Ed, can you say that the family farmers are the ones suffering, while agro-business flourishes? This is what we are seeing in the US. Whole farming villages are being abandoned, buildings empty and crumbling, highways bypassing them.
This last summer, I went on a quixotic quest to find the restaurant that served the very best roast-beef sandwich I've ever had. My wife and I, lost in the middle of the night in a pelting storm many years ago, fetched up bedraggled in what turn out to be Julien, Nebraska. The only restaurant, just closed, put their lights back on for us, and with the lightening flashing white on the empty streets of Julien, we devoured the sandwiches the kind proprietors made for us. Forty years later I found the place: it had been turned into a sad-looking 'antiques' place -- junk, really -- and Julien had no restaurants, no nothing, except a drab barber shop. And maybe a bar, but it was hard to tell in it was still in business. It was midday, but I was the only driver on the streets. I've wondered what happened to the kind restauranters of forty years ago, and what happened to their children. I hope they landed on their feet somewhere and are doing well. They were good people. Cheers, Lawry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 4:31 PM To: pete; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] The farmers aren't jolly! Yes, you're right, Pete. When I was a kid in Saskatchewan, many people were needed to operate farms. Horses were needed to pull farm equipment and threshing gangs came around to separate the wheat from the chaff. Farms were very busy places and the prairies were known as "the breadbasket of the world". Now, with mechanization, far fewer people are needed to operate farms. Farms can no longer support the number of people they once did. The kids who were so badly needed at one time have long since been sent off to become lawyers, doctors, loggers or, as in some cases I know of, bums in the city. Farm income has fallen, and farmers or their wives now often take part time jobs in the nearest town to supplement their farm income. It's not really a good situation. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 10:49 PM Subject: [Futurework] The farmers aren't jolly! > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Someone once wrote: > >>Three jolly Farmers > >>Once bet a pound > >>Each dance the other would > >>Off the ground. > >>And Murray McLuaghlin wrote a song about a dusty old farmer with a face >>like a shoe, or something like that. >> >>The farmers I saw in downtown Ottawa next to Parliament Hill yesterday >>were not jolly and most were too young to have faces like shoes. They >>weren't angry either. They were serious, making a statement. The point >>they were trying to get across was that we needed them. "Farmers feed >>cities" their yellow T-shirts read. >> >>But they were also making the point that they were being treated >>unfairly. They argued that, while they were protected from the >>importation of American milk, butter and eggs, products derived from >>these commodities could be imported freely. Thus it was not necessarily >>Canadian derivative products that went into our ice cream. It could as >>easily be products from the US. As in Mexico, competition from heavily >>subsidized American corn was also at issue. >> >>I don't know how valid their arguments are, but there is no question that >>many of them are hurting. I heard a woman who operates a large farm in >>the Ottawa Valley interviewed yesterday morning. She suggested that her >>expenses exceeded her income by about 50%, which is not a sustainable >>situation. >> >>But there is also something else involved, the possibility that an >>honored and traditional way of life, already close to oblivion, will >>completely disappear. People will not be able to pass their farms on to >>their children. Consider the following from Statistics Canada's Census of >>Agriculture: >> >> The "other 20%" of Canadians make up the rural population. The rural >>population has two distinct parts: those who farm and those who live in >>the country, but commute to city jobs or have jobs as teachers, police >>officers, firefighters, servers or cashiers in the businesses that serve >>the rural community. Of the two groups, the non-farm group is by far the >>largest: 9 in 10 people living in rural Canada don't farm. >>(http://www.statcan.ca/english/agcensus2001/first/socio/immigration.htm#3) >> >>Data provided by Statistics Canada shows that the farm population >>declined from over 7% of the population in 1971 to about 2.5% of the >>population in 2001. Given such facts, it would seem that the procession >>of heavy machinery past Parliament Hill yesterday was as much a >>procession of mourning as a show of strength. >> >>Ed >> >>P.S.: There are a few pictures at >>http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/newblog.htm , last item. > > > What's missing in your numbers, of course, is the current level of > production. Are we supplying the same percentage of total food > consumption from domestic production as 35 years ago - ie does > the drop in farmers reflect a move to farm automation, or food > import, or a combination of the two? Also, the rural population > includes another component beyond farmers, besides commuters and > support workers: the other resource workers - miners, loggers, > fishers, etc. In most of BC, I think, they are the main portion of > the rural population, don't know how it goes in the rest of the > country. > > -Pete > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
