One Earth Farms

[kato]

By "not as good", I meant that back then there were no other options except work. Which is OK if you are healthy. If you are not, then things could get rough. There was no pension, no safety net.

As for retirement, we're not really planning on it either. We're just going to keep chugging along, and downsize as needed to match the workload to the desire and ability to work.

We know some people who have retired in their 50's, like all the experts say they should. What we've noticed is that it didn't take long for idleness to get pretty boring. Some went back to work pretty quick.

[farmers_son]

Interesting discussion really. I did not foresee this ending up talking about retirement. Really the discussion about retirement anticipated agriculture being much the same as in the past while the original post tried to make the point that agriculture may be completely different in as little as ten years. Just like how one or two changes in the way grain freight rates were determined completely changed the prairie landscape with the disappearance of the grain elevator the way the land is farmed could change just as quickly. My point was that if, actually it is happening right now, investment capital from pension funds, insurance funds, the stock market and so on is attracted to agriculture as we see with Sprout Resources and One Earth Farms then the reality of agriculture in North American could change almost overnight. And it very well might. As fast as the prairie elevators came toppling over the small individual farms dotting the landscape will all be bulldozed over and the land farmed.

One Earth Farms has become the largest farm in North America in just three years. Three years ago OEF did not exist. And that was done with less than 60 million dollars of investment capital. Plus there is Assiniboia Capital Corp, Agriculture Development Corporation, Agcapita and that is just the tip of the ice berg. Think about the trillions of investment dollars (estimated to be over $23 trillion) that are out there looking for a home and you might begin to appreciate the future when agriculture attracts some more of those dollars.

I think Grassfarmer made some good points about the big farms of olden days versus family farms being more efficient. The USSR collectives had other problems one important problem being no profit motive. I think there is a point to be made that presently agriculture is undervalued, undercapitalized and so fragmented that opportunities to demand a decent return from the market place are missed. North American agriculture and the mom and pop farms are ripe for an “unfriendly takeover”.

We tend to think of our industry in terms of the past. And some of the discussion here made reference the past. But forget the past. It is gone. With subsidized ethanol the new agriculture produces energy not food. It is a new reality and part of that reality (I think I will use the word “will” not “might”) will attract hundreds of billions of investor capital dollars that will create a whole new landscape for agriculture. An agricultural landscape that has no more place for the mom and pop family farm than the new grain industry had for the prairie grain elevator.

[ASRG]

I suspect farmers son might be right.
That very well could be the future?
I'm not sure that is a bad thing?
At the end of the day that scenario might be better with a better rate of return on investment and probably a better standard of life and stability for the people doing the actual work.
Change is never easy.

[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!