damn straight they should be.. they have extremely large investments in tradiational radio and large segments of their market depend on low SNR communication.. large scale deployment of UWB will increase noise floors, therefore decreaseing SNR's, therefore decreasing the range of your cell phones.. as well as other RF equipment.. UWB ideally is a truely revolutionary technology, but in the real world is completly unfeasable. I can't possibly see any regulation body allowing mass deployment of UWB any time soon. It just doesn't make any technical sense.
high levels of subsidies in both the US and Europe that make it impossible for countries out side these areas to compete and hence develop their own agriculture.
umm.. Brazil seems to be doing alright and are well on their way to blow away their western counterparts in any competetive market (subsidies or not). I personally don't support subsidies for farmers, but without them the industry will change dramatically, think we have big farms now, just you wait.
because now the farmers are forced to buy expensive seed stocks and breeding animals from the owners of the GM patents (usually Monsanto) instead of being able to resow part of last year's crop
again, no farmer is forced to use or purchase GM seeds, and has no requirement to not resow their harvested seeds unless they purchased the seeds in the first place. (they have to follow the license agreement that they agreed to when they purchased the seed, don't like the agreement, don't purchase the seed and use your old non GM stock) Common law is still unclear about crosspolination problems. The case brought up here often about the farmer in Saskatchewan (Manitoba?) mainly deals with the farmer knowingly segregating (keeping the part of the harvest he knew was contaiminated) the seeds and planting them the next year, a clear and delibarate attempt to defraud Monsanto. I have yet to see a case in court where the defendant unknowingly replanted GM crops and was sued by the GM patent holder.
They main problem with food distribution in the world are corrupt governments that have no wish to correct the problems they face. Stable government will bring captial to the country, see above.
topsoil is basically dirt with decomposed organic matter. All farming that i've seen greatly increases the amount of organic matter in the soil over a number of years, at least in north america most of the plant life grown on a field, probably 80%, is returned to the soil, basically stocks and leaves, the remainder is harvested. The organic matter levels in soil are a highly managed item for most farmers, controlled over long periods of time to maximize yeilds.. (what do you think happens to the exorbante amount of aminal and human organic waste we generate continuously.) Sustainable farming requires very carefull management of the soils. I know on our farm we routinely do soil tests to monitor nutrient levels, and adjust fertlizer levels acordingly.
Many parts of Europe currently have severe problems with topsoil levels dramatically increasing because of too much organic matter.
Be very very careful about facts you find, most of the time they are severly onesided, look at the whole picture and specifically talk to people who actually work and live off the industry in question.
Exactly... many of the countries mentioned in the article are in the best growing regions in the entire world.. it's mainly incompenant govenments that seem to be the problem.
For example, look at Brazil, it's now one of the best places in the world for agricultural production. They basically have the perfect climate for growing food, hot and relativly humid. We are about to see a major change in the way the world produces food, the western agriculture industry is really in for a shock. We just can't compete against their yields. It's already started by the way.
What really blows me away, there was a documentary on the CBC here a few months ago, basically a western (Canadian) reporter went to live in one of the malnourished villages in some African country. He pretty much ate nothing but grasses, cabage, roots and some food aid(grain) for 3 weeks. I couldn't believe it, from watching the show, the soil seemed to by aboundantly rich and moist, great for growing just about anything. Their climate appeared to be almost ideal. This leads me to believe that there is a strong education problem in that part of the world. Taking to some of my coligues from that part of the world, it seems highly apparant that they either just don't know how to grow their own food, or really don't want to.
#1... terminator type genes have been wide spread in western agriculture for around 50 years.. (mainly in corn crops currently... hybridization has stoped almost all replanting)
#2... no one if forced to by or use GM or licenced crops and ANY western or like country that I know of.. you are free to use public domain seed crops anyway you like... (just happens that to get any of the yields we've seen in the last 50 years you probably want to use licensed seeds) (if you use licensed seeds then you have to follow the license.... likened to software.. don't like the license... then you don't have to use it )
#3... without bringing Iraqi laws into the norm with westerm laws capital probably won't flow through Iraq as easily, therefore preventing Iraq from properly rebuilding. (Why would I, a busniess person, looking to invest somewhere, invent in Iraq unless I am protected in similar manners as any western economy.) Bring general law and order to pretty much any place that has any potential to generate profits and the money will start to flow. Too much risk and most people will shy away from the oportunities.
