I'm normally a 'fan' of mass produced stuff or at least the benefits of economies of scale, see home growing as an awful (to me) hobby and yet have to admit that homegrown vegetables taste much better to me even though my prior was that it should be the opposite.
Not optimizing for looks, transit and spending more resources per unit of produce are the main factors I suspect for the difference but I'm curious if there are others.
The main factor (in my considered opinion) is the life of the soil. The "secret" of getting the best taste and (I assume but have not measured) nutrition is to treat the soil itself as a kind of organism, feed it things like diluted milk, oatmeal, wood chips, kitchen scraps, etc. and it becomes "inwardly alive ... akin to the vegetative":
> Then the earth itself will have the tendency to come inwardly alive
and become akin to the vegetative.
~ Herrman Andrä, 1962, in re: Hügelkultur; (ah, he's quoting Rudolf Steiner from a "1924 lecture on biodynamics" but it's still evocative and descriptive prose despite biodynamics being pretty "woo-woo".) https://web.archive.org/web/20190715152357/http://pubs.cahnr...
When soil is healthy plants grow vigorously with minimal pest problems and no fertilizers nor pesticides, and yield and quality go up. E.g. I have lots of slugs in my garden, but almost no slug damage. You also do things to encourage the local mini-ecosystem. For example I have these plastic panels that serve as flagstones but also function as habitat for centipedes. Every couple of weeks I lift them up and throw some cuttings under there to keep it from getting too compacted. Centipedes are apex predators at their scale, like wolves or lions, so having a healthy population of them is both a indicator of ecosystem health and a crucial factor keeping other bugs from growing out of control. They cannot regulate their own moisture levels so they need a perpetually moist environment to survive. By providing that in my otherwise pretty dry micro-climate I get free pest control.
I'd be curious if home gardening is actually more resource intensive -- especially if your time & labor is considered free (whether donated or a sunk cost).
There is a huge range of output/resource ratios for home gardens...even for home gardeners who say they're trying to achieve a high ratio. (Vs. love puttering with a garden, or want small quantities of perfect-in-their-eyes baby vegetables for salads, or ...).
Note that for many modern folks, "regularly gets you outside and exercising a bit and perhaps interacting with neighbors" is a valuable output. And you should also consider the vast processing, handling, & transportation wastes (including your or a delivery driver's time at the wheel) of the alternative.
- Peace of mind
- Sense of accomplishment
- Food independece
- Giving the gift of veggies
If you don't (veg) garden, this is the most inspiring piece of content I've seen on the subject. I'm generally not a TED fan, but this one is seriously inspiring.
I remember reading a decade or more ago that high-density home gardening was a popular hobby in Russia, with a lot of competition to produce maximum output from minimal land area. But even with all that enthusiasm, home gardeners couldn't produce for less total cost than industrial farm output sold in supermarkets.
They must be factoring in labor costs of working in the garden at home. To me (small scale) gardening is a mostly relaxing activity that I can do early or in spare moments that basically has a zero opportunity costs and negligible supply costs of less that $100 a year.
Not optimizing for looks, transit and spending more resources per unit of produce are the main factors I suspect for the difference but I'm curious if there are others.