What is Big Ag?

C

couger71

Member
Since there is a lot of discussion back and forth between posts on Big Ag......

What are peoples' classifaction of Big Ag?

Amount of acres owned?

Amount of acres farmed?

Amount of employees?

Amount of big/new shinny equipment?

If the farm is privately owned?

If it is an corperation? Ex. LLC
I know of many farms that are under 500 acres that are LLC's

Please respond ---
 
The Resnicks who ow paramount farms in California, along with a few other companies (fiji water, pom wonderful) own over 60,000 acres of almonds and pistachios, 10,000 acres of pomagranites, and 20,000 acres of citrus. Is that big enough?
 
J.G. Boswell company farms some 135,000 acres in Tulare county.

There are some big ranches in California too, the Tejon ranch is 270,000 acres of continues cattle land.

How does one come about owning this much land?
 
Dern good question and I am anxious to hear others responses.

I would say its like the following:
- companies like Monsanto
- SD True Environmentalist Campaign
- a mutual fund where you can invest in a management company that farms 800,000 acres
- corporate farms
- any influence that incetivizes the farmer to not farm in a true sustainable method (and I don't mean Monsantos definition of Sustainable farming)
 
I'm never sure what people mean by "big ag", except that it personifies all the negatives associated with anti-enviornmentalism. For lack of a better term, and I think maybe we need one, because I see no difference between "big ag", "big oil","big business", and "big military-industrial complex". I think it's a state of mind. The belief that all technology is good, damn the consequences. In the case of agribusness, more demand on the ground, greater input, genetically altered patented seed, bigger equipment, more farm program payments, public research grants for private gain, raging farm land prices, huge debt, cornering commodities, artificially fixing prices, huge profit, huge losses, are all good. The belief that we should use it all up, now, and rely on this "technology" to fix the problems our greed and short sightedness cause. The belief that if it doesn't show an immediate profit, it doesn't get consideration. I think you can own hundreds of acres, 1 acre, or no acres, and be a "Big Ag" guy, or enabler. Conversely, I think you can be a large land holder, successful, and not be "big ag". I know a lot of both.
 
oldandnew said:
I'm never sure what people mean by "big ag", except that it personifies all the negatives associated with anti-enviornmentalism. For lack of a better term, and I think maybe we need one, because I see no difference between "big ag", "big oil","big business", and "big military-industrial complex". I think it's a state of mind. The belief that all technology is good, damn the consequences. In the case of agribusness, more demand on the ground, greater input, genetically altered patented seed, bigger equipment, more farm program payments, public research grants for private gain, raging farm land prices, huge debt, cornering commodities, artificially fixing prices, huge profit, huge losses, are all good. The belief that we should use it all up, now, and rely on this "technology" to fix the problems our greed and short sightedness cause. The belief that if it doesn't show an immediate profit, it doesn't get consideration. I think you can own hundreds of acres, 1 acre, or no acres, and be a "Big Ag" guy, or enabler. Conversely, I think you can be a large land holder, successful, and not be "big ag". I know a lot of both.
Click to expand...

O&N, I know what you mean. one thought that came to mind was I would like to see Big Ag try to get into the organic market. That's almost like an oxymoron:D

Most producers I have talked with surely would not advise a new or any farmer to try and farm organically because it won't work and yada yada yada.

Organic products are finding more and more space on the grocery shelves all the time and I gladly support them. it takes a special system to be a profitable organic producer and it is possible.......But there ain't no money in it for Monsanto!!!!:eek:
 
I think of it as somebody who tries to squeeze every possible dime out of the land they can get RIGHT NOW, with no regard for what impact they are having on the land, air, and water. Immediate profits being valued above all else, as O&N said.

As a hunter, you know it when you see it.
 
My grandfather borrowed money to buy a 100 acre farm in IN in 1946. He also farmed 70 acres directly adjacent that was owned by my Great Grandfather. For the next 25-years that small parcel made the loan payments, raised four kids, supported a diverse population of wildlife and co-signed the loan for my father's 168 acres in 1969.