The vacuum on most engines is provided by the air intake on the engine... using the electric would require a vacuum pump... while on an IC engine there is always vacuum at the intake..
Here in Canada most people (60% I seem to remember) are entrepreneurs or work in small business (50 people). Especially when you leave the urban areas.
And you have a very US centric view of the future.
The whole point globalization is to remove national barriers to trade therefore allowing other nations to directly prosper from the unequal wealth that the west currently holds. It will probably take a generation or two before the whole world really starts to see the direct benifit from these exercises, but overall it will be much better for the world economy as a whole.
In the west we will feel the biggest crunch by far. But the western world represents maybe 1/6 of the entire global population. As the remaining of the 5/6 of the world's markets open, in general a state of equalization will occur between all nations on the planet.
This is not just restricted to the IT industry. Agriculture as we know it today in the western world is going to take a severe beating as other countries start to compete on the world markets. For instance, if I were to make an equivalent investment here that would take 25 years to pay off, there are placing in the world currently where that same investment will only take 2 years to pay off. I'm not talking about standard of living or anything like that, I'm talking strictly on a measure of productivity and competitiveness.
Globalization will prove to the western world formost that we are not at all that great and competing in free markets as we think.
profit margins are fucking small, really really small
Yes, yes they are.
Today to be successfull in farming you need lots of money. Most farmers today of pretty much any size are millionaires on paper. Most of their money is tied up in assets tho. Many farmers are strugling to maintain a livable cast flow. Anything today that is small cannot survive. In dairy farming for instance, a standard herd 10-20 years ago was 30 milking head. Today, the minimum you need to have to possibly have a chance in the future is currently around 100 head. In the past few years many smaller farmers are leaving the industry. It is now impossible to maintain a living wage in dairy farming by living soly off the production of 30 milking head of cattle. All farmers I know of this size have a second wage earner in the family.
To successfully enter the dairy industry today in Ontario Canada will require around 4 to 5 million dollars Canadian to purchase everything needed (land, equipment, barns, quota, etc.). This is significanlty up from the approximatly 1-2 million required around 10 years ago. This will give you around 100 milking head. If I were to do this today I would be seriouly looking at another 10 million in expansion within 10 years plus a lot of very hard work.
Of those who made the move 10 years ago from 30 to 100 milking head, even with the added debt load, today are some of the most well off families in my community. Knowing today thay if I can succesfully finance a 5 million dollar farm (pretty small by today's standards [not even close to what some people call factory farms, i'm talking about a standard family farm!!]) I would be very well off in 20 or 30 years with a conservative estimate in 30 years of at least 25 - 35 million in assets and a net cash out of 10 - 15 million.
The point is, today farming at any size is big business. So much so that the next generation of farmers have realized that they require real educations. Many are currently seeking business and technology backgrounds that will be required to be successfull the agriculture industry of today and the future.
You'll be feeding your cattle moldy rotten feed and cheap[sic] hay to cut costs, and they'll live a miserable life. Cows will die because it's cheaper to let them die than to do something about it.
I must take this as a personal insult to both an honorable industry and some of the most ethical people you will ever meet. I will leave the moral and ethical implications of your statement asside due to their pure obsurdity and stick strickly to an economic factor specifically in the dairy industry to which I have been a part of.
In no way shape or form does it make any economic sense to have a dairy cow in any form of miserable condition. The basis for this is very simple: a stressed cow will not produce milk at any rate near her prime efficiency. A large part of the dairy industry is focused on primarily cow comfort and antistress measures. Barns today are designed primarily with cow comfort in mind. (Technology now allows cows to even decide when and how often they would like to be milked in a day)
As has been proven time and time again, you get what you pay for. If you feed a cow cheap and/or rotten food she will not have the nutrients she will require to produce the best quality and greatest quantity of milk. The fact is that most dairy cows in the agricultural industry are fed better than most people in the western world. We specifically tailor our feeding practices to insure that the cows are healthly and capable of their maxiumum production.
The point here is that a sick cow doesn't make money. Just like humans, if a cow gets sick she will been knocked out of production for possibly days on end. It pays to keep your employees/cows in good health.
A small operation is the _only_ way to do it right, but it's mutally exclusive with making enough money to live on.
Small operations tend not only be the best way to do things
PS In a really tight, highly educated, labor market comparative advantage tells you to off-shore/outsource 'lower' jobs. The key being sustainably better opportunity to which that labor power can be used.
