Denial, denial, denial

[northfarmer]

excellent points charlie.....limiting production through collective action is not the answer....as you seem to sugggest oneoff...manageable scale of operation is key to lowering fixed cost per unit of production, finding the balance is hard in the farming businss because of the many uncontrolled variables.....the key to sustainable profitability, or loss minimization is to achieve lowest cost per unit of production....i for one am grateful of the risk mgmt programs we have at our disposal.....are they perfect no, but to not use them you do so at your own peril...unless your balance sheet is strong enough to self insure.......I cannot afford to do so, but i know those who do....

but to those who think we are overproducing, quit producing....over producing is the only way I can make any money at this game

[wmoebis]

I don't believe that it is production quantity or even price that the problem. I think that it is the cost of producing that is the problem. If the world doesn't want to pay more it shouldn't be on our shoulders to pay as much to produce it.

We have come a full circle from the 20's and 30"s when the unrest among farmers brought on the big changes to the grain industry. Only dif is that today we don't have a political party of any colour that will stand up and make changes that are needed. They have boxed us in with all thier political BS on trade agreements and enviro rules etc. Changes to safety nets and ins programs that all cost way too much to run and are nightmares to admin but don't work. They have allowed suppliers to run all over us. They screw up and it costs us. How many billions have we spend on sc****d programs that didn't work? Ever get refunded for the money you spent on accounting fees or travel on one of these wonder fix all programs?

Today the input corps and rail companies are raping farmers. Most of the companies are making big profits and reaping all the benifits from our better farming practices and increase production. The grain companies and end users are reaping all the benifits from the low prices as they can set the retail price to compensate for small flucuations in inputs and force the price of grain/cattle/hogs down to producers when it gets too high and thier profits drop.

I could live with $4 WHT or peas if it only cost $1 to grow it and market it. Tell me how it costs more to put my grain in a rail car and drag it to Vancouver than it does to grow it? In this new high efficient system with all its rationalization, specialization and diversification after the amalgomation.

What other trade would even want to be a supplier to a industry that was losing money. We buy retail and sell wholesale it has gone on longer than it ever should have.

If someone went onto the TV show "The Sharks Tank" and asked for invester to go into farming with them, they would laugh you off the show and tell you to get a paying job. Become one of these twits running around selling chem or marketing your grain and telling you how to farm and have no investment but are getting big pay checks. Maybe even be the last episode.

The way the system is set up today it doesn't matter what we get or how much we grow, nothing will change because either the suppliers or the gov't will take the profits. If we were getting $10 for our WHT someone would have thier hand in our pocket and we would be no better off.

I would almost rather have a Bible thumper or Amway salesmen show up at my door than a grain buyer or a chem rep. At least you can tell the Bible thumper and Amway sales that you are not interested. The chem rep and grain buyer you need have to deal with and they know it.

[agstar77]

Can you call canola a success story ? Ever increasing costs , Tua , hybrid seed , expensive fungicides and greater risk. Who benefits most from these things?

[charliep]

My measure of success is the ability to grow the market. Profitability in
the whole supply chain is the driver of this growth. Research and
development, creativity and innovation are also drivers. The ability to
identify market opportunities and respond.

Don't like canola and the business model - don't grow it.

[agstar77]

That will be a reality next year.

[charliep]

For what is worth, the study showed there was less relationship
between size and yield (acres between 2,000 and 14,000) than there
was within individual size categories. Putting another, there is as much
yield variability in farms between 2,000 and 3,000 acres as there is
between 2,000 acres and 10,000 acre ones.

Similarly, comments could made on machinery investment on a per
acre basis.

[vvalk]

Furrow. I get sprayed out by smaller farmers more often the large ones. Also large farms are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to govt payouts since most programs are capped. Take agri invest for example. The cap is $22500 so with govt portion thats $45000. Well it wouls take a large farm 10 years to have any sort of account where it could offset a 15% reduction in margin.

[Jay-mo]

Who would decide how much production is allowed?
I think the market does a decent job of limiting or encouraging production. It may not be perfect but it's alot better then having some NFU hack decide for us.

If you don't like being subject to overproduction then bypass the "market" and grow organic crops or some other niche crop.

If farmers are stupid enough to keep growing something that loses money the market will discipline them. Then Ritchie Bros. makes money and we all have an auction to go to in April.

[furrowtickler]

vvalk, you are right on gov't programs, but custom sprayers and those that spray regardless of conditions seem to cause most drifting problems here. They need to cover as many acres as they can and it is unfortunate damage occurs when you can't wait a day for the wind or conditions to change for the sake of the field next door. All drifting problems here are caused by the above or by those that refuse to invest in good drift control nozzels(these may be your smaller farms?).
Any way no one needs to be offended by this farm size thing it is just a fact of life as farm size increases more risks must be taken in adverse conditions to cover that dirt. Time management becomes stretched to the limit.
By the way we had a chat with the guys this morning and they seem to be very good about it so far, they know they maybe should not have been spraying.

[checking]

Not much time right now but

My first thought is that I've yet to see anyone challenge the "750 billion dollars of farm production over the past 25 years and not a penny directly made from that production by farmers"

If that is a true statement; then all the layers of rose colored glasses can't hide the fact that the average farm never was sustainable on its own. It also is more than a coincidence that very large farms have taken over. Given the average age of farmers practically increases by one year; after the passage of each additional year; there are future changes yet to come.
More comments tonight