I read with interest Oliver Walston's impressions of US agriculture in the January 1st Farmers Weekly.  The final three paragraphs were surprising to me.  Paraphrasing him, US farmers were much more flexible and less conservative than their UK counterparts.  The final paragraph about never hearing one single farmer complain made me laugh out loud. 

First of all, not every single farm in the USA is big, although it appears all of them visited by Mr. Walston were.  Unless I am missing a page, none of the farms mentioned were under 2000 hectares, that unit of measurement is understandably foreign to me, but I think it is about 5000 acres, I can assure you there are many farms in the USA smaller than that.  I can also tell you there are a great many farms where the operator may be running 1000-2000 acres, and working another job to "support his habit".  

I saw a fair bit of UK farming in 2007.  My impression was that UK farmers were at the top of their game.  To put it very simply, everywhere I went I was impressed with the skillful way Brits grow crops and raise livestock.  The main thing we have adopted that you haven't is GM crops, and of course it is a little hard for you to adopt them when they are illegal in your country. 

I guess the point of this post is there are darned good farmers in both the US and the UK.  Any edge we have comes because we have a population and government slightly more friendly to farming, and with a slightly better understanding of it.  All things being equal, UK farmers can hold their own against their cousins over the big water any day.

olivers perspective is always skewed towards the" born with a silver spoon in the mouth" brigade

since he isnt a full time farmer or anything near it, he is frequently off beam.

uk farmers in the real world have changed what they do utterly in the last  15yrs .

only those with no mortgage or rent and other incomes havebeen able to stomach the losses without changing things.

kansasfarmer:

there are a great many farms where the operator may be running 1000-2000 acres, and working another job to "support his habit

 

As an aside this line made me chuckle and reminded me of the famous Cattlemens Clubs (branches everywhere) where members would retire to on market day when the overwhelming urge to buy cattle that they didn't need at prices they couldn't justify for a buyer they didn't know. The members sat with each other until the overwhelming urge went away or the market finished!

How many farmers in the USA rent or lease their farms Kansas?

I agree with glasshouse.

His comments also draw my mind to a point with which I think Motley will agree, it is that the pattern of land ownership in the UK has a huge impact on the processes of farming, the attitude of farmers (and the public) and on the type/mix of farming.

Of course, other factors such as geography and topography also influence this latter point, but the question of land ownership is crucial to how the land is 'thought' about by those who work it. You have folks like me who own a little land and subsidise agricultural production, but maintain ovine/bovine/poultry gene pools thought to be uncommercial by others. This group of owners uses specialist feed suppliers and smaller equipment manufacturers. It also maintains rare flora fauna species and supplies specialist product into local markets. This group also helps to promote concepts of husbandry and food appreciation through its own writing, TV and PR on behalf of agriculture/horticulture.

There is another group comprised of tenant farmers whose labours are partly used to give an income to the land owner. The land owner could be a Corporation (British or Foreign owned) an absentee private landlord or a charity of one kind or another. Tenant farmers traditionally used one of the factors of production being Land. The others are Capital and Labour. However, because many tenant farmers work land which has been purchased by borrowings, the tenant farmer has to farm in such a way as to make a return based on two, not one, of the factors of production. Land and Capital. In these cases the tenant farmer has my sympathy because his labour is having to pay a return for someone who sought to speculate on the price of land rising. That tenant farmer has my sympathy.

Then there is the group of farmers descended from the Yeoman. They own and run the family farms (usually smaller) and live or fall by their own decisions. Many of them are now finding that there is a need to combine into forms of cooperatives. This is the group seen by the public as the epitome of farming. As a consequence it is the group vilified, when other groups of farmers do or say things with which the public disagree.  

There is another group who are the descendents of the old aristocracy. The Crown is one of these and Prince Charles can be said to be one example of leadership within this group. There are others who are not so sensitive to the land and farmers as is he.

I don't suppose I have adequately summarised the position and would welcome the contribution of others to take these points forward.

The situation and perspective in the USA, Canada, Oz, France, Portugal and NZ is necessarily different. In the US I can picture the impact on an agricultural immigrant worker of the 1870s who is told that $1000 will buy him the thousand acres of virgin rolling plain he is seeing for the first time in Eastern Kansas. He must have felt a sense of utter joy and freedom after the constraints of life in a British Parish.