Good point!
Exactly, and this is what's happening now. 'lower' jobs are moving outside the country (western world). What's happened in the last few years is the 'blue collarification' of the IT industry. Tradiational white collar jobs (general programming) have move into the 'blue' colar job market. The is blatently obvious if you have at all followed the industry. Seven years ago when I was looking at programming as a career oportunity I knew it wouldn't last (Hence why I never entered), there's just no need for a highly skill person to program 95% of what's out there. The other 5% can easily be handled by a select few skilled people. Programming is no longer a 'skilled job' today. Hence it's being outsourced like mad as many unskilled jobs have been for ages (general manufacture and assembly).
The economy in the western world is primarily based on knowledge. As certain jobs evolve other countries start to catch up to us, we will see the bottom end jobs move out to these countries.
Unfortunatly, many people here have a big problem realizing that programming and IT jobs in general are will in the lower rung of the High Tech industry and obviously are the first to go as the assembly and manyfacture jobs already have.
Seriously, this has been obvious for many many years. Programming is now a comodity.
By and large the vegetables that you eat today are not nearly as good for you as the ones that your grandparents ate because soil depletion and crappy farming techniques have robbed them of their minerals and nutrients.
Seriously now, you are an idiot.. the soil depletion argument you bring up is nothing but a load of garbage.. please familiarize yourself with modern farming practices.. (articles and such by Greenpeace and the like do not count [these organizations tend to have opinions about things that they have no real knowledge of and they tend to be massivly biased no matter what facts are put in front of them.])... the very argument of soil depletion having an effect on the food we grow is nothing but balony. Plants will not grow if there are no nutrients in the soil (or they will grow very poorly).. proper soil management requires properly testing and suplementing the soil with fertilizers. We are at the stage now where we can adaquatly test and characterize soil to add the proper nutrients to allow our food to grow to it's full potential. Letting the soil nutrients disappear does not make business sense to any farmer.. Food today is probably the most healthy it's ever been.
The major reason we have now introduced GM into the industry is that we have reached a yeild peak using conventional hybrid technologies. Take corn for instance, around 100 years ago (before hybrid technology) to about 50 years ago there were steady gains in yield as the years progressed. This had a direct correlation to farming practices getting better and better (soil maintenace etc.)... they around 50 years ago the yield started to plateux as conventional farming practices failed to generate any real gains. To aleviate this problem hybrid technology was introcuced. Now for the last 50 years hybrid technology has been getting better and better, but we have reach a plateaux again. Now GM has given us another method of increasing yields, allowing us to leave our current plateux.
GM foods are currently making many of the food we eat much safer and more healthy. For instance, many farms who use GM crops are now only spraying one or two chemicals versus conventional farmers who routinly use more than 10 or 20 different chemicals. Many of these chemicals I wouldn't go anywhere near. (I've used many of them, not very nice stuff). Overall I truely believe that GM crops are nesecary for the continued growth of the agrictulture industry in the western world.
There must also be proper controls in place to regulate GM foods. Many of these controls are already in place. Many GM foods in the market currently have undergone 10 to 20 years of study to prove that they are more or less harmless (there is always some risk)
On another note, some people suggest that we move to organic farming. This is not possible as we would revert back to yeilds from ~100 years ago. Many farms that convert to organic usually have no yield to speak of in their first 3 years of crops. After around 5 years they usually get between 25% to 50% of their typical yields under conventional farming. Organic farming is not a solution that is sustainable for feeding 6+ billion people. (unless there is a major movement to employ many orders of magnitude more farmers. probly 5 or 6 orders and pay 10 to 50 times for for you food)
Right now, for better or worse, agriculture in the western world is changing drastically. Many farmers are leaving the industry for greener pastures as there is simply little money in the industry anymore unless they go large. The economics of farming only work today if farms are very large. Today for me enter dairy farming in Ontario I would require ~1 million dollars of capital and I would be looking to spend another 2 or 3 million again in 10 years. Now with some hard work I would be able to cash out in 25 - 35 years with ~15 - 25 million in capital. Provided the industry acts similar to how it has over the last 10 - 20 years. This is the business of farming today. The North American farming will change again in roughly 10 years as other cou
Slashdot Mirror
damn straight they should be.. they have extremely large investments in tradiational radio and large segments of their market depend on low SNR communication.. large scale deployment of UWB will increase noise floors, therefore decreaseing SNR's, therefore decreasing the range of your cell phones.. as well as other RF equipment.. UWB ideally is a truely revolutionary technology, but in the real world is completly unfeasable. I can't possibly see any regulation body allowing mass deployment of UWB any time soon. It just doesn't make any technical sense.
