If you are under 30 you are doing good. I offer you my congratulations. If you are older then 50, I have a good book you should read ant think about - Fields of Farmers by Joel Salatin - https://www.amazon.ca/Fields-Farmers-Interning-Partnering-Germinating/dp/0963810979
How many young farmers are out there?
- Thread starter DevonMan
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
Okotoks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,085
I heard on the radio last week that 90% of Canadian farmers are over 40.
" The report, entitled "Canadian Agriculture at a Glance," says the number of farm operators fell from 390,875 to 293,925 -- a 24.8 per cent drop between 1991 and 2011.
Over the same period, the average age of farmers increased from 47.5 to 54 years. The data shows more than half of all farms in 2011 had operators over the age of 55 -- up from less than 38 per cent in 1991.
There were also fewer farmers under the age of 40. Statistics Canada said less than one out of 10 farms were run by someone under 40, whereas two decades earlier it was about one in four.
The proportion of farms where the oldest operator was 55 years or older increased by more than 20 percentage points in British Columbia, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, the report said. But it also said the increase in the proportion was "significant in all provinces."
Read more: http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/farmers-still-getting-older-farms-still-getting-fewer-statscan-1.1692096#ixzz2uLgDZpTh
Thing are worse in the USA:
"In just the five years from 2002 to 2007, the percentage of American farmers and ranchers 65-years-old and older grew by 22%, while the percentage of farmers 45 and under fell by 14%, according to the USDA's 2007 Census of Agriculture: Farmers by Age. For each American farmer younger than 25, there are five who are 75 or older, according to the USDA."
Over the same period, the average age of farmers increased from 47.5 to 54 years. The data shows more than half of all farms in 2011 had operators over the age of 55 -- up from less than 38 per cent in 1991.
There were also fewer farmers under the age of 40. Statistics Canada said less than one out of 10 farms were run by someone under 40, whereas two decades earlier it was about one in four.
The proportion of farms where the oldest operator was 55 years or older increased by more than 20 percentage points in British Columbia, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, the report said. But it also said the increase in the proportion was "significant in all provinces."
Read more: http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/farmers-still-getting-older-farms-still-getting-fewer-statscan-1.1692096#ixzz2uLgDZpTh
Thing are worse in the USA:
"In just the five years from 2002 to 2007, the percentage of American farmers and ranchers 65-years-old and older grew by 22%, while the percentage of farmers 45 and under fell by 14%, according to the USDA's 2007 Census of Agriculture: Farmers by Age. For each American farmer younger than 25, there are five who are 75 or older, according to the USDA."
I see both sides of this.
It is true that farmers are getting older. I see four reasons for this:
1. Farmers are independent and hard working. "Retiring" just isn't in their DNA
2. It is really expensive to get started in farming so young people are not jumping in.
3. When an older farmer finally gets too old to do things themselves, they hire a youngster to help, but expect that youngster to do all the physical grunt work, and not "think". Therefore, the youngster soon gets tired of being a slave and gets discouraged and leaves.
4. I have heard many farmer parents say "Get an education and get a job so you do not have to do this (farming)." or "I worked hard so my kid could get a city job." or any variation of such.
About the only viable option is for farms to get larger and larger because so few youngsters are wanting to jump in. And large farmers can leverage the farming operation to acquire new land, again, leaving the youngster at a disadvantage.
It is true that farmers are getting older. I see four reasons for this:
1. Farmers are independent and hard working. "Retiring" just isn't in their DNA
2. It is really expensive to get started in farming so young people are not jumping in.
3. When an older farmer finally gets too old to do things themselves, they hire a youngster to help, but expect that youngster to do all the physical grunt work, and not "think". Therefore, the youngster soon gets tired of being a slave and gets discouraged and leaves.
4. I have heard many farmer parents say "Get an education and get a job so you do not have to do this (farming)." or "I worked hard so my kid could get a city job." or any variation of such.
About the only viable option is for farms to get larger and larger because so few youngsters are wanting to jump in. And large farmers can leverage the farming operation to acquire new land, again, leaving the youngster at a disadvantage.
RyanChandler
Well-known member
BTDT said:
That's before all the subsidies made farming so lucrative.
J
JTM
Guest
Farming is all about capital. I have two words for you: Death Tax.
nate53
Well-known member
XBAR: How bout you be a farmer for ten years, then you can criticize all you want. Ethanol (I know subsidy) has made grain farming lucrative the past 6 or so years (probably not this year though). Supply caught up with demand. The rest of the subsidies have been around along time and haven't made anything lucrative. Just more cheap food for the livestock and export systems. IMO-XBAR- said:
nate53
Well-known member
Also I think there is more young people around these days than there has been in recent decades. Alot of them have been born into it though. Mainly because of the money that has been going through ag right now (mainly because of ethanol). There are very few farm kids that want to stay and farm when there is no money in it to raise a family. There has been money in ag the past several years though which has regained a lot of interest in coming back to the farm.
