Attached is a link to a Wall Street Journal article on economic difficulty in the grain belt.
Hopefully it is not behind the pay wall.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-next-american-farm-bust-is-upon-us-1486572488
Apparently US grain is becoming less competitive on the global market which is affecting exports of excess grain.
That in turn could affect grain traffic on the railroads.
"Brexit" might help to ease this situation in a few years' time. The UK has many mouths to feed (roughly equivalent to a fifth of the US population) and food accounts for a substantial chunk of total imports. At the moment, the UK is subject to the EU's protectionist policy towards agriculture and the EU's subsidising of farming (Common Agricultural Policy). If subsidies in the UK are gradually reduced farming there is likely to shift away from grain towards crops that both produce a higher tonnage per acre and are relatively perishable (potatoes, cabbages, kale etc.)
As for US farming, a few very large corporations seem to control most of the purchase and distribution of the grain, etc., produced. This tends to reduce employment opportunities in rural towns as handling of bulk commodities is easy to mechanise. It would help if more value could be added to agricultural produce out in the countryside by turning products of local farms into good-quality, consumer ready products there and then shipping these to cities. Products like these would almost certainly require next-day or even same-day delivery to stores. Faster transport = the greater the distance possible between producers and consumers. The greater the distance possible between producers and consumers = the greater the tonnage carried (actually, since the output of agriculture is roughly proportional to the area farmed this would be a geometrical relationship). Now, what if there were a means of transport that could move large quantities of high value products efficiently at speeds of up to 100 mph...?
The article linked to the OP is not freely available, but here is the title:
“The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us
Shrinking role in global grain market coupled with a strong dollar and higher costs for seeds drives U.S. farmers out of business; overflowing bunkers”
The essence of the problem seems to be an inability of the U.S. grain producers to compete with foreign producers. Fundamentally, this is not a problem of price being too low because the market is producing sufficient grain at the world price. So what can U.S. producers do to better compete with the rest of the world?
I asked several of my husbands relatives all of them farmers still how this is impacting them. One says he is going to grow alfalfa this year for his beef instead of corn as he has enough corn and beans left from last year to cover his costs this year. Another 2 are planting other crops like Barley and wheat this year instead of beans as part of their rotation anyway. The last 2 are under contract for an ethenol plant near them for corn at a locked in rate so they are unaffected by this.
EuclidThe article linked to the OP is not freely available, but here is the title: “The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us Shrinking role in global grain market coupled with a strong dollar and higher costs for seeds drives U.S. farmers out of business; overflowing bunkers” The essence of the problem seems to be an inability of the U.S. grain producers to compete with foreign producers. Fundamentally, this is not a problem of price being too low because the market is producing sufficient grain at the world price. So what can U.S. producers do to better compete with the rest of the world?
Well, Agri-business has basically cut the farmer out of the equation to cut costs so what is next.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid So what can U.S. producers do to better compete with the rest of the world?
So what can U.S. producers do to better compete with the rest of the world?
The answer, if there is one, is to convert the crops into higher value products -- beef, pork, poultry, fish and lately ethanol.
Of course that isn't a new thought, we have been doing it for generations. However, to the extent that the conversion of crop to other products continues to expand, it is bad news for railroads. A railroad is the dominant competitor when getting our grain to ports for export or ethanol to the wholesaler, but the rails are not a factor in moving meat to domestic markets nor overseas. As forum contributor Greyhounds has frequently pointed out, it could offer significant volume to the rails in the form of refer containers were it marketed.
BaltACD Euclid The article linked to the OP is not freely available, but here is the title: “The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us Shrinking role in global grain market coupled with a strong dollar and higher costs for seeds drives U.S. farmers out of business; overflowing bunkers” The essence of the problem seems to be an inability of the U.S. grain producers to compete with foreign producers. Fundamentally, this is not a problem of price being too low because the market is producing sufficient grain at the world price. So what can U.S. producers do to better compete with the rest of the world? Well, Agri-business has basically cut the farmer out of the equation to cut costs so what is next.
Euclid The article linked to the OP is not freely available, but here is the title: “The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us Shrinking role in global grain market coupled with a strong dollar and higher costs for seeds drives U.S. farmers out of business; overflowing bunkers” The essence of the problem seems to be an inability of the U.S. grain producers to compete with foreign producers. Fundamentally, this is not a problem of price being too low because the market is producing sufficient grain at the world price. So what can U.S. producers do to better compete with the rest of the world?
What is wrong with cutting costs of production? If the rest of the world is cutting costs by using different methods or scale of operation, shouldn't we do the same? What other choice do we have?
Euclid BaltACD Euclid The article linked to the OP is not freely available, but here is the title: “The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us Shrinking role in global grain market coupled with a strong dollar and higher costs for seeds drives U.S. farmers out of business; overflowing bunkers” The essence of the problem seems to be an inability of the U.S. grain producers to compete with foreign producers. Fundamentally, this is not a problem of price being too low because the market is producing sufficient grain at the world price. So what can U.S. producers do to better compete with the rest of the world? Well, Agri-business has basically cut the farmer out of the equation to cut costs so what is next. What is wrong with cutting costs of production? If the rest of the world is cutting costs by using different methods or scale of operation, shouldn't we do the same? What other choice do we have?
