The future of farming

[liberty]

Morris Dorosh absolutely nails it in his latest Agriweek commentary:

"...Canada does not need more farmers or any particular minimum number of farmers. The is absolutely no danger that valuable, productive agricultural resources will be idled for lack of someone to work them, or that if new farms are not formed agricultural production will decline. What is needed is not more farms or smaller farms, but more productive, efficient and competitive farms. Whether the likes of the agricultural community like it or not, farming is big-C capitalism."

What do you all think of this statement? I think he's completely correct.

[Fransisco]

I agree, we need to constantly strive to be more productive, efficient and competitive. And we don't have any choice in the matter. Small groups such as the supply management guys from time to time can isolate themselves from this reality but eventually it will catch up with them.

[ado089]

I agree, the flip side of that coin however is that the 2500-3500 acre one man show, owning most if not all the land and running machinery that is between 50-70% depreciated opposed to buying new equipment and using sound agronomics but not endulging in frivalous extras are still the most efficient farms. All these big guys are only a quartly payment away from going belly up.

[bucket]

How do we compete on a crop like durum where the american farmer is guaranteed more in subsidies than we are getting paid for our product.

Effiencies are great things for others along the food chain to take advantage of.

Railways, the cwb, governments, graincos, millers and maltsters etc., all have their hand in my back pocket.

[Fransisco]

Well I suppose one could try being as ineffiecient as possible and see how that works out.

[LWeber]

One of the best lines I've heard:

The time to worry about the future of agriculture is if you go to a farm auction sale and no one puts their hand up. Until that time, there are many who believe it has a bright future.

[bucket]

Let me rephrase it.

"the value of the efficiencies should be paid to the stakeholder that invest the time and money to create them"

For example the elimination of the crow was put on the backs of farmers not the railway and it should be the farmers benefitting for those efficiencies throug lower freight rates not higher. The railways cost to move grain in this country, if examined properly, have probably been cut by 2/3rds just in the reduction in track. Farmers invested heavily in either higher trucking costs or the purchase of a semi to move grain.

The railways went and salvaged a 100 year old line they never paid for in the first place.

[jensend]

exactly. instituting efficiencies for someone else's benefit is just a race to the bottom. that has been the case for the last thirty years or so in w. canadian farming.

[checking]

87% of Saskatchewan people are in debt. Nationally, it's 84%.

Let's say that farms are no different. This is with attempts at more production, efficiencies, and competiveness. Somehow, 2 and 1 are heading in opposite directions. It's a fact that institutions demand that we have cash flow through (more), and it is not necessary for them that we make anything to lower, or eliminate our debts. In fact, institutions wouldn't want that lose of control, or we might just tell them to go to hell. I'm siding with bucket and jensend,.

[jensend]

if farming was a sustainable economic model it would not have falling profits and fewer people involved as time goes on. years ago it was stunning to hear one of my farming friends say that farming in western canada has been a failure but in terms of sustainability he was right.