. They have the same retail cost. Is this reasonable?

------
mmsimanga
To add more information to the article. I have been slowly trying to build up
a hydroponics shaded structure. I have to finance this myself so this will
take a few years. There a few reasons I am doing this. I want an alternative
to an office job. Sometimes just sitting in front of a computer drains the
soul. I don't trust the financial systems in my home country and have my
doubts if my pension will support me later in life. I do think there is a
profit to be made. A fare amount of food is imported.

The weird thing is that small scale farming will only be viable as long as
Africa is not attractive to big farmers. The moment big farmers can get going
I think it will be the end of small scale farming.

------
jobigoud
What is up with the Millenials Do X, Millenials do Y? I don't remember reading
this kind of stories for previous generations. Why are things attributed to a
collective like this, it's weird.

~~~
yoz-y
Maybe it's an immune system reaction to so many articles insinuating that
millennials are lazy, doomed or spend all of their time on Instagram.

~~~
andai
You left out the part where we aren't getting laid.

------
Quipunotch104
Is there such a thing as an "African millennial"? Are there Gen-Xers in
Africa? Was there a baby boom to produce Baby Boomers? Aren't these
generational terms relevant to the USA only? NYTimes recently covered the
distinctions between Millennials and Gen-Xers, and none of those cultural
touchpoints or characteristics of Millennials seem to be appropriate for
describing any generation in Ghana.

~~~
IkmoIkmo
Millennials are typically defined as an age-cohort. So yes, you could apply
that term to denote a certain generation of Africans, no problem. It may not
be useful or confusing, but there's technically nothing wrong with it.

One of the key traits (stereo)typically discussed in the media w.r.t.
millennials is a sense of entitlement, growing up with technology. And to a
lesser extent, millennials tend to be more understanding of the importance of
the environment and diet.

That happens to reflect exactly the article's premise: agriculture is seen as
something that poor, illiterate rural people do. Whereas millennials in Africa
are urbanising, have mobile phones, are literate and went to school and are
looking for a manufacturing or services job, not an agricultural one. The
concept of the millennial translates just fine to the African context, in the
case of this article.

The average age in Africa is 24, yet the average farmer is 60. That's where
millennials come in, reshaping the idea of farming, and giving it a modern
touch. That's what the article is about.

> Aren't these generational terms relevant to the USA only?

I mean, even if you disagreed that an African millennial made sense as a
concept... there's hundreds of millions of people living in countries with
very similar concepts. (e.g. much of Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan etc).
It's not a term exclusive to the US.

------
titzer
From a long line of farmers...this is just one of the first steps of
industrialization. It took two generations to eradicate family farming in
America (at least where I am from), and it will happen faster for Africa. It's
great that people have better and more effective local food production, but
when the real economics kick in, and these people are competing with corporate
farming, their way of life will change, sadly, for the worse, as it did in
America. Enjoy the sense of freedom and pride now, and defend it as long as
you can, because there are serious doubts as to whether this will be feasible
in 50 years.

~~~
mmsimanga
You hit the nail on the head! See my second paragraph in a sibling comment[0].
I will just expand on the point here. Investing in Africa is not for the faint
of heart and your stand a good chance of losing your money. You also have to
be prepared to pay some bribes to ensure that you can do business. This makes
mining and oil about the only places external investors will invest in Africa.
This is what has left a gap for the small farmer. We are small farmers because
getting a loan isn't easy so we self fund.

South Africa on the other hand, the country I work in is very different from
other parts of Africa. There are large commercial farms which produce most of
the food for the country. Suppliers are not interested in small scale farmers.
Animal medicines only sold through vets or in quantities of 10 000. Suppliers
of shade cloth and other farming materials largely ignore you when you want to
buy a handful of stock. It is very different to my home country where everyone
has a few animals and you can buy whatever you want in small quantities. South
Africa represents what Africa will be in the next generation or two. I full
agree with your comment and I would like to enjoy the small scale farming
while it is possible.

[0][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20080828](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20080828)

------
nhhilltopper
Try finding capital, infrastructure, stable and non-corrupt government, and
competent legal system in most of Africa (it is a large continent - not just
Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa). Going much beyond sustenance in Africa is
still a massive challenge.

~~~
gridlockd
To add to that, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa are "easy mode". Those
countries are far more developed than people imagine, despite massive
corruption.

------
Mikeb85
At the end of the day, people need food to eat. If farming can provide a
decent living (in this case, it looks as though Ghana is under-served in this
sector), people will fill that gap.

Even more than that, farming is an essential human activity and we could use
another green revolution.

