 |
|

01/03/10, 05:42 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 411
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarmersDaughter
My thoughts on your question:
--It is very unlikely that a crop farmer would farm all by himself. He would either have a hired man, other family members that farm with him, or his wife would work with him. Otherwise during harvest, he would have to pick for a while, then stop to haul the corn or soybeans to the grain elevator, then go back and pick for a while, etc. This is possible, but I know of no farmers that do the entire process themselves and have enough ground to make a living.
--I don't agree with the post that you need more than 5,000 acres to own a $250,000 combine. Many farmers around here have $250,000 combines and farm much less than that (but they own the ground they are farming).
|
I agree, one man can't do the harvest effectively. My 65 year young mother drives the combine while my Step-dad drives the tractors that haul the wagons.
Like I said they only farm 900 acres yet they have one of those fancy combines. BUT, and here is the important thing...they inherited that land, they didn't buy it. It would be nearly impossible to start out farming in this day and age and have to buy the land. The giant factory farms have just priced everything out of reach for the little guy. At least here in Indiana anyway.
__________________
Christine
Front Porch Indiana Blog
Come on up to the porch and sit a spell. We'll talk about the day's events and maybe even tell a story or two.
|

01/03/10, 05:44 PM
|
 |
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: IL, right smack dab in the middle
Posts: 6,787
|
|
|
In the creek bottoms some people raise corn continuosly.
My son has two combines for less than 200 acres.
For less than 60 acres a friend has 3 combines one for each crop(corn ,bean,wheat)., well actually he has at least 6 including parts machines for each of the working ones.
|

01/03/10, 11:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 10,943
|
|
|
If you ran the tractor all the time you can get over somewhere between 600 to 900 acres before it is time to get started back over it. If he only had one tractor that will give you some idea as to how much ground he can get over using 6 row equipment.
__________________
God must have loved stupid people because he made so many of them.
|

01/04/10, 01:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 7,610
|
|
|
I'm a little over the border into Minnesota, but - a fella can run 300-600 acres by himself, 2 crops corn & soybeans. (they plant & harvest at slightly different times, so you can cover the acres in a more timely fashion than all one crop.)
Most folks that size 'here' have a real job, and fit this in on weekends & time off, with a little help from dad, wife, kids, uncle, etc during the busy harvest. They use good but used machinery that is a tad oversized for their acres, but as it is used it doesn't cost so much.
You can't possibly afford health insurance or the risks of farming like this without the full-time job, or at least your spouse having a full time job with benifits.
This is reality down on the farm.
Mant fellas are running 1500-5000 acres now, but that is a farm manager, with either 3 generations farming together, or 2 brothers with all of their families ptiching in spring & fall. Again, you will end up with less than 1000 acres per person most of the time, typically down under 500 acres. Many of these people will have other jobs, trucking, construction, etc so while they are big time farmers, if you look through it carefully, the work is split down to not really so big, and other income comes in during the year.
It is hard to afford the equipment repairs on less than 200 acres any more; and it is hard to run more than 1000 acres all by yourself.
That is row crop farming in the midwest, corn & soybeans.
Out west, they can plant 10,000 acres of wheat, and have it custom combined by the roving custom combiners, and be a small operation with only 2 people.
Out east, the farms & fields are so small, things might be a little smaller in scope.
But to your question, about 500 acres per person is an average midwest corn/soybean farm. Can be half that, can be double that. On paper, one person might be credited for a 3,000 acre farm; but if you look at it there are more people involved & it will come down close to that 500 acres per.
--->Paul
|

01/04/10, 04:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 7,154
|
|
|
Grain farmers here farm all the ground they can possibly get cash rented at a price they feel nessesary to still show a profit.
My renter farms around 6000 acres. Usually corn and beans, but with the ethonal demand for corn, he put it all to corn last year. He has two grown sons in partnership with him. They had one new combine to do it all. it has a 12 row head, and they have a 24 row planter. None of them take winter vacations. They spend nearly 7 months in the fields and most of what's left of the year in their semis hauling grain to market or out in the shop keeping the equipment in top shape to stand a full seasons run without breakdowns. You asked a question that has a different answer for each farmer.
|

