Where are we going?

[pilllypilsner]

Braveheart,there is one thing to consider-the human "HERD" is 119 per square mile.(that is all dry land on planet)
4/5s of those people are dirt poor.The demand for about 25 or so commodities
will catch most unaware.My wife went to bye a small bag of g****s-16$!!!Inflation is a BITCH(pardon my french)
and the sooner you learn what this *****
is all about the better.IMO.

[ianben]

Braveheart
I agree we are on a treadmill of cost cutting and more and more production.
The way we market gives us no choice.

I am frustrated knowing I must sell all I produce to survive and try to grow more for less which is more and more difficult every year.

My only anwser today even with a marketing plan is to produce more and more for less.

This leads us all to produce even more for even less and gives us your statisics for our commodities.

Total madness but our only option

As soon as a producer has the ability to fix a price and has some control over production and the buyer is confident the product will be avaiable at a resonable price it no longer a commodity

Wheat is a commodity but not bread how is this?

A marketing system which allowed us to price similar to the "buy it now" on E-Bay, where we listed our products in an asending price structure as we sold,and gave us the confidence and the cash to keep that extra production or recieve a higher price.

Instead of the present way were 1% overproduction reduces the price of every grain produced.

Would we need then to strive so hard to produce and could a more sustainable agriculture emerge?

Would Brazilian farmers rip up more and more rain forest if soya was twice the price?

[Braveheart]

If soy was twice the price, Brazilian acres would increase quicker than ever. There will always be those who want more, economies thrive on it.

But Ianben, a marketing system like you propose would eventually need production controls, would it not? Envision a system where floor price on beginning sales covered expenses and ascending prices for remaining production gave net returns to management and labor, overproduction would be rampant and production quotas would likely result. Then, another form of subsidy arises, one where the consumer subsidizes producers directly.

The other consideration is that as the price of raw materials or commodities rise, the end user either subsitutes or looks to science to come up with ways to use less of the more expensive raw material and yet still produce the product. The off farm economy has become "smarter" as the farming economy has become "dumber".

I still favour the open market, where price rations supply and gives market signals. I think however, that more producers need to take responsibility to use tools we already have. Futures contracts, cash forward contracts, options on futures, otc options and minimum price contracts are too infrequently used (at least here in Canada). Producers can handle risk much better than they do now.

[TOM4CWB]

Braveheart,

I agree with you on the Brazilian farmer.

The last 10 years of expansion proves the point.

In a closed economy, where large population and low capacity to produce rule... farmers can get away with almost anything. Not so for those with a high productive capacity.

Ianben,

I still would not change what I do, for serving my fellow human family through the production of safe good food... is a perfectly honourable way to spend a life sharing this planet! It is a shame all folks can't have access to safe low cost food!

[ianben]

Think you will find if you trawl up your statistics you will see that low food prices are not feeding the hungry.

That is the most distressing thing they to have to produce more with less just like us.

We are not over produced while people go hungry.

Give poor hungry people a better deal and dont you think they will spend that money on food.

I agree much can be done by farmers to insure and protect using todays aids but Bravehearts own stats show how it has worked in the past.

Why will doing the same work for the future?