farm-size matters…

…in Southern Norway…

small doesn't suit everyone…

Not all Norwegian dairy farmers are content with running small farms, even though most Norwegian farms are small on a global scale even when they're large on our national scale. I think Norwegians see dairy farms as “small” when they have less than 20 cows, and “large” when they exceed 50 cows. Most Norwegian dairy farms have 12 to 15 cows, so they are by definition “small”.

Personally I think the border-lines for “small” and “large” should be drawn at 10 times higher numbers. However, there's no tradition for those farm-sizes in Norway and hardly suitable land available for them either.

Geography defines and limits farming in Norway, and only around 3.3% is arable land. On this our farmers could feed the entire Norwegian population, but for various reasons – mostly political and economical ones – they don't.

Norwegian farming is continuously being reorganized into fewer and larger farms, being it dairy or other production. Agricultural land is taken out of production every year, as farmers can easily find better ways to waste their time on earth than to produce food and keep up the land.

As a result there is less and less land kept up by fewer and fewer farmers, and the national food production is stabilized or slightly lower from year to year. We receive lots of signals from government-circles and down that they want us to produce more, but no-one wants to pay for increased production so I guess they're not really serious about it.

growing out of existence…

For one reason or another; many farmers try to extend and expand the production-capacity of their farms. In most cases it probably has something to do with wanting and needing to make enough money to keep up with other parts of society. Often farmers also feel a bit “small” compared to those in other professions, and see growing larger as a way to get more in line with them.

In many, if not most, cases the amount of work and the cost of running a farm, rise out of proportion with improved income after an expansion. Unless a farm is, or has become, large enough to absorb it all, the farmer will be left with more work, more frustration and less profit for many years following an expansion.

Finding that there are too many stones and potholes in the roads that looked relatively leveled and plain at a distance, and growing pretty tired of it all after a while, is not uncommon. Not always easy to do much about it at that stage.

Nearly all serious “expansionists” have to rely on really good bank-connections in order to finance the initial investments and to keep it going for years, which means gambling on what the future has in store. Gambling is gambling no matter what, as although banks may be good partners as long as the times are good, their sense for real economics is generally speaking weak to non-existent.

Financial institutions understand money, greed and big talk, but they may not understand or even accept reality until long after it has hit them smack in their faces. Their interest in helping anyone but themselves if the going gets tough, is often also near or well below zero.

When they start trying to cover losses resulting from their own, failed, policies and bad judgements, it often has enormous and catastrophic ripple-effects – just look at them now, and one better stay on firm ground if one is to avoid being toppled by something one isn't part of.

For as many reasons as they started an expansion, many “expansionists” give up after a while and try to sell out to cover their losses. Others try to scale back to something they can manage and also enjoy working with. However, if banks are involved; being able to enjoy working with something that belongs to others for eternity, can be tough on many, so even those who manage to scale back may quit after a while.

Those who have managed to pull off somewhat successful expansions and stay alive and in production, may or may not be better off than they were before. Good luck to them anyway.

There are so many farms that have grown out of existence for so many reasons, that those who come after them may have a slightly easier job pulling it off. They better do their homework and go through some serious risk assessments before trying though.

calculations…

I will claim that it is most often better to be small and agile than large and sturdy. I'm of course focusing on dairy farms here, but without ignoring the many exceptions there are to any rules, I'd say that avoiding becoming too large is to ones advantage in any field.

• Scenario: a dairy farmer has to invest in a new tractor to run his 70 cows farm, and calculates that the investment will be covered in a number of years. Our around 7 cows farm should then obviously need around 10 times that many years to cover such an investments – right?
  Wrong, on several points.

  A 7 cows dairy farm may not need a tractor at all, and if one is needed a reasonable-priced small tractor bought on the second-hand market will probably do just fine. It may not look like much but it'll get the job done, and the investment is probably covered by the 7 cows in less time than those 70 cows can cover the new and bigger tractor needed on a larger farm.

  There's probably no need for the small farm to bother the bank in order to make such a small investment either, which certainly doesn't hurt.

  Potential result: 1 - 0 to the small farm.