01/04/10, 08:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 403
|
|
|
Uncle Will in Indiana,
Your right about that, every farmer is going to have a different answer. If you asked my grandpa how much land a corn farmer would have he would say 40 acres, a mule, a big garden, all kinds of farm animals, a wagon and no car. That's how he and my grandmother made it farming and they did make it. They raised a family and were never hungry. They were poor but so was everyone else. I think people could raise a family and never be hungry even today with only 40 acres if they didn't feel they had to have all junk people think they need nowdays. We got so much stuff in our lives today and most of it is not really needed. Yes a farmer could make it on 40 acres even today if they really wanted to. However they would have to farm and live like grandpa and to be honest I don't think I have met in all my life but a few people who are willing to do that.
|

01/04/10, 11:01 PM
|
 |
Too many fat quarters...
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SW Nebraska, NW Kansas
Posts: 8,537
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwubben
Here in Iowa a farmer can make a living on 240 acres if it is paid for.Most farmers farm 800 to 1600 acres and rotate the land to half corn and half soybeans.They strictly raise grain no livestock
|
I'd say that's probably the average "family farm" here in Nebraska, too.
And while most of the little guys rotate, it seems like the big mega-operations aren't as likely to.
The last ranch we worked on, for example, was part of a farm that had 120 circles of corn. (Mostly quarter sections)
Always corn. In fact, the owner of that place is actually fairly well-known as one of the biggest subsidy recipients in the country. We're so proud...
|

01/05/10, 12:14 AM
|
|
Gefion's Plow
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Maryland: In the middle of everywhere.
Posts: 325
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatrat
Uncle Will in Indiana,
Your right about that, every farmer is going to have a different answer. If you asked my grandpa how much land a corn farmer would have he would say 40 acres, a mule, a big garden, all kinds of farm animals, a wagon and no car. That's how he and my grandmother made it farming and they did make it. They raised a family and were never hungry. They were poor but so was everyone else. I think people could raise a family and never be hungry even today with only 40 acres if they didn't feel they had to have all junk people think they need nowdays. We got so much stuff in our lives today and most of it is not really needed. Yes a farmer could make it on 40 acres even today if they really wanted to. However they would have to farm and live like grandpa and to be honest I don't think I have met in all my life but a few people who are willing to do that.
|
That'd be great, wouldn't it? But I think even with a diversified operation the prices of food are too cheap to survive; selling crops from 3-6 dollars a bushel won't get a person far even with draft power or person labor on that acreage. I did some inflation calculation for wheat for 1927 and 1913 and the price per bushel were 17 and 20 dollars. Compare that with today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErinP
I'd say that's probably the average "family farm" here in Nebraska, too.
And while most of the little guys rotate, it seems like the big mega-operations aren't as likely to.
The last ranch we worked on, for example, was part of a farm that had 120 circles of corn. (Mostly quarter sections)
Always corn. In fact, the owner of that place is actually fairly well-known as one of the biggest subsidy recipients in the country. We're so proud... 
|
They don't need to rotate when chemical fertilizers can be added.
__________________
I was born [upon the prairie] where there were no enclosures, and where everything drew free breath. I want to die there and not within walls.
--Ten Bears
|

01/05/10, 02:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 7,610
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamM
They don't need to rotate when chemical fertilizers can be added.
|
That's not quite how it is.....
Grandpa raised 20 bu wheat per acre, 50 bu corn per acre, had dairy cow, horse, and hogs to add manure back to his 40 acres.
Today we are pulling 80 bu wheat, 200 bu corn, and livestock is so regulated it's hard to have livestock in some areas; in other areas other parts of the world want our grain, so it is exported whole to feed people in other countries.
When you pull that kind of crop off an acre and haul it away, the basic nutrients need to be replaced. We take 4 times as much corn off the ground as grandpa did; it's going to need nutrients returned to the soil. Rotate crops or not, P & K are going to be mined out of the soil if we don't.
What does allow solid corn crops is insecticides and fungicides. In an irrigated environment, corn on corn is simpley a better return on investment, even if you nbeed a tad more N fertilizer. Soybeans would not return much money to the investment put in that ground.
Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but, there is a difference.
--->Paul
|

