[Robair]

Google efficiency of small vs larg farms. The results may suprise you.

Then watch this: http://www.foodincmovie.com/

[DrCaleb]

jeff744 jeff744:

andyt andyt:

Thanks for that. Sounds like we should keep the CWB, tho I have to wonder if trying to maintain small scale agriculture is swimming against the tide.

It's no longer cost effective to have a small farm, if you buy a combine you are making a massive investment and if you are not running it all harvest you are losing money, then you have to purchase additional equipment for planting, tilling, etc. Small farmers generally live on used equipment which can be old enough to verge on being called antiques where finding a new part requires finding another machine like it and salvaging it.

There are also entire businesses where all they own is harvesting equipment, and they travel farm to farm where they are paid by farmers to harvest crops. Saves time and costs to maintain the equipment.

[andyt]

Robair Robair:

Google efficiency of small vs larg farms. The results may suprise you.

Then watch this: http://www.foodincmovie.com/

Interesting. I made a statement saying small farms are more efficient (because that is what I heard) on this forum, and was soundly shot down.

[jeff744]

andyt andyt:

Robair Robair:

Google efficiency of small vs larg farms. The results may suprise you.

Then watch this: http://www.foodincmovie.com/

Interesting. I made a statement saying small farms are more efficient (because that is what I heard) on this forum, and was soundly shot down.

In terms of production/hectare they are, but look at the output/worker p.17 (p.16 for the bottom of the page number) on the link below. Small farms would require more workers to maintain (something most western provinces do not have) and while it would produce more crops overall the costs would also increase.

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/21085/1/sp06le03.pdf

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It's more complicated than that. We like certainty in our markets. Paying a slightly inflated price is a fair trade off to remove wild swings in prices.

Who's "we"? The government or the Canadian people? I wouldn't exactly call the inflated prices placed upon Canadian consumers as "slight", either. Actually, it can get rather excessive, like with dairy.

$1:

When the market price crashed in the pork industry in the early 90s, there were pig farmers dangling from their barn rafters all over Ontario. When agricultural markets aren't regulated, investment capital is scared away by the risk.

Couldn't this be said for any, and every industry in existence? Plus, don't co-ops exist for this reason? Farming is a risky industry, to be sure, but there are ways to cushion that risk without having an enforced monopoly, no?

$1:

It's not necessary, but it definitely adds stability to the market, as well as making agriculture profitable. Without price controls, you remove incentives to invest in agriculture and, ultimately, chase that production out of the country. Personally, I don't mind paying a little more for my agricultural products in order to keep those industries viable and our food supply domestic.

So how do American agriculture industries survive? They certainly don't have the same protections as is afforded to farmers by the CWB, or dairy farmers in Quebec, and yet there is still a relatively healthy farming sector in the United States.

[Robair]

commanderkai commanderkai:

So how do American agriculture industries survive? They certainly don't have the same protections as is afforded to farmers by the CWB, or dairy farmers in Quebec, and yet there is still a relatively healthy farming sector in the United States.

Go and read the article I posted one page back in this thread.

How do American/European farmers survive? Off the taxpayer, that's how. Huge subsidies. There's no way Canada could subsidize to the same extent.

The government does not contribute to the CWB one red cent. Which system do you prefer?

Coincidently, whenever the CWB is challenged at the WTO, it's our competition challenging it. American farm groups. If it's such a bad thing for Canadians and Canadian farmers, why is our competition trying to get rid of it?

[peck420]

commanderkai commanderkai:

So how do American agriculture industries survive? They certainly don't have the same protections as is afforded to farmers by the CWB, or dairy farmers in Quebec, and yet there is still a relatively healthy farming sector in the United States.

The United States currently pays around $18.1 billion to farmers in direct subsidies.

$9.5 billion direct from government.
$6.1 billion in 'commodity payments'.
$2.5 billion in 'conservation payments'.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmincome/govtpaybyfarmtype.htm

[fifeboy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

As we've discussed here before, the small farm is all but extinct; the factory farm is the norm. As Robair already said, the CWB is not government, and already run by Farmers.

Trevor Herriot, in River in a Dry Land comments (about Saskatchewan) that it seems we are moving towards having one guy own all the land north of the Trans Canada and another guy owning all the land south of the Trans Canada.

[RUEZ]

bootlegga bootlegga:

RUEZ RUEZ:

That's great, let the 62% that voted to keep the CWB use that exclusively, and the 38% that want to market their own wheat can do so. But no, you think that farmers who want to market their own product like every other businessman in Canada and farmers in Ontario and Quebec, shouldn't be allowed to.

Talk about democracy.

62% is far more support than Harper got in the last election, but do we hear you decrying the failure of democracy over that?

Actually my little quip was tongue in cheek based on something your cheerleader posted. I'll leave it up to you liberals to complain about the broken electoral system when someone other than your candidate get's a 38% majority.

[RUEZ]

So assuming the U.S. has no wheat cartel. How is it their farms can survive and ours will surely die without the CWB?

[commanderkai]

Robair Robair:

How do American/European farmers survive? Off the taxpayer, that's how. Huge subsidies. There's no way Canada could subsidize to the same extent.

The government does not contribute to the CWB one red cent. Which system do you prefer?

I don't know, I have issues with forcing farmers to sign onto the CWB, if they want to or not. It's just...wrong. Why not just let the 40% who do not want to be a part of the CWB leave?

Plus, didn't Lemmy just say that Canadian consumers pay more for foodstuffs due to organizations like the CWB?

$1:

Coincidently, whenever the CWB is challenged at the WTO, it's our competition challenging it. American farm groups. If it's such a bad thing for Canadians and Canadian farmers, why is our competition trying to get rid of it?

Is this somehow supposed to be surprising? Of course they aren't happy with it.

[Scape]

Killing wheat marketing board no big deal: Australia

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Plus, didn't Lemmy just say that Canadian consumers pay more for foodstuffs due to organizations like the CWB?

Absolutely, we do pay more for foodstuffs because of supply management. But the stability in agricultural markets makes credit cheaper. You pay more for milk, but you don't have farmers jumping off their roofs when market prices fluctuate. You may pay more for milk and cheese, but less for your mortgage as a result of marketing boards. It's a complex system, the economy.

[Robair]

RUEZ RUEZ:

So assuming the U.S. has no wheat cartel. How is it their farms can survive and ours will surely die without the CWB?

What is this? Some kind of "let's see how many times Robair will repeat himself!" game?

I'm not playing.

[Robair]

Scape Scape:

Killing wheat marketing board no big deal: Australia

It doesn't take much to find different opinions: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs. ... nt&src=rss

Read some of the comments after the article.

Besides, the CWB isn't the AWB. The CWB was never involved in kickback scandals with Saddam Huessain. I think there were other factors affecting the major changes at AWB.