 

 Greenth, I can't speak for the US as a whole, but I believe my area mirrors the nation.  Most farmers in this area own part of their farm, and rent part of it.  Usually you own the 160 you live on at least.  After that the mix is everywhere,from owning everything but one pasture or one tillable field, to renting everything other than the 160 you own.  Most of the really big farmers rent most of their land, for example if you were running 5000 acres, maybe you own 1000-1500 and rent the rest.  I do have a neighbor 3 miles south that owns over 8000 acres though, proving there is an exception to every rule. This family pretty much put this together themselves too, not much inherited money, just hard work and a lot of luck when it came to the cattle market, sticking their neck out to buy land just before it got high, and a little oil in the mix, it never hurts to have an oil well or two. 

Peter, I have often thought, especially since seeing Worksop and Lincoln, what it must have been like and felt like when my 3 great and 2 great grandparents bought their farm in the late 1870s, how different it must have felt to own something, and have total say over it.  I also think it must have been satisfying to live with everyone pretty much on the same level, no manor houses or Lords to contend with.  The area a little northwest of here had a mix of Swiss(both French and German speaking), French, German, Irish and English settlers, so the neighborhood must have been very interesting, to say the least.  I know for some years they celebrated Bastille Day as well as the 4th of July.

kansasfarmer:

Most farmers in this area own part of their farm, and rent part of it.

 

Thanks Kansas, so who actually owns the rented bit then?

 Glasshouse, without pointing fingers at people I don't know, I am reminded of the saying, "it is easy to make a million dollars farming if you start with 2 million".  Farm magazines(not knocking FW or anyone else, just stating an opinion) are very impressed with new equipment and big operators, but never delve into how the farmer became so successful. Often times, and we all know this to be true, your local big farmer is very successful because his father, grandfather, or father-in-law was very successful.  In my location, another aspect of success you call "nodding donkeys", a few oil wells on your farm,or your grandparents farm doesn't hurt either.

I don't begrudge anyone a good start in life.  What I don't care for are people who did inherit much of their wealth, then try to pass it off as through their own hard work and smart decision making.  I have much more respect for the guy with 1000 acres who has put most of it together on his own than for the guy with 10000, who had 9000 of it given to him.  

There tends to be a little arrogance I notice in those who got a good start in life.  I have a very good friend who has been very successful, as was his father.  He and I talk nearly every day, and he notes this arrogance in his nephews, and is hoping his sons don't get it.  He realizes his nephews do not comprehend what a big leg up they have because they had a successful father and grandfather.  There is a family of farmers locally that inherited from both their maternal grandfather, and an uncle.  They are beyond a little arrogant, they are the most arrogant people I know.  It is however very easy to shut them up when they are bragging about buying something with the simple question "did you buy that with your grandpa's money,or your uncle's?"  Works every time.

I googled about and found this link to farmland ownership in the USA so I'd appreciate how you feel Kansas about the culture of this ownership versus our land ownership model here in the UK? I wonder is OW compared like with like when making his comments.

 http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb93_10.pdf

Peter Wells:

I think Motley will agree

Hmmmmmmmm Peter, this is unfair I now have to agree with myself. This is indeed most disagreeable. I do however like to start a fight with myself in an empty room, and I am now on my 10th coffee of the day, so here goes..........Yes, land ownership is fundamental to any discussion about farming. I suspect that many of these folk that Walston reports on are contract operations as opposed to owner operators.

I don't know what to say about Walston. I was not going to do much more than reflect privately on first and cursory read of his scribbles. The invitation from Peter I could not resist. On more detailed reading I noticed he started at Mephistopheles place in St Louis. (I ain't anti-GM, but I have an opinion [no I have lots of opinions] about monsanto). He was in US of A for 3 weeks saw some weather, well we all do. He did 4,000 miles in 3 weeks. If he drove he did not do much else. I suspect he did some flying. He seems to have spoken to a few farmers (about 6) who have lots of land, use lots of GM and are well and truly on the husbandry treadmill of doom.

He did not speak with families, discuss social problems like healthcare across the generations, the future of agriculture. He appears to have gone to US of A to talk with farmers there, that like glasshouse says he can empathize with, because he does not have many to talk to here.