01/05/10, 11:16 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 586
|
|
Sounded like a joke to me...along the lines of, how many lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb...
|

01/05/10, 12:45 PM
|
|
Gefion's Plow
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Maryland: In the middle of everywhere.
Posts: 325
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rambler
That's not quite how it is.....
Grandpa raised 20 bu wheat per acre, 50 bu corn per acre, had dairy cow, horse, and hogs to add manure back to his 40 acres.
Today we are pulling 80 bu wheat, 200 bu corn, and livestock is so regulated it's hard to have livestock in some areas; in other areas other parts of the world want our grain, so it is exported whole to feed people in other countries.
When you pull that kind of crop off an acre and haul it away, the basic nutrients need to be replaced. We take 4 times as much corn off the ground as grandpa did; it's going to need nutrients returned to the soil. Rotate crops or not, P & K are going to be mined out of the soil if we don't.
What does allow solid corn crops is insecticides and fungicides. In an irrigated environment, corn on corn is simpley a better return on investment, even if you nbeed a tad more N fertilizer. Soybeans would not return much money to the investment put in that ground.
Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but, there is a difference.
--->Paul
|
What you're saying is probably right. But if the OP doesn't want to drain land and minimize inputs like fungicides and all that, crop rotation's important, preferably more than just corn and beans. I read flax is picking up in Iowa some, but there's another draining crop. Corn, oats, wheat, and hay is a traditional rotation (with clover or alfalfa in the hay).
__________________
I was born [upon the prairie] where there were no enclosures, and where everything drew free breath. I want to die there and not within walls.
--Ten Bears
|

01/05/10, 01:32 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 7,610
|
|
|
If you get a legume in the rotation, it will add N. That is soil building. But, the plant uses most of the N it makes for itself the first year - so either you need to find a use for alfalfa for several years to build up the N; or you will only get a bit of N, probably not what corn would need the following year. It helps, but it isn't the total answer. Many areas don't allow enough livestock any more to plant that much alfalfa....
Any crop is going to mine out P & K. there is no crop at all that will 'make' P or K. Some plants run deeper roots, and can pull up P & K. Like tillage radishes. I planted some this year to experiment. Alfalfa after a few years also sends deep roots. But still, you are not creating P or K - you are mining it from your soil. Any crop you harvest & sell is going to be trucking P & K down the road, and it is gone from your land. Whether it is a 5000 acre corn on corn on corn field yeilding 230bu an acre, or a farmers market with a handful of sweet corn & a handful of pole beans - you are exporting P & K from your soil that cannot be 'regrown'.
You have to import those 2 items. And realisticly, you need to import some N as well to balance things - even with manure and crop rotation and legume crops.
It's just the laws of nature. You haul crops away, any you need to replentish your soil. Just crop rotation will still be hauling away nutrients. It helps, and you can gain some N back with legumes, but you still are losing overall, and need to resupply your soils from outside.
--->Paul
Last edited by rambler; 01/05/10 at 01:34 PM.
|

01/05/10, 03:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,641
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamM
.... but there's another draining crop. .....
|
Every crop you plant regardless of whether it is in your vegetable garden or an 80 acre field removes nutrients form the soil. To maintain the soil the lost nutrients must be replaced whether from manure or from commercial fertilizer.
Having crop rotations help more with diseases and pest infestations than they do with nutrient scavenging.
Jim
|

01/05/10, 05:05 PM
|
 |
Miniature Horse lover
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: West Central WI.
Posts: 21,253
|
|
|
Also different crops take different nutrients from the soil, that is also a reason for rotation.
|

