Attracting Young People Into Farming

[Tarrel]

The argument isn't a red herring because the whole buyer/seller relationship has changed in recent years. As production has gone from relative over supply to relatively balance supply/demand the marketing has gone from a very broad market to virtual monopoly purchasing by the supermarkets.

Consumers have supported the low prices of supermarkets by using the car to travel to the superstores. This has resulted in the demise of local stores. With the monopoly position enjoyed by supermarkets and the advent of expensive fuel the consumer will now suffer as supermarkets will not have much competition and food prices will start to rise as supermarkets find that they have a captive local audience.

If supermarket prices start to rise, and as fuel becomes ever more expensive, theoretically, the market should take care of the problem. As prices rise, alternatives such as farmers markets and box schemes will become relatively more affordable, breaking the supermarkets' price-driven monopoly.

Of course, it would help if a more level playing field could be established, and supermarkets weren't given such an easy ride by the planning authorities.

[Little John]

The argument isn't a red herring because the whole buyer/seller relationship has changed in recent years. As production has gone from relative over supply to relatively balance supply/demand the marketing has gone from a very broad market to virtual monopoly purchasing by the supermarkets.

Consumers have supported the low prices of supermarkets by using the car to travel to the superstores. This has resulted in the demise of local stores. With the monopoly position enjoyed by supermarkets and the advent of expensive fuel the consumer will now suffer as supermarkets will not have much competition and food prices will start to rise as supermarkets find that they have a captive local audience.

Again, I say that consumers have always and always will "support" low prices. What on earth would you expect them to do? Again, I say, the above having always been the case, it therefore logically follows that something else has changed in order that consumers have been given greater opportunity to express that inherent tendency to take food at the lowest price on offer. You are confusing causes with correlations/effects.

By way of analogy, consider the following:

If you roll a ball down a hill of a certain incline, the ball, under the constant and predictable force of gravity, will travel at X speed and reach the bottom of the hill in Y time. If you subsequently increase the incline of the hill, then unsurprisingly the ball will now travel at X+n speed and will reach the bottom of the hill in Y+n time. After all, what else would you expect the ball to do? Thus, if you want to change the speed of the ball, you have to change the shape of the environment in which it must behave. There's no point in expecting the behavior of the ball to change independent of its environment.

Now substitute the ball for the consumer and the shape of the hill for the shape of an economy and, similarly, if you want to change the behavior of the consumer, you will have to change the shape of the economic environment in which it must behave. There's no point in expecting the behavior of the consumer to change independent of its economic environment.

Blaming the consumer for chasing the cheapest prices for their food is akin to blaming the ball for taking the shortest route down the hill. It's daft and utterly pointless.

[Little John]

The argument isn't a red herring because the whole buyer/seller relationship has changed in recent years. As production has gone from relative over supply to relatively balance supply/demand the marketing has gone from a very broad market to virtual monopoly purchasing by the supermarkets.

Consumers have supported the low prices of supermarkets by using the car to travel to the superstores. This has resulted in the demise of local stores. With the monopoly position enjoyed by supermarkets and the advent of expensive fuel the consumer will now suffer as supermarkets will not have much competition and food prices will start to rise as supermarkets find that they have a captive local audience.

If supermarket prices start to rise, and as fuel becomes ever more expensive, theoretically, the market should take care of the problem. As prices rise, alternatives such as farmers markets and box schemes will become relatively more affordable, breaking the supermarkets' price-driven monopoly.

Of course, it would help if a more level playing field could be established, and supermarkets weren't given such an easy ride by the planning authorities.

Exactly

[AnOriginalIdea]

I am a 20-year old European thinking about getting into farming after university.

If you have any advice / programs you know of, let me know!

Absolutely! Hopefully your university training is in something like energy extraction or production, geology or high tech wiring, and then you won't have to consider heading back to a farm.

[AnOriginalIdea]

Sorry, AOI! There are many like you who are glad to leave but there are also just as many who love the "lifestyle" of farming and that's the only reason that they carry on doing what they do. there would probably be even more is they could afford the lifestyle.

So now people have to be rich enough to afford the farming lifestyle? That strikes me as an original angle. Are you talking about hobby farmers? Or those here in the States who use agricultural subsidies to finance part of their McMansion?

[biffvernon]

You can't really have a farm here the UK that's worth less than a million pounds, and most are worth several millions. So, yes, if you want to be a farmer you have to be a millionaire. That does not mean there aren't farmers who are cash poor - it's a very capital-rich industry. Always has been.

[moimitou]

I am a 20-year old European thinking about getting into farming after university.

If you have any advice / programs you know of, let me know!

Absolutely! Hopefully your university training is in something like energy extraction or production, geology or high tech wiring, and then you won't have to consider heading back to a farm.

No, my university education is in mathematics and I live in Canada, but I am considering going back to France.

And, no, I actually want to go back to farming (or more precisely set up a permaculture site) if I find some people to do it with and some land to live on (that I don't have to own!). That way fo life is appealing to me and to many other people who are fed up with the options available to us. I see a lot of communitarian agriculture sites springing up in France and abroad in the near future as the fossil fuel economy collapses.