Trouble is most farmers ain't like the ones that he has spoken to. It shows also how little he has observed of his own nation farming. In the last 20 years farmers have changed from mixed farms to wheat/OSR rotations in his neck of the woods, for example. What can you say about his view of sugar beet. I am sure Walston is the type of 'business man' that would sell cadbury to kraft. Because it is good business. Plenty of farmers 'sold' sugar beet and dairy in this little nation of ours.

I do have a feeling that there is more of a can do in places like Canada, US of A and Australia. This is because the level of trust by the government in their people's lives is so much more and the interference is less also, than crash gordon allows. In US of A there are people that can moan like a good old english person, however the folk in the US of A are more master of their own destiny on their farms than we are here. There is no rpa, cross compliance, environment agency, nfu, cla, and forms to fill in all the time to conform. Non conformism is celebrated in US of A, more than in england where conformism to the party line is essential, with the consequential submission of individual endeavour.

 Greenth it use to be primarily retired farmers with no children who wanted to farm, or widows.  As time goes on that is still the case, but also we see lots of children of retired farmers who inherited the farm and do not want to sell it.  This describes all of my landlords. There is now a big investor class, people who have bought land up for investment with no emotional ties to the land.  From what I can tell, they make the worst landlords.  In some areas, particularly the far west, the government owns huge tracts of land and leases it, primarily for ranching.

 Greenth I looked at the link, and I am not sure I understand your question(actually, I am sure I don't understand your question).  I don't know what the land ownership model looks like in the UK, what percent own versus rent, etc. 

I don't mean to knock Walston, but to come clean, I don't feel he gave a very accurate picture of US ag, he gave the impression everything is huge.  What is huge is this nation, and there are all sorts of different farms and farming practices.  The trend certainly is toward bigger farms, but to write an article about US farming and only mention farms in excess of 5000 acres is not painting an accurate picture.  To do that would take a year long series in FW profiling dozens of farm families from across the land, and even then you would just get a glimpse into US agriculture.  

The other thing to consider is nobody anywhere is going to show you their weak points, the bad parts of their operations, and I don't know about the UK, but I don't know of any farm in the US that doesn't have a disaster or two every year. 

kansasfarmer:

nobody anywhere is going to show you their weak points

Yes, but why not.

This is precisly were the problem for agriculture starts.

Farmers will not so the eco warriors, welfare lobby and Georgina Downes of the world do. Nitrates in water, pesticides in water, testing by water companies are further factors and soil creating soil turbidity stopping fish breeding the list goes on.

So maybe you will not show me yours, but I know how big or little it maybe by looking elsewhere - though mirrors are probably not used.

Now we come to smoke and mirrors.......... this is the dirty world of politics. I will say no more.

 Kansas you answered my question in your thread on the rough split between 'owners' who are either investment owners for development/speculation and the family owner now landlord and from your comment a better landlord to have in the long run. 

walston did immense damage when he went on tv and said he didnt need his £200,000 subsidy.

as to those big farms, you shouldnt think of acres in the US or Australia, think of tons grown , so a 5000 acre wheat farm in the us will grow the same as 1200 acres in england., and employ similiar labour.

the yanks or aussies dont moan because its easy to leave farming, and easy to get in. so they do both quite often.

unlike british tenant farmers, who are in a form of bondage, unable to buy , unable to leave, and if you do leave, there is no return.

some lucky ones make the break, if things fall their way and become owners or emigrate

glasshouse:

walston did immense damage when he went on tv and said he didnt need his £200,000 subsidy.

Indeed. Seem to remember he also said he would be weaned off subsidies by about 2005. Seem to think he said something about standing up agains BS about beet.

One voice speaks loudly, and maybe sometimes should shut up a bit more.

Glasshouse,

                Good to see you back again,had a heavy Christmas, hey! This has to be said and I have gone through the aspirations you show on here regarding Land ownership so here comes The Black and White:

  You do not have to Rent the Farm,there is still a freedom of movement [Take this bad lot back to your side of the Border or there will not be].

  That fact must be the same in Australia ,Canada or the US.

There is no such thing as becoming lucky.Go and buy a farm,hope for inflation and pay the price.Your Rental will look a pussy Cat.

