[Jake_old]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ho will feed the Brits? Tony Blairs misguided imagination?

[Pops]

If you can export production of nearly every other product made by a corporation overseas in order to increase profits, why not food?

http://apacweb.ag.utk.edu/weekcol/152.html
http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_b ... urpass_us/

Labor, regulations, land value, etc are all nicer to inc.s like ADM in places like Brazil. This isn’t bread (of any type) to poor countries – basically cutting forests, plowing prairies and exploiting the miniscule labor rates to export food to the US and the other rich nations. Basically strip mining their soil now that we’ve figured out how bad we’ve treated ours.

You can bet the big M-N’s are on the bandwagon to open those markets – they are the ones that care about tariffs.


As far as an OT(tomato)ECs goes, speculators in commodity futures control the prices, have for 150 years, ask any of our resident traders if they are ready to give up their jobs-producing-nothing and I’ll bet you’ll see how far that goes.



Wait, I'll take that back, I should have emoted:

[rogerhb]

If countries had any sense (which is doubtful) all countries should be self-sufficient before they engage in trade. Ie, trade should only be in surpluses. It is insanity to have poor countries producing cash crops then having to import their staple diet.

[Jake_old]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s far as an OT(tomato)ECs goes, speculators in commodity futures control the prices, have for 150 years, ask any of our resident traders if they are ready to give up their jobs-producing-nothing and I’ll bet you’ll see how far that goes.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jdmartin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
')In any case, a step in the right direction to be sure. Less pork in the US and more bread on the table of developing nations.

[BabyPeanut]

http://news.google.com/ reports

about 114 occurances of "grain harvest" in the news
about 18,900 for las-vegas

[MrBill]

So seeing I bothered to get a BSc in Agricultural Economics I may as well use it for something, goodness knows I have never been an agrologist!


So let us start with some basics. Observable facts already mentioned. Farmgate prices have been falling in real terms or inflation adjusted terms or however you care to measure it. What this means is that for the consumer food has been becoming cheaper and cheaper as the food surplus grows and as incomes have increased faster than food prices. Of course, this means comparing likes to like. That means carrots, peas, corn, potatoes, meat, etc. and not canned goods, processed foods, pre-packed meals ready to eat, which contain value added. So just like you cannot compare a combine in 1955 for $10.000 to a fully loaded combine for $200.000 in 2005 you have to have a standard of measurement.

So far so good.

Farmgate prices have been falling, meanwhile inputs have been going up in price. This reflects the fact that fewer farmers can farm larger tracts of land more efficiently. The rural population has fallen from 50% to less than 5% of the overall population since the end of WWII not counting jobs in food processing. What goes for farming goes for raising chickens, pigs, cattle,etc. However, those rising input prices have squeezed a lot of farms, and not just the stereotypical family farm, but large farms as well. This reflects diminishing returns. Ever higher inputs to produce slightly larger surpluses. Eventually, you hit a wall wether it is not enough arable land, not enough irrigation, not enough rainfall or something like bird flu.

Incomes on the land are stagnating. Farmers complain. Historical electoral maps give farm votes more weight than urban votes in many cases. Plus, food security is an issue. And the family farm is like motherhood and apple pie. So governments decide instead of letting the number of farms decrease, the number of acres decrease, they will subsidize production.

If they did not subsidize then crops would only be grown on the best land (forget about urban sprawl for a minute). However, if the subsidies are tied to production, it will pull in more marginal land. Land not suitable for production. The larger the farm the larger the subsidy. By the time you make grandma & grandpa's family farm viable again, the large farmers and factory farms are making a handsome profit growing such staple American crops such as rice and sugar cane.

So subsidies increase the amount of food grown if they are tied to production (conversely you can pay farmers to take land out of production if you want to subsidize the farmer and not production). Now, America, Europe, Australia and Canada can afford to subsidize more than poor countries can. Only 5% of the people live on the land, but produce an agricultural surplus. However, this suppresses price world wide, as if we cannot consume it in the home market it ends up being sold internationally or given away as food aid (commonly known as dumping). We end up selling food cheaper than Africans, Asians and S. Americans can produce it (with exceptions - I am trying to keep this short, so I cannot go into every exception). so developing farmers cannot grow locally grown crops which would compete with our staples.