My point is that basically people aren't signifigant in the cost structure. Cheaper more effricient equipment for tilling, planting, maintaining, harvesting, storing and transporting the crops is about all that is left. Squeezing costs is one thing, where to find the costs that can actualy be squeezed becomes more difficult when you already have the most efficient system on Earth. Many times that 'squeezed cost' ends up costing more than the status quo.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Euclid The article linked to the OP is not freely available, but here is the title: “The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us Shrinking role in global grain market coupled with a strong dollar and higher costs for seeds drives U.S. farmers out of business; overflowing bunkers” The essence of the problem seems to be an inability of the U.S. grain producers to compete with foreign producers. Fundamentally, this is not a problem of price being too low because the market is producing sufficient grain at the world price. So what can U.S. producers do to better compete with the rest of the world? Well, Agri-business has basically cut the farmer out of the equation to cut costs so what is next. What is wrong with cutting costs of production? If the rest of the world is cutting costs by using different methods or scale of operation, shouldn't we do the same? What other choice do we have? My point is that basically people aren't signifigant in the cost structure. Cheaper more effricient equipment for tilling, planting, maintaining, harvesting, storing and transporting the crops is about all that is left. Squeezing costs is one thing, where to find the costs that can actualy be squeezed becomes more difficult when you already have the most efficient system on Earth. Many times that 'squeezed cost' ends up costing more than the status quo.
Well then what are foreign countries doing that allows them to under-price the U.S.? Why can't we do what they are doing so we get our market share back?
Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Euclid The article linked to the OP is not freely available, but here is the title: “The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us Shrinking role in global grain market coupled with a strong dollar and higher costs for seeds drives U.S. farmers out of business; overflowing bunkers” The essence of the problem seems to be an inability of the U.S. grain producers to compete with foreign producers. Fundamentally, this is not a problem of price being too low because the market is producing sufficient grain at the world price. So what can U.S. producers do to better compete with the rest of the world? Well, Agri-business has basically cut the farmer out of the equation to cut costs so what is next. What is wrong with cutting costs of production? If the rest of the world is cutting costs by using different methods or scale of operation, shouldn't we do the same? What other choice do we have? My point is that basically people aren't signifigant in the cost structure. Cheaper more effricient equipment for tilling, planting, maintaining, harvesting, storing and transporting the crops is about all that is left. Squeezing costs is one thing, where to find the costs that can actualy be squeezed becomes more difficult when you already have the most efficient system on Earth. Many times that 'squeezed cost' ends up costing more than the status quo. Well then what are foreign countries doing that allows them to under-price the U.S.? Why can't we do what they are doing so we get our market share back?
Graft & Corruption and restrictive tarriffs! Trade War tactics. A 'strong' dollar makes US Export products more expensive to those who import them. The strength or weakness of a currency in the world stage is a double edged sword that really does cut both ways.
My guess is that American farmers are seeing their export market negatively impacted by the rising, strengthening dollar.
Foreigners purchase our exports in dollars, which are becoming increasingly expensive for them to buy. Consequently, foreign buyers of grain look for grain they can buy with more affordable currencies, such as euros, rubles, Canadian dollars, Australian dollars, and the like.
There seems little need to bemoan specific government policies, or the loss of the family farm, etc. When the dollar weakens sufficiently, foreign buyers of our grain will return.
Lots of people are benefitting from a strong dollar, like American buyers of foreign-made goods, as well as American tourists going abroad this year.
Regarding the diminishing numbers of American farmers: It's very hard work for not so much money. If it were a great job we'd all want to do it.
As one of my economics professors put to me about 1969, nobody in America understands our farm policies. How can farm subsidies be at or near an all-time high, yet our farmers are being strangled? Perhaps too many lobbyists spoil the soup or the silo.
Bottom line: Blame the super-strong dollar.
Dakguy201 Euclid So what can U.S. producers do to better compete with the rest of the world? The answer, if there is one, is to convert the crops into higher value products -- beef, pork, poultry, fish and lately ethanol.
Lately????
In the early days of the US, "western" farmers would convert their crops to whiskey as it was lot cheaper to ship the whiskey by horse drawn wagon than to ship the grain that went into making the whiskey. Low cost transportation, first by canal and then by railroad, made it economical to ship grain long distances.
"Western" back then meant the likes of Western Pennsylvania.
Like most things in the world, the causes are multi-factorial. In addition to an expensive dollar, world food production has increased because of more mechanization and fertilizer, thus lowering crop prices. Over-production here with heavy use of chemicals is expensive.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Yes, we use a lot of fertilizer. Corn, in particular, is a nitrogen greedy crop; so much so that a major producer near me is just completing a $3 billion (that's not a typo) addition to their fertilizer facility. Unfortunatey their output does not travel far enough or to enough central points to offer the rails an attractive market. For us users the problem is not so much to use less nitrogen, but to keep what we apply out of our streams.
Other chemicals are a different story. Our use per acre is decreasing. The trick is to substitute by teaching the plants to produce natural substances through genetic engineering.
erikem In the early days of the US, "western" farmers would convert their crops to whiskey as it was lot cheaper to ship the whiskey by horse drawn wagon than to ship the grain that went into making the whiskey. Low cost transportation, first by canal and then by railroad, made it economical to ship grain long distances. "Western" back then meant the likes of Western Pennsylvania.
I see lots of corn roll by the BNSF. Some of it is in covered hoppers and lots of it is in ethanol tank cars.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
My fridge is full. My Grain Belt economics are fine!
http://grainbelt.com/
Dakguy201The trick is to substitute by teaching the plants to produce natural substances through genetic engineering.
"Natural" does not mean safe. Ingesting plant material that is genetically modified so as to kill fungi and insects may be harmful to man over the long term. Cellular damage may take years to become noticeable. That is why such foods are banned in Europe, at least until longitudinal studies of at least 25 years are available.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.