All in all a good investment that didn't require crushing debt and paid pretty good margins.

In todays farm economy a family of six would likely need five times that amount of land to generate a living and would have to take on some back breaking debt to do it. Except for the short lived once a generation boom years margins are razor thin and the risk is enormous.

Big Ag is who siphoned off the margins and created a farm economy where almost all the risk sits with the producer.
 
UGUIDE said:
O&N, I know what you mean. one thought that came to mind was I would like to see Big Ag try to get into the organic market. That's almost like an oxymoron:D

Most producers I have talked with surely would not advise a new or any farmer to try and farm organically because it won't work and yada yada yada.

Organic products are finding more and more space on the grocery shelves all the time and I gladly support them. it takes a special system to be a profitable organic producer and it is possible.......But there ain't no money in it for Monsanto!!!!:eek:
Click to expand...

Just because the word Organic is in it doesn't make it good for the environment. Organic almost always equals more tillage. Which leads to more soil erosion. I know quite a few organic farmers including two who farm over 5000 acres certified organic each. As a side note these guys are breaking up more grassland and putting it to crops than anyone else I know. Almost always there is at least three more tillage passes than conventional farming. Just because they are not using comercial fertilizer doesn't mean they are not causing phos and nitrates to be draining into the water. When they apply 2-3 tons of chicken manure per acre there are plenty of nutrients to leach. I also know organic farmers who have drain tile. There are also a lot of organic growers who are also in just a corn/soybean rotation.
The smaller livestock producers are some of the worst offenders when it comes to the environment. They can have their livestock right in a creek. They don't need a manure managment plan, they don't have to keep track of where they apply manure and don't have to take soil samples to justify applying manure, something all the larger producers have to do. I am NOT saying the large producer is right, just saying the small producer and organic producer isn't always as romantic as some people believe.
 
Big Ag

Quote
"Industrial agriculture has been defined, even by its proponents, as a system where the farm owner, the farm manager and the farm worker are different people. That's a dramatic change from the historic structure of agriculture, where the people who labor in farming also make the decisions and reap the profits of their work.

Corporate farming leads to closed markets where prices are fixed not by open, competitive bidding, but by negotiated contracts, and where producers who don't produce in large volumes are discriminated against in price or other terms of trade.

A healthy and stable community depends not on the number of livestock being produced, but on the number of livestock producers living and working there. The Center works to create genuine opportunity for family farms and ranches."
 
One could argue that organic farming isn't as good for the birds as notill. If you notill like I do, the stubble is left standing all winter for the birds to feed in. They will even roost in the stubble when the weather isn't too bad. It gives them protection from hawks and owls when feeding. As another poster said, organic farming requires working the h@ll out of the ground which causes more erosion. There is a lot of very steep ground in this country that is for sure the definition of unsustainable. You can't notill without using chemicals to kill the weeds so it can't be organic.
 
Last edited:
Excellent observation Wirehairs. For most peoples definition what you described would classify organic farmers "Big Ag". I am sure of course that your statement will be dismissed as nonsense because it does not fit in our "minds eye" what a small organic farmer is really doing to the environment.
 
couger71 said:
If it is an corperation? Ex. LLC
I know of many farms that are under 500 acres that are LLC's

Please respond ---
Click to expand...

I operate my small farm/ranch through an LLC, which stands for Limited Liability Company under the laws of the State of Kansas.

I in no way fit the Big Ag name. Don't even get Successful Farming or the Farm Journal. I do on the other hand get Quality
Whitetail, Pheasants Forever Journal, American Hunter.
 
This is potato country. A huge french fry plant owned by the same outfit that owns 100's of center pivots. Buying up Potlatch land. Potlatch owns a good part of the forested land in Northern and North Central MN. Now with the high value of the forested land to turn to potatoes Potlatch is selling. 2-3 k per acre will never produce the pulp that the land is worth. [for potatoes]

Both Potlatch and The potatoes are in it for $$$$. Corn is planted on the pivots every 3 years, this is done for FSA payments.

