Are the Olympics Britain's last hurrah?

[oneoff]

Now for a reply to the industry spokespersons.

They would agree that the "contracting" system for farmers products which have yet to be sown or harvested is an integral part of the agricultural marketing system.
The perceived bennefit is that a price can be locked in that will guarantee a profit, and that it will exceed what their neighbors will end up receiving.

No sense arguing that you might make an extra nickel or even more. Could be less too; and could be dollars less in years like 2008 or even a few months ago. All I'm saying is that having the majority or all production contracted; certainly shuts oute opportunities; where you could have paid off the farm debt.

But contracting has other ramnifications. One is that the buyers have locked up several months of guaranteed supply; all usually starting with a new crop year. I submit that equates to about a half year where there is not much need to bid agressively for product. After all the non-contractors need to move some grains too; and the price appears stalled at a few nickels less than the month's old contracted bids. Just how is that repeating scenario in any farmer's best marketing plan.

Oh; and as any contract holder knows; it is presupposed that the buyer is still around; and that they have the wherewithall to complete payment some months later.
There tend to be problems completing deals with what turn out to be high priced products.

[oneoff]

Now for a reply to the industry spokespersons.

They would agree that the "contracting" system for farmers products which have yet to be sown or harvested is an integral part of the agricultural marketing system.
The perceived bennefit is that a price can be locked in that will guarantee a profit, and that it will exceed what their neighbors will end up receiving.

No sense arguing that you might make an extra nickel or even more. Could be less too; and could be dollars less in years like 2008 or even a few months ago. All I'm saying is that having the majority or all production contracted; certainly shuts oute opportunities; where you could have paid off the farm debt.

But contracting has other ramnifications. One is that the buyers have locked up several months of guaranteed supply; all usually starting with a new crop year. I submit that equates to about a half year where there is not much need to bid agressively for product. After all the non-contractors need to move some grains too; and the price appears stalled at a few nickels less than the month's old contracted bids. Just how is that repeating scenario in any farmer's best marketing plan.

Oh; and as any contract holder knows; it is presupposed that the buyer is still around; and that they have the wherewithall to complete payment some months later.
There tend to be problems completing deals with what turn out to be high priced products.

[Burbert]

Bullsh*t rules in Comedian framing!!!

[charliep]

I see a couple of references to Statistics Canada/lack of profitability. What survey are you referring to? If it is the farm financial survey, is this an accurate representation of farm profitability - particularly of medium to large farms who produce the vast majority of production? From the same survey, if farms are unprofitable, why are farm asset values and equity increasing at a very good rate of return?

[oneoff]

If you don't care about the demise of "family farms" as we have known them, then it is easy to say that the largest farms produce nearly all the food anyways.
End of story; never did apparently need so many small producers anyway.

Now if you want to talk about efficiencies; I'm not just sure there are any except the one manager controlling tens of tousands of acres of territory (and the labor pool they control).
If it still requires taxpayers dollars to keep those largest operations afloat, would it not be more productive to split those large payments anongst many more farmers. They can't be left adrift in a modern society; and must be looked after anyways.

I suspect that farm land prices represent the necessity to park some excess profits somewhere; and would wholly agree that productive farmland is one of the best long term bets for any investor. But I'm talking tens of years.

As for picking and choosing which Stats Canada data or survey is accurate; I refuse to waste any time debating all suspect, post fact information; especially considering that given enough figures you can manipulate and force any conclusion anyone might wish to come to.

Then all that is left is to do the better job selling and spreading your conclusions.

[charliep]

Not sure conclusions you are attributing to me. The industry is changing with new equipment/technology the driver. No 12 foot drills pulled by a 60 hp and seeded into summerfallow versus 50 feet of one pass seeding technology pulled by a 450 horsepower tractor on stubble. Not a comment on whether this is good or bad but the reality.

A long way off topic. Sorry about that. Perhaps the relation to the original topic is the level of insecurity on other economic fronts and the risk this poses agriculture. Not the 1980's but the comments/attitudes has many common features. The attitude from the late 1970's is a manager could do nothing wrong.

[oneoff]

How about a comment about the relative efficiency of a 12 foot implement pulled by 60 HP; compared to 60 feet and a 450 HP tractor.

Before jumping to wild conclusions; be sure to take into account that the amount of iron and tires and hydraulics to tie together something five times larger; doesn't just involve 5 times the iron; and lugging a semi load of seed and fertilizer and tons of iron over every acre just eats into the energy efficiency. Theres that old square of the size (not doubling) needed to make things structurally sound.
The point being that a pretty solid case could be made; that outside human time savings; its down right expensive in every other way of measuring resources consumed to make the biggest equipment perform the fantastic area that they can cover.
And thats why many fewer farmers are needed; and the die has been cast.

This largely happened to farmers and once the last of the aging 50 and 60 year olds move out of the way; the transition will be complete.
Maybe that where the organic niche of wanna be farmers will find their lasting place.

[oneoff]

How about a comment about the relative efficiency of a 12 foot implement pulled by 60 HP; compared to 60 feet and a 450 HP tractor.

Before jumping to wild conclusions; be sure to take into account that the amount of iron and tires and hydraulics to tie together something five times larger; doesn't just involve 5 times the iron; and lugging a semi load of seed and fertilizer and tons of iron over every acre just eats into the energy efficiency. Theres that old square of the size (not doubling) needed to make things structurally sound.
The point being that a pretty solid case could be made; that outside human time savings; its down right expensive in every other way of measuring resources consumed to make the biggest equipment perform to cover the fantastic area that they must now till, seed and harvest.
And thats why many fewer farmers are needed; and the die has been cast.

This largely happened to farmers and once the last of the aging 50 and 60 year olds move out of the way; the transition will be complete.
Maybe that where the organic niche of wanna be farmers will find their lasting place.

[hedgehog]

london olympics 2012, if they had thought ten yrs ago what todays scenario is in britain, they couldnt have made it up.
half of london being evicted to make room for olympic tourists, the big banks broke, property unsaleable, interest rates 0.5%, rangers football club bankrupt and going to div 3, and now the monsoon, wettest summer ever.