yep.. case law can be pretty far reaching..
for instance, in Canada we can use our own case law, and that of the UK as equal. US case law can also be use up here.. but not as a precedent..
at least this is what I got from my law course in high school..
complete bullshit..
high levels of subsidies in both the US and Europe that make it impossible for countries out side these areas to compete and hence develop their own agriculture.
umm.. Brazil seems to be doing alright and are well on their way to blow away their western counterparts in any competetive market (subsidies or not). I personally don't support subsidies for farmers, but without them the industry will change dramatically, think we have big farms now, just you wait.
because now the farmers are forced to buy expensive seed stocks and breeding animals from the owners of the GM patents (usually Monsanto) instead of being able to resow part of last year's crop
again, no farmer is forced to use or purchase GM seeds, and has no requirement to not resow their harvested seeds unless they purchased the seeds in the first place. (they have to follow the license agreement that they agreed to when they purchased the seed, don't like the agreement, don't purchase the seed and use your old non GM stock) Common law is still unclear about crosspolination problems. The case brought up here often about the farmer in Saskatchewan (Manitoba?) mainly deals with the farmer knowingly segregating (keeping the part of the harvest he knew was contaiminated) the seeds and planting them the next year, a clear and delibarate attempt to defraud Monsanto. I have yet to see a case in court where the defendant unknowingly replanted GM crops and was sued by the GM patent holder.
They main problem with food distribution in the world are corrupt governments that have no wish to correct the problems they face. Stable government will bring captial to the country, see above.
FALSE...
topsoil is basically dirt with decomposed organic matter. All farming that i've seen greatly increases the amount of organic matter in the soil over a number of years, at least in north america most of the plant life grown on a field, probably 80%, is returned to the soil, basically stocks and leaves, the remainder is harvested. The organic matter levels in soil are a highly managed item for most farmers, controlled over long periods of time to maximize yeilds.. (what do you think happens to the exorbante amount of aminal and human organic waste we generate continuously.) Sustainable farming requires very carefull management of the soils. I know on our farm we routinely do soil tests to monitor nutrient levels, and adjust fertlizer levels acordingly.
Many parts of Europe currently have severe problems with topsoil levels dramatically increasing because of too much organic matter.
Be very very careful about facts you find, most of the time they are severly onesided, look at the whole picture and specifically talk to people who actually work and live off the industry in question.
Exactly... many of the countries mentioned in the article are in the best growing regions in the entire world.. it's mainly incompenant govenments that seem to be the problem.
For example, look at Brazil, it's now one of the best places in the world for agricultural production. They basically have the perfect climate for growing food, hot and relativly humid. We are about to see a major change in the way the world produces food, the western agriculture industry is really in for a shock. We just can't compete against their yields. It's already started by the way.
What really blows me away, there was a documentary on the CBC here a few months ago, basically a western (Canadian) reporter went to live in one of the malnourished villages in some African country. He pretty much ate nothing but grasses, cabage, roots and some food aid(grain) for 3 weeks. I couldn't believe it, from watching the show, the soil seemed to by aboundantly rich and moist, great for growing just about anything. Their climate appeared to be almost ideal. This leads me to believe that there is a strong education problem in that part of the world. Taking to some of my coligues from that part of the world, it seems highly apparant that they either just don't know how to grow their own food, or really don't want to.
not nesecarily a reply to the parent
#1... terminator type genes have been wide spread in western agriculture for around 50 years.. (mainly in corn crops currently... hybridization has stoped almost all replanting)
#2... no one if forced to by or use GM or licenced crops and ANY western or like country that I know of.. you are free to use public domain seed crops anyway you like... (just happens that to get any of the yields we've seen in the last 50 years you probably want to use licensed seeds) (if you use licensed seeds then you have to follow the license.... likened to software.. don't like the license... then you don't have to use it )
#3... without bringing Iraqi laws into the norm with westerm laws capital probably won't flow through Iraq as easily, therefore preventing Iraq from properly rebuilding. (Why would I, a busniess person, looking to invest somewhere, invent in Iraq unless I am protected in similar manners as any western economy.) Bring general law and order to pretty much any place that has any potential to generate profits and the money will start to flow. Too much risk and most people will shy away from the oportunities.