Don't believe me have a go.[ Aus,US,NZ,Canada,Faulkand].

bb, happy new yr to you.

we dont want brown or darling back, they can go abroad and save the world.

as to emigrating, if i was 20yrs younger, i would be off like a rocket.

 It may be easy to get out of farming in the US, it is not easy to get in.  And Yank farmers do moan, plenty. 

Our weather has stunk since last spring.  Our snow has melted off and turned us into a sea of slick mud over frozen ground in places, in others the mud is nearly able to top your muck boots. 5 days of fog made it all even softer...you don't have to look far to find farmers and ranchers moaning and cussing all over.  

Australian farmers whinge too, as do most of the Aussies. They talk about "whingeing Poms", but oh my they can beat the English at that game very easily.

To be fair though, the Australian farmer (an arable man) and Cocky (a grazier) has a lot more weather problems than you will ever see in the UK. Lack of rainfall for many months is a common occurrence over large tracts of the country and temperatures in excess of 40ºC for long spells is similarly common. Also when it rains, it RAINS.

It is also no easier to get into farming there than elsewhere. Things may have changed, but I doubt it. When we arrived in 1979 the UK government had restrictions on the amount of money we could immediately take with us. A small percentage of the farm value was available by way of mortgage, but no borrowing at all against the value of livestock, or for crop production. The simple reason being that if a long drought prevailed you would have neither stock nor crop so you had no security to offer the bank.

 The UK has amazingly temperate weather.  Not too hot, not too cold. No real point to this comment, other than how amazed I was to realize there was some place in the world that doesn't have the wild variations in weather I am use to.  At times, the river north of my house barely has any water in it, just a few puddles, at others it is in our fields, and in 1951 according to gramps even with the door sills of the house.  Run from -20F to 110F during a year sometimes.  During 1980 it rained a total of 2 inches from April to September, but Halloween night of 1998 it rained 14 inches in 12 hours.  We are slogging through mud and the remains of snow drifts now, give us 8 weeks we may be scared of fire, give us 3 days of hard south wind and sun right now and we might be fighting fire, in the mud.  We manage to get it all other than hurricanes. 

i disagree with old macdonald about ease of getting into farming in aus or nz.

you go out there, choose your farm , set up a mortgage, and get farming.

in this country, there is no land for sale ,even if you have the money, due to inheritance tax relief, rollover relief etc.

you have to know the right people to get a tenancy in britain, not that you would want one.

france is the place for getting going, if you are under 40.

kansasfarmer:

The UK has amazingly temperate weather

Yes, and regular rain and sun, but this is not the secret weapon of success it is our soils with which we are blessed most. Presently we are having a go a destroying this prized asset as shown through reduced levels of organic matter and declining productivity in our farming.

Trouble is the present generation of farmers, [............and before you tell me there are plenty of good farmers], are destroying the natural fertility through ill advized use of machinery and crop rotations, especially use of maize on hills for dairying manufactured silage. 

We do not have the erosion problems that you have to contend with in Kansas (you and I have crossed over already), but we do have them. Farmers here will not accept this. They will always be able to tell you about another fellow elsewhere in their locality that does have a problem.

kansasfarmer:

All things being equal, UK farmers can hold their own against their cousins over the big water any day.

I think so KF, or to put it another way, most farmers across the developed world are up against a comparable set of problems (with local variations), and it tends to be similar sorts of people who go into farming, and more importantly stay in it. Oliver writes very well, but it doesn't do to believe too much of what he writes. In particular, he seems entirely unable to appreciate that the bureaucracy for him to receive £100,000+ in single farm payment makes it good value, but smaller farmers have to do almost as much for sums less than £1000, which makes it poor value. Actually, I think I'm being unfair, and he does appreciate the difference, but just isn't interested in anything that doesn't come near him personally.

motley , i agree with you for once, england has some very good soils, created by 1000 yrs of good farming practise, incorporation of human and animal waste,drainage, and grazing livestock.

regrettably these soils are now being plundered by velcourt et al, encouraged by their voracious landlords.

Probably overly simplistic but as soil carbon can be measured and is is a good indicator of sustainable husbandry why not use this as a benchmark to pay people to farm in certain ways and link it through to carbon trading at the same time?