|
| Thanks for that, er, article? Terry.
A couple thoughts. Yes, most govt payments pass through to the landowner. As govt payments went up in the early 2000's cash rents went up accordingly. However, if those payments are decreased will they also work down? We'll see. One thing that a most larger farms do is take the govt payments on the acres they own, and use that to leverage more ground to farm. They will also pay ridiculously high rents for some parcels and "avg" that in with the land they own and consider zero to "make it work out". I suppose it works, but for someone who is not already a landowner, that's tough to compete with. So, in that respect, I do think that the govt payments have increased the trend of consolidation.
As for the milc program, I actually think it's a good example. Many smaller family size dairies max out, but they aren't put into disadvantage of a dairy that will get 500,000 a year out of the program.
If you want to change farm size, I think the easiest thing to do would be to enforce erosion control standards and cropping plans. There is a TON of ground taken out in this area that has/will have severe erosion problems when cropped intensively and not paid attention to. If a farm has severe erosion problems, rather than the govt paying to fix the problem, one solution would be to have the farm in question fined, or at least hold all govt payments, untill THEY fix the problem. There is an awful lot of ground taken out of pasture or other uses, with that attitude that "Hey, in three years the govt will put terraces on it for me." That annoys the hell out of me. Also, stop these cockamamee wetland and border land programs. On a lot of these farms, years ago, NRCS basically payed to push all the fencerows and hedgerows and clean up all the little ditches. How? As "overage" on waterway and terrace work by the contractors. Now, NRCS is PAYING those same folks to put in quail and other habitat and maintain it. Meanwhile, those of us who have been doing it for YEARS, get bupkis. Another good example is with another program that payed you to "try" no till. Producers that had been doing it for years couldn't get a thing. But several large operators who were "beyond conventional" got $10 an acre and more to try it. I think that's just wrong. In short, those programs were just designed as another way to pass money through to large operators. The small guys aren't gonna jump through the hoops to get it, and the progressive operators were already doing it anyway.
Now, what I see from folks I've talked to in my area, is that the medium?(how do you define medium) sized commercial operations that involve livestock would like to see the subsidies go away. Even on pasture ground the subsidies have an effect, becuase you are renting against the potential of them if that ground is put into rowcrop. You are also bidding against CRP, because there is always the potential the ground will get farmed the minimum number of years and then bid into the CRP program. I can name hundreds and probably thousands of acres in this area handled this way.
Also, I've tried to find the info, but haven't been able to. It seems that something like 10% of operations in MO gross more than $100,000, and an awful lot are in the $100,000-$250,000 range. Obviously, these operations are not going to be long term sustainable without growth or substantial outside income, and we can't all grow, so, yes, I think it's inevitable consolidation will occur. Actually, in MO you can really see it as you get out of the Central Mo area and get into other parts of the state with less outside income. Farm size rapidly increases as access to viable outside employment decreases. At least that's the way it looks to me.
O.K., I've rambled enough, and probably said nothing. | |
|
- rent, economies of size, and government payments - tkastens : 8/18/2007 01:11
- RE: rent, economies of size, and government payments - coup : 8/18/2007 08:07
- Economics of size. - Hay Wilson in TX : 8/18/2007 08:39
- RE: rent, economies of size, and government payments - Pat H : 8/18/2007 08:57
- Re: rent, economies of size, and government payments - Pofarmer : 8/18/2007 09:57
- RE: rent, economies of size, and government payments - Cliff SEIA : 8/18/2007 12:55
- Re: rent, economies of size, and government payments - Steve in SD : 8/18/2007 15:20
- Re: rent, economies of size, and government payments - paul the original : 8/18/2007 16:02
- How dare you tell the king he is naked..... - John Burns : 8/18/2007 18:12
- Re: rent, economies of size, and government payments - Steve in SD : 8/18/2007 21:05
- Re: rent, economies of size, and government payments - Steve in SD : 8/19/2007 09:45
- RE: Sorry Terry I meant you not Ted, don't know where I got Ted - Steve in SD : 8/19/2007 10:06
- Re: rent, economies of size, and government payments - tkastens : 8/20/2007 08:18
- Re: Thank you administrators - plowboy : 8/28/2007 21:46
- Ditto,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - eddiedry : 8/28/2007 22:07
- Re: rent, economies of size, and government payments - wheat farmer : 8/28/2007 22:24
- Re: rent, economies of size, and government payments - Steve in SD : 8/30/2007 19:11
- Rent vs own - Les NCKS : 8/19/2007 10:10
|
rent, economies of size, and government payments
