One Earth Farms

[burnt]

ASRG - I would be interested in how you arrive at your statement - "probably a better standard of life and stability for the people doing the actual work."

I look around at the big farms in my part of the country and see the labor force being run into the ground by the owners who think that slavery is still in vogue.

What would make the situation more equitable in the scenario predicted in this thread?

[BTOfarmallll]

We's shuttin em' all down. From Zero Earth Farms to The Hutts to Rich Foreigners to Whoever, Whatever, all being run into The Ground. We built itall and it gonna stay that way. Runnin Cash Rent so Freakin High in the Coming Years, Sticker Shock, Hopefully it is enough to get these Sob's off the land. If I ain't, all this ground Our Forefathers Broke will be lost 4 good. Someones gonna pay, Mark My Words.............

[rkaiser]

I think I see what ASRG is saying here. The biggest challenge that corps are going to have is people. The farms that you are speaking of burnt - will fail. Those structures have been tried before and failed and will again.

Only respect for the most important resource in our future --- people -- will prevail.

The example of working with an investor to expand your own operation keeps coming back to me.

Yes change is coming and we can either grab the pitchforks and fight em off alongside BTO or get creative; and not only survive, but thrive.

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son the biggest thing I would disagree with you on is your statement "With subsidized ethanol the new agriculture produces energy not food"
Two or three years ago that's the way it looked but I believe things are changing on that front and the ethanol craze will be discredited for the fools gold it really is. The world needs food and it needs water way ahead of it's need for fuel.

[farmers_son]

Maybe it people with money that will prevail.

And there is wisdom in Grassfarmers comments. But the U.S. is focused on more self sufficiency in energy. Short sighted maybe but governments really only operate in short time frames at the best of times. The next election.

When you consider we all sat in front of our TVs and watched millions of barrels of oil pour into the worlds oceans during the recent Gulf disaster and then consider that deep ocean drilling has resumed because the U.S. economy needs its life blood oil then I think subsidized ethanol is not going away any time soon.

[kato]

It's a deck of cards that some day will fall though. Not right now, maybe not any time soon, but eventually.

Small diversified farms are needed, even if it's just as a fallback safety thing in the event of a catastrophe. I think about that old saying about putting all your eggs in one basket, and it applies to modern agriculture. When the farms become huge corporate type structures, the loss of genetic diversity is bound to come with them. If you've got twenty thousand acres to plant, you're not going to plant twenty varieties of anything. You're going to plant several. If you have a thousand head cow herd, they're going to be one breed. Ten thousand sows in one place will all be the same. Chickens have already gone down this road, and basically one or two breeds supply all of North America's meat and eggs. Holstein cows, well, I don't even want to get into that.

I watched a documentary a while back on the incredible reliance that the U.S. has on it's corn crop, and the idea of so much being dependent on one single crop is actually quite scary. Corn is in everything. There's not much food that doesn't involve corn in one way or another. And now they've added fuel to the mix. That's not a sound or safe enough foundation to carry a country through to the future, IMHO.

This is what fits with the economy of scale model of agriculture, but that means there's no room for error. I think spreading food production across the largest most diversified group of farmers possible is the best insurance a society can invest in. Our society seems to want to go the other way though, which is short sighted, as usual.

[burnt]

Kato - terrific post.

[smcgrath76]

Good points. I think we are heading
into an era of increased volatility
politically, market wise and
environmentally. One of the key things
about global warming is not that it gets
warmer but that it increases the
volatility of the system.
I see large farms possibly being better
situated to deal with market and
political volatility, and perhaps better
able to purchase technological solutions
for environmental volatility, but I
can't see them being as flexible as
smaller family operated farms and
ranches, and I also think the risk
involved is much higher. One wrong
marketing decision on 1000 bushels or
100 calves may not sink a family farm,
but a wrong decision on 1000000 bushels
or 10000 calves is a big kink in the ROI
that investors will demand.
I agree that agriculture is under-
capitalized and will continue to attract
investment at an accelerated pace, but
there is risk in associating land only
with its' revenue generating potential
and a short term mindset. The trick for
family farms is going to be how to step
outside that system, or how to use other
people's money to accomplish everyone's
goals. When comparing one to another I
am not sure if being tied to debt, or
serving an investor is better or worse
than each other. It is possible there
could be some pretty nice investment
partnerships built from reasonably
patient money. Ag is not a tech stock,
you can't turn loose a new model of
wheat or grow fed cattle in 60 days from
concept to market.