~~~
mc32
True. I think Ghana has it s bit easier than other places, because they
haven’t suffered a prolonged disaster. Weak countries affected by ongoing
disasters get international aid which can have “dumping” effect by
undercutting the native farmers and making their enterprise less viable. In
countries where this happens they (aid) have to be careful they don’t end up
undercutting local economies when they try to “help”,

~~~
gridlockd
Do economies really need to go through that "farming phase" to grow? I don't
see the connection. Modern farming employs less than 1% of the population.
Non-modern farming can not compete at all except in tiny niches.

So how are those "native farmers" going to bring their societies from poverty
to prosperity, by being completely uncompetitive, but protected at the same
time?

~~~
zrobotics
As someone who has family that still farms: the amount of equipment required
to allow only 1% of the population to grow food is enormous. Are you seriously
suggesting that it will be a trivial thing for farms that currently rely on
manual labor to switch to large-scale mechanized practices? Most farmers I
know have >1M USD in equipment, along with the required infrastructure to
handle shipping/storing the crop.

So I don't see how they can avoid a process similar to what occurred for
western farmers starting ~1900. They don't need to be competitive on a global
scale, they need to find a profitable niche in their own countries.
Additionally, increasing employment seems far preferable; likely developing
local economies is the best way to increase standards of living rather than
relying on foreign aid.

Also note that there are many crops even in the US that heavily rely on hand
labor (typically fruit/vegetables). While it may not be feasible to compete
with imported grains, I can certainly see how local farmers could effectively
compete for these crops- which would likely also increase the diversity of
foods avaliable in local markets.

How is it anything but a net positive for them to develop local industries;
the increased economic output is likely to improve the entire local economies
and doesn't rely on foreign aid (which can suppress long-term economic
development).

~~~
gridlockd
> Are you seriously suggesting that it will be a trivial thing for farms that
> currently rely on manual labor to switch to large-scale mechanized
> practices?

Of course not. I'm suggesting the opposite: That they have _no chance_ of
competing with manual farm labor, so there's no point in trying.

> So I don't see how they can avoid a process similar to what occurred for
> western farmers starting ~1900.

I don't see how a development process that may have happened in the West over
a hundred years ago, under completely different circumstances, can be repeated
in Africa in 2019. That's literally the question I am posing: How could this
kind of development possibly work through _farming_?

> They don't need to be competitive on a global scale, they need to find a
> profitable niche in their own countries.

You can't ignore the global market. The whole reason why many farmers can't
make a living in Africa is because foreign produce is cheaper, due to
automation. So you would have to restrict foreign produce, raising its prices
and therefore making everyone poorer (except the farmers).

> Additionally, increasing employment seems far preferable; likely developing
> local economies is the best way to increase standards of living rather than
> relying on foreign aid.

Developing local economies is fine, doing it through _farming_ is completely
misguided. In farming, a massive amount of labor can be automated away and
_will_ be automated away if economic development actually takes place, so any
employment here would be temporary at best.

Instead of farming, let's take the manufacturing of clothes. Some of it can be
automated away, but not necessarily to the point to make 99% of workers
redundant. As a result, you can see many emerging economies producing clothes
for international markets.

> Also note that there are many crops even in the US that heavily rely on hand
> labor (typically fruit/vegetables). While it may not be feasible to compete
> with imported grains, I can certainly see how local farmers could
> effectively compete for these crops- which would likely also increase the
> diversity of foods avaliable in local markets.

I did note as much, specialized farming may well be a profitable niche for
_exporting_. Except those misguided western do-gooders aren't helping them
build supply chains to western markets for valuable produce, they're telling
them that raising rats and snails for the domestic market is totally the right
thing to do for economic development. Utter nonsense!

> How is it anything but a net positive for them to develop local industries;
> the increased economic output is likely to improve the entire local
> economies and doesn't rely on foreign aid (which can suppress long-term
> economic development).

Because of _comparative advantage_. Making domestic farming sustainable would
require protectionism. We figured out hundreds of years ago that protectionism
doesn't work and effectively makes _everyone_ poorer, yet somehow it's still
popular among politicians (like Mr. Trump).

------
timwaagh
In Holland, land of many onions, being a farmer usually means having over a
million in assets. it's not a career choice for young people without
significant assets. things will go in that direction everywhere and it means
small farmers will go the way of the dodo. so they are in fact wrong in trying
to get a lot of people to choose farming. you only need a few rich guys.

------
neodypsis
One thing that shocked me is they breeding "giant rats" (Cricetomys
gambianus). These are known vectors of monkeypox. Also, snails usually carry
very harmful parasites to both humans and plants.

~~~
Double_a_92
If they breed it it's a farm animal like anyone else.

~~~
neodypsis
Sure, but, e.g., pig, chicken or cow breeders are subjected to strict sanitary
controls and microbiological testing programs.

------
NikkiA
"grows snails and rats" come on NYT, the word 'raises' is right there.

------
bayareanative
Yum. Escargot and rats. Michelin 3* in Tokyo, no problem.