The only issue that remains is access to land and land rights. As young people wanting to farm, we are a valuable asset to any society, so I am hoping that, with an ageing farmer population, governing structures will recognize this more and more and get us some land!

[kenneal - lagger]

*ankers' bonuses and high executive salaries are also a contribution to this inflating land values as too much money chases not enough land.

[Catweazle]

*ankers' bonuses and high executive salaries are also a contribution to this inflating land values as too much money chases not enough land.

What's going to happen when currency crashes and is virtually worthless ?

My guess is that people already on smallholdings or farms will not be inclined to leave them, no seductive £££££ to chase so they'll stay put where the food and water is.

Based on this assumption I'd say spend all your money on land and farm equipment now, you might not get another chance.

[RenewableCandy]

Again, I say that consumers have always and always will "support" low prices. What on earth would you expect them to do?

The consumers here at Chateau Renewable buy decent quality food that isn't the cheapest. But yeah, we're odd.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Again, I say that consumers have always and always will "support" low prices. What on earth would you expect them to do?

The consumers here at Chateau Renewable buy decent quality food that isn't the cheapest. But yeah, we're odd.

Not really. Most people most of the time don't buy just based on price. That is why Heinz still sell lots of beans and we aren't all driving Trabants.

The only time you are likely to buy based solely on price is if someone else has to suffer the consequences of that purchase decision as with centrally controlled economies. Left to itself the market produces quality goods as well as the rubbish.

[AnOriginalIdea]

No, my university education is in mathematics and I live in Canada, but I am considering going back to France.

Why? Canada is on its way to becoming an energy superpower, France is....to close to Europe.

And, no, I actually want to go back to farming (or more precisely set up a permaculture site) if I find some people to do it with and some land to live on (that I don't have to own!). That way fo life is appealing to me and to many other people who are fed up with the options available to us. I see a lot of communitarian agriculture sites springing up in France and abroad in the near future as the fossil fuel economy collapses.

Well, predicating your future on something collapsing, particularly something which was supposed to have collapsed before your were born, can be a bit dicey, don't you think? Nothing wrong with permaculture and whatnot, just no reason to base it on something which certainly appears to have more lives than a cat.

The only issue that remains is access to land and land rights. As young people wanting to farm, we are a valuable asset to any society, so I am hoping that, with an ageing farmer population, governing structures will recognize this more and more and get us some land!

So now not only are you banking on a collapse of some sort, but a government doing something which appears reasonable? To help YOUNG people? Well, I don't know what to say except..good luck.

[moimitou]

Canada is a wee bit too cold especially for a post-petroleum world.

The predictions made by the Limits To Growth study of the 1970's are right on track apparently. They didn't say that it would collapse straight away, they made several predictions according to our course of action, and we are following the Business-As-Usual track pretty well, and that model leads to peak population in 1930 (look at the latest revision of that study). ( I am assuming this is the study you are refering to)

I see the economic crash as a good thing on the whole (not for me or my family/friends!) as it will forcefully stop industrialisation and may save the human species from extinction.

And, no, I said governing structures, not the corrupt governments that run this world! (obviously). I was thinking about local/regional governments pushed by a strong social movement. I see young(ish) people's access to land becoming a huge problem! The last thing you want is some kind of neo-feudalism.

A viable solution to this problem would the donation of land to people willing to farm it or some kind of collective ownership and control of the land.[/i]

[moimitou]

Sorry, I meant 2030!

(according to the 2012 update to the limits to growth)

[AnOriginalIdea]

Canada is a wee bit too cold especially for a post-petroleum world.

The world is warming, and that includes Canada. Could be a tropical paradise by the time it is all said and done. Mathematics, inversely correlated, yes? Cancel each other out?

The predictions made by the Limits To Growth study of the 1970's are right on track apparently.

They weren't predictions. They were scenarios. Sort of like using low/med/high cases instead of using a full blown probabilistic analysis to generate the probabilities, a poor mans way to encompass the full uncertainty in a complex system, yes?

I see the economic crash as a good thing on the whole (not for me or my family/friends!) as it will forcefully stop industrialisation and may save the human species from extinction.

I agree, at least with the first part. A decent collapse (even small ones, as collapses have been coming and going ever since it became popular to declare them) shakes out the hangers on, teaches the children to be wise in their choices lest they fall victim to not being properly prepared, shows that it requires more than being a warm body to make your way in the world, sort of like Darwin in action at the economic level. Lowers expectations as well, a good thing in a world where everyone wants to be a royal, or pop musician, or reality TV star.

And, no, I said governing structures, not the corrupt governments that run this world! (obviously).

Which one? The American Hegemony, the World Bank, the UN, IMF, the Jews or reptilian overlords people occasionally whisper about?

A viable solution to this problem would the donation of land to people willing to farm it or some kind of collective ownership and control of the land.[/i]

Well, viable solution to YOU perhaps. The current owners of said land might not like it being removed from their possession much. And collective ownership and control of the land may not be all that great of an idea if it leads to the results of, say, the American Indians, or aboriginal people in general.