The vacuum on most engines is provided by the air intake on the engine... using the electric would require a vacuum pump... while on an IC engine there is always vacuum at the intake..
here here....
entrepreneurs are the life blood of our economy..
Here in Canada most people (60% I seem to remember) are entrepreneurs or work in small business (50 people). Especially when you leave the urban areas.
You have an overly optimistic view of the future.
And you have a very US centric view of the future.
The whole point globalization is to remove national barriers to trade therefore allowing other nations to directly prosper from the unequal wealth that the west currently holds. It will probably take a generation or two before the whole world really starts to see the direct benifit from these exercises, but overall it will be much better for the world economy as a whole.
In the west we will feel the biggest crunch by far. But the western world represents maybe 1/6 of the entire global population. As the remaining of the 5/6 of the world's markets open, in general a state of equalization will occur between all nations on the planet.
This is not just restricted to the IT industry. Agriculture as we know it today in the western world is going to take a severe beating as other countries start to compete on the world markets. For instance, if I were to make an equivalent investment here that would take 25 years to pay off, there are placing in the world currently where that same investment will only take 2 years to pay off. I'm not talking about standard of living or anything like that, I'm talking strictly on a measure of productivity and competitiveness.
Globalization will prove to the western world formost that we are not at all that great and competing in free markets as we think.
profit margins are fucking small, really really small
Yes, yes they are.
Today to be successfull in farming you need lots of money. Most farmers today of pretty much any size are millionaires on paper. Most of their money is tied up in assets tho. Many farmers are strugling to maintain a livable cast flow. Anything today that is small cannot survive. In dairy farming for instance, a standard herd 10-20 years ago was 30 milking head. Today, the minimum you need to have to possibly have a chance in the future is currently around 100 head. In the past few years many smaller farmers are leaving the industry. It is now impossible to maintain a living wage in dairy farming by living soly off the production of 30 milking head of cattle. All farmers I know of this size have a second wage earner in the family.
To successfully enter the dairy industry today in Ontario Canada will require around 4 to 5 million dollars Canadian to purchase everything needed (land, equipment, barns, quota, etc.). This is significanlty up from the approximatly 1-2 million required around 10 years ago. This will give you around 100 milking head. If I were to do this today I would be seriouly looking at another 10 million in expansion within 10 years plus a lot of very hard work.
Of those who made the move 10 years ago from 30 to 100 milking head, even with the added debt load, today are some of the most well off families in my community. Knowing today thay if I can succesfully finance a 5 million dollar farm (pretty small by today's standards [not even close to what some people call factory farms, i'm talking about a standard family farm!!]) I would be very well off in 20 or 30 years with a conservative estimate in 30 years of at least 25 - 35 million in assets and a net cash out of 10 - 15 million.
The point is, today farming at any size is big business. So much so that the next generation of farmers have realized that they require real educations. Many are currently seeking business and technology backgrounds that will be required to be successfull the agriculture industry of today and the future.
You'll be feeding your cattle moldy rotten feed and cheap[sic] hay to cut costs, and they'll live a miserable life. Cows will die because it's cheaper to let them die than to do something about it.
I must take this as a personal insult to both an honorable industry and some of the most ethical people you will ever meet. I will leave the moral and ethical implications of your statement asside due to their pure obsurdity and stick strickly to an economic factor specifically in the dairy industry to which I have been a part of.
In no way shape or form does it make any economic sense to have a dairy cow in any form of miserable condition. The basis for this is very simple: a stressed cow will not produce milk at any rate near her prime efficiency. A large part of the dairy industry is focused on primarily cow comfort and antistress measures. Barns today are designed primarily with cow comfort in mind. (Technology now allows cows to even decide when and how often they would like to be milked in a day)
As has been proven time and time again, you get what you pay for. If you feed a cow cheap and/or rotten food she will not have the nutrients she will require to produce the best quality and greatest quantity of milk. The fact is that most dairy cows in the agricultural industry are fed better than most people in the western world. We specifically tailor our feeding practices to insure that the cows are healthly and capable of their maxiumum production.
The point here is that a sick cow doesn't make money. Just like humans, if a cow gets sick she will been knocked out of production for possibly days on end. It pays to keep your employees/cows in good health.
A small operation is the _only_ way to do it right, but it's mutally exclusive with making enough money to live on.
