Denial, denial, denial

[oneoff]

OK charliep this should be checkmate (or not). Thanks for the link to Statscan; then go to selected farm stats; by farm type; crop production. Of course; overlook that it is aggegated data.
I've posted the table as best as I can format it

Statistics Canada

www.statcan.gc.ca

Farm operators, selected financial statistics, by farm type
(Crop production) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
number
Crop production
Farm operators 138,830 132,440 130,480 133,380 132,540
average per operator ($)
Total income 52,040 53,009 59,690 67,700 80,500
Off-farm income1 32,248 33,922 36,818 38,544 40,505
Net operating income 19,792 19,087 22,872 29,156 39,995
Net program payments 11,177 16,420 18,160 12,280 8,309
Net market income 8,615 2,666 4,712 16,876 31,686
Adjustment for capital cost allowance (CCA)2 15,096 15,848 16,932 17,870 19,800
Net market income adjusted for CCA2 -6,481 -13,182 -12,219 -994 11,886
Total income adjusted for CCA2 36,944 37,161 42,758 49,830 60,700
Notes:
The estimates cover farm operators involved in one or more unincorporated farms (with gross operating revenues of $10,000 or more) or incorporated farms (with gross operating revenues of $25,000 or more).
1. Excluding taxable capital gains.
2. The capital cost allowance obtained from the income tax returns does not correspond to the economic depreciation. Capital cost allowance represents the expense written off by the taxfiler as allowed by tax regulations.
Sources: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table (for fee) 002-0035 and Catalogue no. 21-206-X.
Last modified: 2010-06-28.

To me its says from 2004 to 2008 there was but one positive net market income adjusted for Capital Cost Allowance year in 2008. If you add up the red ink for the 2004 to 2007 you get three times as much as the 2008 taxation year that I fondly remember. That makes me strongly think that we should take an openminded look at the last 25 years data from Stats Canada; and just maybe the NFU will be in the ballpark with their analysis. What say you charliep.
And please watch out for that off-farm income line. It inflates the figures by about a factor of two; and makes for a sorry balance sheet for 1.5 million of assets and only 300,000 of debt. What kind of a crappy return on investment is that. Somebody put a better spin on this because it looks way worse than I thought. Watch out for half truths; pregudices and support for the industry which even I could prove to be viable at farmers expense.

[northfarmer]

I agree that aggregate data can hide things....I also beleive and know that grain production is at best a marginally profitable business that in the long run returns poorly compared to other industries, that does not mean I am going to leave the industry I am passionate about...

we are not in a true free market economy, here, or in any other G8 or G20 country.....govt are very involved in all industries whether it is policy on and royalty structures on minerals and oil, forestry on public land, auto mfg etc......so quit your whining about govt invlovement in the ag economy it happens..

....the Libretarian in me says it should not happen, but all the liberals, socialists, and even commies want more govt involvement not less.....

in Ag it is about maintaining a level of govt support through risk mgmt and otherwise in our business for survival as we export and compete with these exports with every other producing country...i do not like it but that is reality...

when and if the collective solution is determined in canada to ever be produce less as a means to increase profit I hope I have the foresight to sell out before the market for my assets crashes.......

[LWeber]

Here is a history lesson:

http://library2.usask.ca/sni/stories/agr17a.html

[newguy]

There is lots of money spent on agriculture in Canada. There is just too much of it is used up before the farmers get any. Governments of all countries will always do what they can to ensure food production in their own country. So we have to play the game. In the end it is the consumer that benifits the most,Not the farmer.

[wmoebis]

I get a kick out of them including off farm job as farm income.

If you were working for Sobey's for $15 per hr 40 hrs a week= $600 gross. You need more than they pay to live your life style and they wouldn't give more, so you got part time at Safeway for $10 per hr for 10 hrs a week=$100. Would that meen you got $700/week from your job at Sobeys and they are supporting your life style?

[oneoff]

And the off-farm incomes reported by the official Statscan reports are not insignificant. In fact they are greater in every one of the 2004-2008 taxation years than net farm income. As has been pointed out; off-farm income has no business being associated with farm income. Even in the once in a lifetime 2008 year net farm income was less than off farm income (on average) for every one of the crop production farmers.
Over those 5 years those farmers each lost $20,990 after their Capital Cost Allowance was covered. 51% of their net farm income came from government programs. Where those crop farmers covered their farm wage or return on investment should be no mystery BECAUSE THERE WAS NONE.
Don't ever talk to me again about half truths and distorting figures.
I'm concluding that the NFU figures are not stretched. The accountants and industry mouth pieces haven't even attempted to defend the market places performance in giving farmers adequate returns. The truth is surely that the past 25 year's performance of the marketplace (and maybe a lot more years than that before and probably into the future) have not been kind to farmers. Still a lot of supposedly progressive and smart farmers are so self centered and smug that it is a complete frustrating waste of time to point those facts out.

[oneoff]

Each time charliep prods for more elaboration I have accommodated him. Now I challenge charlie to interprt the very Statscan crop production farmer net farm income (for the 2004-2008 period at least and much more preferably for the most recent 25 year period). I'll be watching that his figures for adjusted net farm income include some correction for depreciation (or capital cost allowances); and return to labor and return on investment for the 1.3 million of equity that charlie says each of those farmers have accumulated.
I'll even let charlie have the last word if his analysis and opinion sticks to what I've just said above.

[oneoff]

While waiting for charlie's analysis I thought of another point. That aggragated data is worse than it first seems. I know at least a half dozen farmers that do not chase government programs. There are surely a few hunded or even thosand more. If there were Statscan statistics that broke that minority out from the majority; you would find that the new averages for the majority would show higher government subsidy payments; but what would be most interesting would be which had the best farm economic performance. I certainly know which group is the most dependent on government; and I doubt that it is related to being a socialist; redneck, or NFU member. There are parallels to prostitution.

[furrowtickler]

On oil, the producers manage production - in crop production, mother nature dictates production - huge difference that all of you are missing? Call me crazy, lol. As smart and efficient as we think we may be, mother nature calls the shots sll the time. Very few industries on earth opperate this way.

[furrowtickler]

One other thing to keep in mind - again - livestock, copper, gold, oil, almost everything other than grains, oilseeds can be controled. We can not ever compare what we do to those managed industies - ever!! It is a dead debate realy.