[Kathy]

I-chi-wah-wah-... this is a 'heavy thread'

I like what Randy stated:
"Only respect for the most important resource in our future --- people -- will prevail."

First, the change of nominclature from "personelle departments" to "human resources" indicates that people don't matter we are JUST another resource. (and there are billions of us to choose from)

Second, outside investors in agriculture must make their money somewhere-somehow... isn't the way for this to work, Agriculture operations need to MAKE enough money to payout dividends to investors withouth the investors 'propping up' the farm.

For to long, the family farm has stayed alive because of off-farm incomes.

Buying the same land over and over again, has much to do with Government revenue/tax policy which "deems" the transfer as a "sale"... whether its land or shares in a company owning land.

Market value assessments - that affects all of us (city and country)... are actually bureacracies way of taxing us and charging for services, on the basis of how well the economy is doing. Looks good when the economy is growing...but sucks when things go south. Alberta hasn't seen the down side yet... maybe we won't for quite a while?? but if we do have a USA type depression.... municipalities will go broke just like in the 30's because they are charging for services based on the "value of property" - not the "value of the service" to the public.

If this down-slide takes place (as it has in the USA)... government will take control of the land once controlled by the municipalities - just like Special Areas... we know what happened here!

Perhaps the government is pre-emptively creating the 7 regional districts (as per Bill 36 Land stewardship act) as a way of taking that control BEFORE the municipalities FALL from lack of tax income. God I hope I'm wrong!

[per]

I've been kind of busy and sort of ignored this thread. So many topics here rolling into one.

Much of this has to do with planning and expectations. Many old European farms were paid for over multiple generations with the debt being part of the land inheritance. The younger or non farming siblings became brick layers or immigrated to North American and became the backbone of our society. We have a greater expectation of traveling and generally doing something different in our retirement, so assets get dispersed to make that happen. Also as a result of diet and medicine we live much longer requiring a greater amount of passive income putting pressure on the factory.

I am not totally convinced the family farm is dead, however I am sure that my what used to be large operation is no longer considered so. Where do I go from here. Although not large by today's standards it is still profitable and provides income for both my wife and myself. In fact we used to be larger but during a budgeting exercise discovered that if we dropped most of our rented land and reduced our staff we would have more time and not be worse off. The result was we did have more time which we squander doing various things and our Net income increased.

Would my operation fit into the umbrella of a larger outfit? Sure and it would add value to it as well. Will my outfit be here for my kids? Yes but most likely they will be the ones joining a conglomerate or being a lawyer or some kind of professional with a hobby operation.

Do I think "Global Warming" has anything to do with this? No. Most of the farms in this area were paid for during the drought years of the early part of this century. Weather is variable, it comes and goes in cycles. There is a geological record of barley grown in what is now permafrost in Greenland. Just like weather, business models over the centuries also change. Do I personally like where this one seems to be leading us? Not really because it tears at the fabric of all small communities by replacing labor with machinery (we consider machinery a labor cost). Farms will always need good people who are treated right but with iron as labor certainly not as many workers are needed any more.

I have a friend and an acquaintance who work for OEF. I personally think they have a reasonable chance of success. As a land speculator (which most of us are) OEF might have created a model for others to get inspiration from and include some of our land in their operations.

As far as 36 paving the road for a new society. I'm not sure if it could possibly be the plan of this current crop of politicians but certainly it will change the landscape.