Take away production subsidies and the amount of surplus food grown goes down. This will increase food prices in other markets while barely making any impact at home unless food production actually falls below consumption. However, at the moment it is so ridiculuous that they pay farmers to grown corn and then they pay to subsidize the manufacture of ethanol or in some cases corn is so cheap you can burn it as a source of fuel. This is not sensible. A waste of taxpayer's money and it hurts third world farmers.


In western Canada the government withdrew freight rate subsidies on grain for export. A lot of farmers were very upset. However, in the past 20-years we have seen a lot of marginal farmland turned into mixed farming or ranchland. There is more beef farming. The grasslands are less susceptable to erosion. The countryside looks better. The water quality improves because you have less fertilizer run off. And the economy does better because beef and cattle farming adds value to the grain instead of shipping it somewhere else to be processed. Now with the beef ban in the US, W. Canada has also invested more in local beef processing, so again more value added stays close to home. The transition was painful, but the policy was right. Take away market distorting subsidies and let the market develop. If you need rural aid, or regional subsidies, then make them transparent, income support for example, but don't subsidize production. It is wasteful and counterproductive.

I am sorry, not enough time to write more, so I hope not too many contradictions. if so, just let me know. Thanks.

[Ludi]

Very small farms can be economically feasible without subsidies. For instance, very small vegetable farms or grass-fed beef or pastured poultry operations. It's the mid-sized farms trying to grow comodities that are in the most trouble, they can't compete with the big ag producers.

One thing the US farm system has been good at is getting people out of the farming business, that's for sure.

[MrBill]

Ludi, my step brothers & cousins have a pretty big integrated farm operation from mixed grain, cow & calf, through feedlot, including making their own sileage, etc. I guess they are what you might call model farmers in our district. But, the economics are poor.

None of them farm full-time. They all hold down at least part-time jobs off the farm as do their wives. This is not necessarily bad. They make better use of their free time instead of concentrating on marginal, low value work. They diversify their own family income and family's income. Their wives are not tied down to the farm and have their independence. And it brings in a regular paycheque which makes budgeting the household expenses better. This makes sense.

I can remember a time when big grain famers gave up cattle. They worked 6-months a year and went curling or flew south in the winter to play golf all winter. It is a nice lifestyle, but it is not a farm policy. If they can make it work, great for them, but the taxpayer should not have to subsidize them, so they can holiday six months a year, speculate on land values and die rich!

[Ludi]

Very few farmers farm full time anymore, most have off-farm jobs. But there are people making a go of it farming full time. One I appreciate is Joel Salatin, who's written a couple of useful books, You Can Farm and Pastured Poultry Profits. But strictly speaking, he doesn't farm "full-time" either because some of his income derives from book sales and speaking engagements.

I suspect that full time farming with no other income stream has been rare even in the history of farming.

I think in the long run we'll return to more small farms, at least I hope so, for the health of our communities and planet.

[jdmartin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'S')o seeing I bothered to get a BSc in Agricultural Economics I may as well use it for something, goodness knows I have never been an agrologist!

[holmes]

ending subsidies will give more money to the small subsistence farmers worldwide. More incentive to grow real food and promote biodiversity of seed sources and environment.
This also can move a cultural shift towrds building small communities centered around farming and food production. This might help power down.
It might hurt some but we want the real human "producers" to survive. not the clone "consumers". The energy flows are leading into the former now. The lowest common denominator are the ones getting the free goodies now while the good are robbed and starved. So to speak. I say give subsidies to those that grow real food and promote biodiversity. We should be giving 5% of our pay each month to the independent farmers association. I do. well actually i am going to be a member soon. Hope more do.

[holmes]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'V')ery small farms can be economically feasible without subsidies. For instance, very small vegetable farms or grass-fed beef or pastured poultry operations. It's the mid-sized farms trying to grow comodities that are in the most trouble, they can't compete with the big ag producers.

One thing the US farm system has been good at is getting people out of the farming business, that's for sure.