RyanChandler
Well-known member
JTM said:
irrevocable living trust
knabe
Well-known member
-XBAR- said:
please cite some historical context and financial information before spouting your mouth off with strawman arguments.
compare and contrast farm income with, and without subsidies.
you could start here.
http://farm.ewg.org
I believe that one thing that can influence the age numbers is the way that many of these large family farms are structured.
Dad is 65 years old, and has 3 sons (43, 40, and 36) that also farm. Dad formed a corporation 25 years ago, and is listed as the President of the corporation. In essence, the three sons are simply "employees" of that corporation, and may or may not be listed as corporate officers. They are buying land and expanding their operations, but all of those acquisitions are falling within the original corporation.
I have a very good friend that farms with his 2 brothers. They farm 23 SECTIONS of ground. He is an equal partner but is personally listed on none of it. It all appears in his oldest brothers name.
As far as the subsidy conversation, it is very difficult to quantify. As farming operations grow, the tax shelters also grow. It is nearly impossible to cite statistical data to prove the fact that government subsidies have had a net effect on bottom line income. The term "farm subsidy" is a fairly general term, and these subsidies are not easy to identify. The most easily identifiable subsidy is the cash payment, mostly because it is the largest subsidy in terms of dollar amount. However, there are Marketing Loans, Conservation payments (getting paid to NOT farm), Federal Crop Insurance (which is a whole different conversation!), just to name a few.
While X-Bar and I do not agree on everything, I am going to agree this time. What he said is that subsidies have made farming [more] lucrative [than it was back when farmers worked hard so their kids did not have to farm]. I believe that anyone and everyone that can honestly say that they believe farm subsidies have NOT made farming more lucrative is being very naive.
What scares me more than anything is the trickle down effect that we are going to see when corn prices aren't $6.00 anymore. The cost of production increased as corn prices did, and I am not just talking about the self inflicted costs. Now the price drops, but fertilizer and fuel don't. The farming related market that I see having a rough couple years ahead of them are the implement dealers. I can see them going from trading with a farmer every couple years to not trading for 5 or 6 years. I know that their service work will increase, but I don't know if the implement dealers can weather the storm.
The thing that I don't understand, or can't seem to figure out is how a group of people that have become so heavily dependent upon these subsidies are such Raging Republicans? I thought that fundamentally, a Republican was all about small government and every man for themselves......except when it effects them??
Dad is 65 years old, and has 3 sons (43, 40, and 36) that also farm. Dad formed a corporation 25 years ago, and is listed as the President of the corporation. In essence, the three sons are simply "employees" of that corporation, and may or may not be listed as corporate officers. They are buying land and expanding their operations, but all of those acquisitions are falling within the original corporation.
I have a very good friend that farms with his 2 brothers. They farm 23 SECTIONS of ground. He is an equal partner but is personally listed on none of it. It all appears in his oldest brothers name.
As far as the subsidy conversation, it is very difficult to quantify. As farming operations grow, the tax shelters also grow. It is nearly impossible to cite statistical data to prove the fact that government subsidies have had a net effect on bottom line income. The term "farm subsidy" is a fairly general term, and these subsidies are not easy to identify. The most easily identifiable subsidy is the cash payment, mostly because it is the largest subsidy in terms of dollar amount. However, there are Marketing Loans, Conservation payments (getting paid to NOT farm), Federal Crop Insurance (which is a whole different conversation!), just to name a few.
While X-Bar and I do not agree on everything, I am going to agree this time. What he said is that subsidies have made farming [more] lucrative [than it was back when farmers worked hard so their kids did not have to farm]. I believe that anyone and everyone that can honestly say that they believe farm subsidies have NOT made farming more lucrative is being very naive.
What scares me more than anything is the trickle down effect that we are going to see when corn prices aren't $6.00 anymore. The cost of production increased as corn prices did, and I am not just talking about the self inflicted costs. Now the price drops, but fertilizer and fuel don't. The farming related market that I see having a rough couple years ahead of them are the implement dealers. I can see them going from trading with a farmer every couple years to not trading for 5 or 6 years. I know that their service work will increase, but I don't know if the implement dealers can weather the storm.
The thing that I don't understand, or can't seem to figure out is how a group of people that have become so heavily dependent upon these subsidies are such Raging Republicans? I thought that fundamentally, a Republican was all about small government and every man for themselves......except when it effects them??
obie105
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 780
I would love to get into farming but no banker in their right mind will ever give me all the money to get equipment and land especially to start from scratch. So I will have a few cows and slowly try to get bigger while working in town.
RyanChandler
Well-known member
Tallcool1 said:
Exactly! I've never quite understood it either. Bout like hearing people complain about socialized medicine a hr after they drop their kid off at a public school.
Latest posts
-
-
Info on a 7T's bull names Greg Timesharing
- Latest: wannabcowguy
-
ISO of Millbrook Ransom G9 semen code
- Latest: wannabcowguy