Small operations tend not only be the best way to do things
PS In a really tight, highly educated, labor market comparative advantage tells you to off-shore/outsource 'lower' jobs. The key being sustainably better opportunity to which that labor power can be used.
Good point!
Exactly, and this is what's happening now. 'lower' jobs are moving outside the country (western world). What's happened in the last few years is the 'blue collarification' of the IT industry. Tradiational white collar jobs (general programming) have move into the 'blue' colar job market. The is blatently obvious if you have at all followed the industry. Seven years ago when I was looking at programming as a career oportunity I knew it wouldn't last (Hence why I never entered), there's just no need for a highly skill person to program 95% of what's out there. The other 5% can easily be handled by a select few skilled people. Programming is no longer a 'skilled job' today. Hence it's being outsourced like mad as many unskilled jobs have been for ages (general manufacture and assembly).
The economy in the western world is primarily based on knowledge. As certain jobs evolve other countries start to catch up to us, we will see the bottom end jobs move out to these countries.
Unfortunatly, many people here have a big problem realizing that programming and IT jobs in general are will in the lower rung of the High Tech industry and obviously are the first to go as the assembly and manyfacture jobs already have.
Seriously, this has been obvious for many many years. Programming is now a comodity.
By and large the vegetables that you eat today are not nearly as good for you as the ones that your grandparents ate because soil depletion and crappy farming techniques have robbed them of their minerals and nutrients. Seriously now, you are an idiot.. the soil depletion argument you bring up is nothing but a load of garbage.. please familiarize yourself with modern farming practices.. (articles and such by Greenpeace and the like do not count [these organizations tend to have opinions about things that they have no real knowledge of and they tend to be massivly biased no matter what facts are put in front of them.])... the very argument of soil depletion having an effect on the food we grow is nothing but balony. Plants will not grow if there are no nutrients in the soil (or they will grow very poorly).. proper soil management requires properly testing and suplementing the soil with fertilizers. We are at the stage now where we can adaquatly test and characterize soil to add the proper nutrients to allow our food to grow to it's full potential. Letting the soil nutrients disappear does not make business sense to any farmer.. Food today is probably the most healthy it's ever been. The major reason we have now introduced GM into the industry is that we have reached a yeild peak using conventional hybrid technologies. Take corn for instance, around 100 years ago (before hybrid technology) to about 50 years ago there were steady gains in yield as the years progressed. This had a direct correlation to farming practices getting better and better (soil maintenace etc.)... they around 50 years ago the yield started to plateux as conventional farming practices failed to generate any real gains. To aleviate this problem hybrid technology was introcuced. Now for the last 50 years hybrid technology has been getting better and better, but we have reach a plateaux again. Now GM has given us another method of increasing yields, allowing us to leave our current plateux. GM foods are currently making many of the food we eat much safer and more healthy. For instance, many farms who use GM crops are now only spraying one or two chemicals versus conventional farmers who routinly use more than 10 or 20 different chemicals. Many of these chemicals I wouldn't go anywhere near. (I've used many of them, not very nice stuff). Overall I truely believe that GM crops are nesecary for the continued growth of the agrictulture industry in the western world. There must also be proper controls in place to regulate GM foods. Many of these controls are already in place. Many GM foods in the market currently have undergone 10 to 20 years of study to prove that they are more or less harmless (there is always some risk) On another note, some people suggest that we move to organic farming. This is not possible as we would revert back to yeilds from ~100 years ago. Many farms that convert to organic usually have no yield to speak of in their first 3 years of crops. After around 5 years they usually get between 25% to 50% of their typical yields under conventional farming. Organic farming is not a solution that is sustainable for feeding 6+ billion people. (unless there is a major movement to employ many orders of magnitude more farmers. probly 5 or 6 orders and pay 10 to 50 times for for you food) Right now, for better or worse, agriculture in the western world is changing drastically. Many farmers are leaving the industry for greener pastures as there is simply little money in the industry anymore unless they go large. The economics of farming only work today if farms are very large. Today for me enter dairy farming in Ontario I would require ~1 million dollars of capital and I would be looking to spend another 2 or 3 million again in 10 years. Now with some hard work I would be able to cash out in 25 - 35 years with ~15 - 25 million in capital. Provided the industry acts similar to how it has over the last 10 - 20 years. This is the business of farming today. The North American farming will change again in roughly 10 years as other cou
http://www.keypower.com/