[holmes]

I mean national farmers Union. oops.
http://www.nfu.org/

[rogerhb]

Why do countries need subsidies if capitalism is so great?

[Jake_old]

Yes thanks MrBill, and holmes, and jdmartin, and ludi.

I certainly thought i knew more than I did.

Losing subsidies must be the way forward, for a little short term discomfort it would reap great dividends.

It is a deffinite possibility that we might own a small farm in the near future.

Only if things hold together a little longer though

Oh and rogerhb, capitalism is only great for the winners, but I think you know that.

[holmes]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'W')hy do countries need subsidies if capitalism is so great?

[Jake_old]

holmes

reading what you just typed is horrible because its like whats in my mind.

house to sell

land to buy(but could be done first)

it'll be close, gotta have a dream.

[lowem]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BabyPeanut', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lowem', 'H')mm, deja vu. Didn't we see this in a movie somewhere before?
So when are the Russian tankers coming?

[MrBill]

RE back to the land


Let's forget for the moment that 160 acres of dryland farming will barely provide a subsistance existance for a family and produce enough of a surplus to buy what you need. And you do need to buy stuff like salt & sugar and other preservatives otherwise your vegetables are not going to last from one growing season to the next, nevermind if you have an infestation, hail, drought or disease which wipes out your crops or cattle. Also producing enough of a surplus to either buy or barter for machinery or even metal if you're a skilled machinist and plan to build everything yourself. Okay, let's just go back through 30-years of Mother Earth back issues and I am sure all these subjects are addressed.

Here is my nagging doubt. Where is the breeding herd going to come from? Draft horses, oxen, beef & dairy bulls to start your own herd, etc.? You have to feed them and keep them alive for a number of years before they in turn start to reproduce. Pigs have to be kept indoors in winter. It is a great challenge to gear-up. Those that have the breeding herd are not just going to give them away to the 100 million families that all of a sudden decide to go back to the land.

Plus the cost of buying all the bits & bobs to ride horses, pull wagens, pull plows, etc. You're not going to get it on the cheap at the last minute using your credit card. I am not sure, but it is my guess that out fitting a working farm even using hand tools, etc. is not less than $100.000? Anyone have any better numbers based on cold, hard facts? There are only so many auctions and second hand shops. Great for the first to arrive, but scarcer and scarcer as time goes by, if that is indeed the direction we're headed?

I am lucky. We already have an outfitted farm and three generations of handtools and machinery. We would still have to buy the cattle. At the moment, it costs $5000-10.000 to dig a well and a dug-out. $5000 to fence a quarter section. A cheap tractor that works is $10.000 used. A pick-up truck (it can run on ethanol before you ask) is another $5000 used. A windmill costs at least $2000 (but I am guessing). It all adds up.

I cannot build a straw quonset hut for less than $2000 due to the roofing, etc. nevermind that it costs $500-1000 per winter to heat it either as a workshop or for animals. If I am going to use a wood stove, I better be prepared to dedicate about 1-2 months chopping firewood. Unless I have a wood splitter. That also costs money as well as the cost of the wood stove/heater, unless you use a 45-gallon barrel and a stove pipe, in which case 70% of the heat heads up the chimney in winter. Not very efficient despite straws excellent insullation.

No, I am guessing $100.000 just to outfit a farm for one family to survive, unless you can buy everything secondhand and have the wherewithall to keep it repaired or fix it if it breaks, plus the cost of the land and the house. $200.000-250.000 even in Canada, which is considerably cheaper than many parts of the US. And that is in cash if you don't want a mortgage post the crash. In recessions or depressions, debt becomes more expensive in real terms. Cash is king. No one is going to sell you a cow with a useless IOU. Banks will only lend against real collateral, which may be your farm if you cannot repay.

But, we still have this problem. Where are the breeding stock going to come from? My guess is if you wanna profit from such a scenario, which only has a small probability of coming to pass in the next 25-years you should think about breeding livestock. But that is just my opinion. It is a lot of work. I may do it in retirement (or post peak oil), but so long as I have a job, my time is better spent accumulating savings, not going into farming full-time.