Most of this potlatch land has been logged and replanted into Norway [Red Pine] Some stands 20-30 years old, some 6-10 feet tall. No matter, dozed, piled, burned.

People love French Fry's, apparently a shortage world wide, so a lot of forested land is going. They say that 1 1/4 section irrigated produces more 100 weight in potatoes then the entire county did dry land?

Anyway this is "BIG AG" and NO there is no thought of the future of the land. Wildlife means nothing.
 
Wirehairs said:
Just because the word Organic is in it doesn't make it good for the environment. Organic almost always equals more tillage. Which leads to more soil erosion. I know quite a few organic farmers including two who farm over 5000 acres certified organic each. As a side note these guys are breaking up more grassland and putting it to crops than anyone else I know. Almost always there is at least three more tillage passes than conventional farming. Just because they are not using comercial fertilizer doesn't mean they are not causing phos and nitrates to be draining into the water. When they apply 2-3 tons of chicken manure per acre there are plenty of nutrients to leach. I also know organic farmers who have drain tile. There are also a lot of organic growers who are also in just a corn/soybean rotation.
The smaller livestock producers are some of the worst offenders when it comes to the environment. They can have their livestock right in a creek. They don't need a manure managment plan, they don't have to keep track of where they apply manure and don't have to take soil samples to justify applying manure, something all the larger producers have to do. I am NOT saying the large producer is right, just saying the small producer and organic producer isn't always as romantic as some people believe.
Click to expand...

Good points wirehairs.
 
moellermd said:
Excellent observation Wirehairs. For most peoples definition what you described would classify organic farmers "Big Ag". I am sure of course that your statement will be dismissed as nonsense because it does not fit in our "minds eye" what a small organic farmer is really doing to the environment.
Click to expand...

Small un-mechanized farmers started the dust bowl. They used what they had, and it took lots of them but they eventually caused the first man made natural disaster. I suppose that by todays standards they might be considered organic farmers! Native Americans might have accomplished the same thing, but they were to few, unmotivated by profit, and even poorer equipped than the dust bowlers. Today's ag operations, whether father -son-mother-daughter, or multinational diversified corporation, have the funding, capacity, and profit motive to accomplish what the former groups could not accomplish. Size and entity, is only a factor as far as how much damage or good is possible.
 
oldandnew said:
Small un-mechanized farmers started the dust bowl. They used what they had, and it took lots of them but they eventually caused the first man made natural disaster. I suppose that by todays standards they might be considered organic farmers! Native Americans might have accomplished the same thing, but they were to few, unmotivated by profit, and even poorer equipped than the dust bowlers. Today's ag operations, whether father -son-mother-daughter, or multinational diversified corporation, have the funding, capacity, and profit motive to accomplish what the former groups could not accomplish. Size and entity, is only a factor as far as how much damage or good is possible.
Click to expand...

Didn't the fact that it didn't rain much for several years have something to do with the dust bowl? I understand about tillage but dry and wind have a lot to do with things.
 
haymaker said:
Didn't the fact that it didn't rain much for several years have something to do with the dust bowl? I understand about tillage but dry and wind have a lot to do with things.
Click to expand...

If we never broke the sod, with a three foot root depth, especially in the historically drier sw plains, or done it with strip farming , there would have been no topsoil to blow. Their right back at it again, with the added quantifier of pumping the aquifer dry, technological advancement they didn't have before, to hasten the disaster.
 
It wasn't any drier in the dust bowl than it was over the same area last year. Old and New was right, it was working the ground to death that caused it. There was some dust this year but nothing like then, and the reason is all of the stubble that is left standing to keep the dirt from blowing and conserve moisture. Good bird habitat is just a side benefit. I will say it again, these practices aren't possible with organic farming that so many one here seem to think would be so great.
 
I don't remember the dirty thirties, but I grew up on a Moline U pulling a one-way plow. Clean farming = dirty days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top