01/05/10, 07:43 PM
|
|
Gefion's Plow
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Maryland: In the middle of everywhere.
Posts: 325
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy J
Every crop you plant regardless of whether it is in your vegetable garden or an 80 acre field removes nutrients form the soil. To maintain the soil the lost nutrients must be replaced whether from manure or from commercial fertilizer.
Having crop rotations help more with diseases and pest infestations than they do with nutrient scavenging.
Jim
|
Yes, what I should've said is a *heavily* draining crop. I've been looking into mulching crops also; rye and vetch seeded in the fall, downed mechanically in May, and you can plant into the mulch. Something with a lot of biomass, basically what was described in "The Ploughman's Folly" sixty years ago is used today for the organic no-till stuff.
__________________
I was born [upon the prairie] where there were no enclosures, and where everything drew free breath. I want to die there and not within walls.
--Ten Bears
|

01/05/10, 08:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 403
|
|
|
CamM,
Even at todays crop prices a farmer farming like my grandpa would still make it because he wasn't selling most of his crops, he was eating them. In other words it was a self sufficient farm. They were farming because farming made food not money and they didn't need much money because they had thier farm. The little money they did have came from cotton but most of all they were farming for their food. That's what many of the Amish do and they get by, many even thrive. They don't make much money but it doesn't matter because they don't need all the junk we think we need. They grow their food and raise their families and they get by, just like my grandpa. Farmers could still do that today but it's a different kind of farming and a different kind of life. Many people today would find such a life style undesirable but it would work inspite of todays low grain prices.
|

05/19/10, 01:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: missoula, montana
Posts: 1,407
|
|
|
Anybody have rough ideas on how much a person with, say, 1000 acres of corn, earns?
I seem to remember something about after all of the seed, fertilizer, sprays, equipment and the bank, it works out to something like $14,000 per year - so most folks have a job on the side too.
|

05/19/10, 01:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 7,610
|
|
I can tell you, if you can tell me how much a doctor earns.
In today's world, corn in the past 12 months has gone between $4.40 a bu to 3.20 a bushel income.
Weather in the past 10 years has meant I raise between 120 and 175 bu corn per acre.
Fertilizer has cost between $380 and 950 per ton.
Diesel fuel has been between $1.80 and $3.20 a gallon.
Land rent 'here' used to be $90-125 an acre. Now it is $150-350 an acre.
And so on.
If I guess wrong & buy my stuff at the wrong time, and guess wrong and sell my stuff at the wrong time, well - I'm outa business.
If I guess right on both ends of it - I'm sitting pretty good.
There is a great deal of risk, is what I am saying.
There is no 'average' farm income. That is a convienient number the govt will kick around to try to make some point or other.
Farmers do not get an hourly or yearly income.
We invest our money one year, and hope we guess right & make some back over the next 12 months.
There really is no 'average'.
Where I live, most farmers run about 300-500 acres per person, plant corn & soybeans, and at least one member, typicaly 2 of the household hold down a 'real' 40 hour a week job to get a steady income plus health care. During the busy spring & fall periods they find a family member - real young or well into retirement - to help out with easier tractor driving type jobs to make ends meet on time.
With the income tax structure the USA has, it is _terribly_ difficult to show a profit farming. Farmers gain assets over the course of their lives. More land, more machinery, improve the land with tile or irrigation or fertility. You do not 'make profit' along the way. You end up making capitol gains over the course of your lifetime. Those gains are taxed when you retire/ sell out/ die.
Many years the 'average' farm income is a negative number.
There just isn't a good way to put down a single number that represents what you are asking. It's much more 'risk' than 'income' that a farmer does.
I'm typically buying fuel, fertilizer, and seed for 2011 in the fall of 2010. I will be selling some grain for 2011 perhaps right now already; and still selling some into the mid-summer of 2012. How do you allocate those expenses & incomes?
Farm $$$$ business has become very complex.
There is no average in farming any more.
--->Paul
|

05/19/10, 02:05 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 34,240
|
|
|
Everyone I know who owns a big combine harvest for both themselves and others
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
|

05/19/10, 02:06 PM
|
|
In Remembrance
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Central Kansas
Posts: 11,076
|
|
|
When you say just by himself are you including at harvest time? If the fellow is working by himself at harvest time then he is going to be a pretty small farmer.
If he uses hired labor over harvest for trucking, etc. then well over 1,000. That is generally what I gather from reading other forums such as Ag Talk, and Yesterday's Tractors.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 PM.
|
|