• Claim: Large dairy farms save more on running-cost by buying in large. Large dairy farms also save more by having large machines that they can run continuously and optimally – right?
  Wrong, again.

  Same as for large farms, small farms only have to buy what they need pr. head and area, and if the farmer is smart he or she can cut cost by making more out of local resources. Small farms also neither need large machines, nor do they have to run whatever machines they have for long periods.

  Thus, small farms can save at least as much on running-cost as the larger farms, if they really want to. It is only the numbers that for obvious reasons tend to be lower for the small farm, not the actual savings one can make on it.

  Potential result: 1 - 0 to the small farm.

These pretty rough calculations show that there has to be a really big difference in farm-size if size should favor the larger ones to any degree, and zeroing out the difference is no problem. The gains in today's farming lay in cutting cost while keeping the production stable, and large farms, like other large businesses, tend to become so inflexible that cutting cost where and when it matters may not be possible.

On small farms on the other hand one can turn around pretty quickly and simply have things done differently for short or long periods, until the time, market and overall situation favors them and whatever they want to do. Small means flexible.

In the end it comes down to how committed and smart a farmer really is, which in itself has nothing to do with farm-size. On large farms one may have problems justifying spending time on extracting value from marginal resources though, while on small farms marginal resources can really make a difference.

That some of us also want to be independent where and when it matters, and prefer to write our own definitions for “success”, may also play a role here.

personal preferences…

I prefer being in a situation where what little profit we make goes into our own pockets – and stays there until we choose otherwise. Ideally this means no borrowed money to pay interests on, and no investments so large that they require any. I know my mentality is “against the flow”, but I can't see what that's got to do with anything.

I certainly don't mind putting money back into circulation, and (if I were allowed) I might even burn some – literally – just for the fun of it. The reason being that although I'm not making much, I am actually having a hard time finding something worth spending it on.

I think my mentality is shaped by living in a high-cost country where it is becoming increasingly hard to get value for money. The good stuff is probably out there somewhere, but there's too much surface-polished but useless garbage obscuring it and more is flowing in every day. Digging through to the good stuff is time-consuming, and too often obstructed by dedicated garbage-sellers.

Too often when I'm on a shopping-round for something I really need, it is no longer available and/or has been replaced by something I have no need for. When I'm out shopping I'm not on a charity-tour to help shop-owners – or anyone else for that matter, so if I can't find what I'm after it's “no deal”, no matter what.

In many respects I view our small farm as a retreat from a world that seemingly has less and less to offer. Maybe that sounds like “old man's talk”, but I'm not all that old so it must be something else at play here.

I'm old enough to say that it wastn't really any better better a few decades ago – only different, but that this downward-pointing trend continues to dominate, with very few healthy signs in sight, is really disappointing.

New trends replace the old ones with short intervals, and to me that's not signs of improvement. Trends tend to end up being hijacked, downgraded and exploited, and professional hijackers seem to become more and more savvy for each turn. Thus, “going green” (or whatever color one may choose from the rainbow) tend to lose its original meaning pretty quickly.

As it is, one either has to be in constant search for acceptable exceptions, or create some oneself. I'm certainly no stranger to doing the latter, but there are always certain things on my wish-list that can be a bit too difficult to create entirely from scratch when there are no acceptable alternatives on the market. After all: I'm a realist, not a magician.

I most certainly know that I'm not alone with my views, as much of what I stand for is quite regularly held up in the media and elsewhere as ideal ways to live ones lives, a kind of living a growing number of people wish they could enjoy.

Well, if people wish it badly enough, why don't they give it a try? Just don't turn it all into just another set of trends without any real content or meaning, please. We have more than enough “surface-polished nonsense” as it is.

farm-size matters…

So, do you think I have made a case for small farms here? I don't really know myself, and in a way it doesn't matter. This is where and how I want to live, and I'm doing so right now so there's no need for me to make a case for it.

If I am to make a case for anything, then it must be for diversity and size-variations in farming as in all other walks of life. Uniformed and “leveled” societies tend to become weak and sickly – not to mention pretty boring to live in. So, size matters, but not in the ways one might think. It is good to have choices…

sincerely 

Hageland 10.aug.2008
last rev: 11.aug.2008