tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post1393748158347635934..comments2024-02-02T05:45:33.724-06:00Comments on Incoming: John Phippshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-37645441647946044342013-06-04T14:13:05.868-06:002013-06-04T14:13:05.868-06:00Anon:
The big are different, although not always ...Anon:<br /><br />The big are different, although not always in the ways we think and tend to measure. (Cost per acre means less for them, for example. As someone pointed out, at some point it's not the rate fo profit, but the volume that drives the compettive advantage.) I also think they tend to be more aggressive, which would show up as lower margins. which could be interpreted as less efficient. In a zero-sum game of land this tendency alone accounts for much of the concentration.<br /><br />Second, all the FBFM reports I have seen from IL, anyway usually make note of the thin sample of over-5000 acre farms.<br /><br />My overriding concern is the same I have with the universal advice from academia and finance for farmers: be conservative. Don't pay/bid too much, control costs, don't take unnecessary risks, etc.<br /><br />Experience tells me this is a path to extinction in our industry today. And if we get a higher "safety net" crop insurance deal such advice will could be how to become roadkill.<br /><br />But as I note we don't have any other benchmarks, whcih leads me to suggest to farmers that comparison to FBFM colleagues should offer little comfort or unease.<br /><br />Do we know the loss rate/reasons for those who drop out of FBFM? Are there "autopsy" data that can be accessed?<br /><br />It doesn't help for somebody like me to point out something isn't perfect when it's the best we can do. But I think there should be some cautions about what conclusions you can and cannot draw from FBFM summaries.<br /><br />Thanks for responding.John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-25389889124761543252013-06-04T12:48:00.897-06:002013-06-04T12:48:00.897-06:00Interesting thoughts John. Do you think the numbe...Interesting thoughts John. Do you think the number of larger farms in the data set are much different on a percentage basis than what is the true percentage of large farms by number in the state? In other words, how many are there really when one considers the fragmented nature of larger farms being split across multiple family members or entities? Do you feel that the representation of FBFM in your area is true of the rest of the state?<br /><br />In our area, many of the larger farms do in fact work with FBFM, as the importance to a lender of having financial documents created by a third party (an informal audit if you will) gives some sense of security, particularly as the numbers and risk involved with farming increase.<br /><br />Do you feel there is valuable data we are missing out on with larger farm operations? I have seen studies that conclude that the operational efficiencies with being a larger farm don't always exist.<br /><br />I certainly agree that you may be correct, just posing food for your thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com