Forced to sell the legacy
Family farms disappear under pressure from corporations, grow ops, and their kids
Karl Hildebrandt
When asked about who will inherit his family farm, Neil Basaraba, a beef farmer from Fisher Branch, Man., responded: “I’ve got a full-time job, plus farming, and I can’t wing that. It’s murder on me right now. So, do I want my kids to have to do this? Do I want them running around like a bunch of idiots?”
The family farm has been the legacy of families in Manitoba for generations but has become threatened by the arrival of an agricultural mogul known to farmers as “the corporation.” The corporate mentality — to “go big or go home” — has put pressure on the agricultural system in Manitoba. It has forced many farmers to abandon their historical heritage and their children to seek employment in the industrial workforce or further their education in a university. Family farms are being sold to bigger farmers trying to compete with corporations or, in recent instances, sold to people who have set up marijuana grow operations.
Defining the farm today
A census from Statistics Canada recorded that there has been a decrease in the amount of farm operations in Manitoba, from 33,225 in 1996 to 28,795 in 2001. However, some family farms have still managed to exist, but the context in which they are defined has changed dramatically. Just ask Curt, the joint owner of several hog farms around southern Manitoba, who asked that his last name not be used.
“We have chosen to have working relations with a few different corporations and hope that we can continue to farm and hope the next generation can get involved if they want that . . . Farmers that are not willing to change or are looked upon as poor farmers and don’t get along with corporations will tend to be the ones who are at the highest risk [of selling],” he said.
Curt’s working relationship with corporations is not unusual for farmers around Manitoba. More and more family farms are finding it easier to co-exist alongside major corporations in order to survive and remain partially independent and competitive. The old adage of the “self-sufficient farmer” has basically disappeared from the mindset of the agricultural industry.
Farmers like Julie and Mary Sitar and Ray and Erika Henschell, whose farm is located in the Rural Municipality (RM) of Whitemouth, have recently celebrated one hundred years of family farming and are among the few who have managed to keep the farm in the family.
“In the city, when you look out the window, all you’re seeing is your neighbour or inside his house, too, but here, when you look out the window, you can see your own land,” said Julie Sitar proudly in the July 28th issue of the Carillon.
But today’s capitalistic society requires farmers to produce more in order to meet supply and demand. Corporations are forcing agriculture into a business based on profit.
“We deal with corporations in marketing our animals, with buying feed and buying stock. There are options for the farmer — like signing a contract — although at times, contracts have been torn up by corporations with little the small farmer can do about it,” said Curt. “The corporations have increased the size of farms dramatically, but have also helped many farmers increase the size of their own farms with help in financing.”
Curt’s farming operation has been affected positively by the emerging existence of corporations. He has found a balance between remaining independent and working with the corporations to his advantage. But, there are still some disadvantages.
“A negative aspect is that you give up some of your control and are at the mercy of the corporation. We actually purchased our last farm in August in a 50/50 arrangement with a corporation. This farm is shared ownership; our feed is purchased through this corporation and they are responsible for the marketing. All costs are shared as well as all income. We receive some additional money for management of the farm. Our income is on a contract that guarantees a set price for all animals marketed. This limits the risk . . . an advantage of being involved with a corporate company . . . although the risk is if they lose too much money with the contract they might just not honour it,” he explained.
Although it is difficult to tell who has the upper hand in this complex relationship, Curt seems to think it depends on the circumstances.
“The corporations have a lot more power because they are so big in some cases, so in turn they can generate more revenue. This is a concern; if a corporation gains total control and there is a loss of competition, then the farmer can really get hurt,” he said.
BSE crisis
Neil Basaraba, owner of a mixed cattle and grain farm, has experienced other pressures on the agriculture industry. He has not only felt the effects of corporations but has also been hit hard by the BSE or “mad cow” crisis.
“It was cheaper to keep your cow [than it was to try and sell it,”] and try and get a few calves out of her or to just put her down,” said Basaraba.
Since the crisis began in Canada in May of 2003, the Manitoba government has begun helping affected farmers through several financial aid programs such as the Enhanced Diversification Loan Guarantee Program. This program is meant to assist farmers in the diversification of their farms by producing a variety of animals and crops, and to provide them with the funds necessary from participating commercial lenders. However, farmers like Basaraba remain sceptical about the usefulness of such programs.
“When you complain to the government that you don’t make enough money, they tell you to diversify. That’s why a lot of people get into buffalo, elk and ostriches . . . but then they flood the market, crash the prices and are left with nothing again.”
Neil’s method of diversification is maintaining a full-time job.
“That’s my way of subsidizing the farm; that’s me diversifying. If I didn’t have that job, I wouldn’t have any spending money. There’s just no way,” said Basaraba.
Corporate pressure
Although the borders to the United States have recently opened up to beef farmers in Canada, relieving some of the stress, corporations are still putting pressure on the small family farmer. Basaraba doesn’t seem to think that a working relationship with corporations is possible — corporations have negatively affected his farm, especially in the area of machinery costs.
“With the size of my farm, there’s no way I can justify buying an expensive tractor for the amount of acres I farm. Big corporations can walk into dealerships and can afford to buy anything they want. Dealerships can charge what they want and [corporations] will still buy,” he said.
According to Stats Canada, machinery and equipment expenditures in 2003 for the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industries in Manitoba was $288.5 million. A brand new tractor can range from around $300,000 to $500,000, but Basaraba purchased a used combine for just $15,000. To justify buying a brand new tractor for a small farmer like Basaraba is tough, but like he has suggested, this area of the industry seems to be booming with success despite his and any other small operations’ difficulties. The estimated amount of machinery expenditures in 2005 is $288.3 million.
Machinery costs are not the only areas where Basaraba has felt the pressures of corporations.
“If there is a corporate farm in the area, the rent of land goes up because the guy who owns the land knows corporations can afford to pay higher rents . . . so he is going to ask [small farmers] to pay the same price. When you’re small you stay small, there just doesn’t seem to be any room for advancement — you just can’t get ahead,” he explained.
Other corporate pressures exist in the hog industry. The Puratone Corporation, a large hog and poultry company based in Niverville, Man., recently purchased K-Line Management Ltd. For farmers like Curt who are able to survive somewhat independently, the growth of companies like Puratone is alarming. If large corporations buy each other out and form one major corporation, who will Curt count on for that competition the keeps his doors open? If he can’t sign a contract with them, who else can he turn to?
From cattle grazing to a million-dollar grow-op
Farmers like Basaraba who “just can’t get ahead” become frustrated and are sometimes faced with the option to sell their farm. What farmers do own, in most cases, is what they inherited from their parents, who inherited it from their grandparents and so on, meaning that most farmers are very reluctant to sell because the land’s value runs deeper than the profit it generates.
“We have enough land, but it’s been acquired over the years and has stayed with the family,” said Basaraba.
He was able to acquire a piece of land in Narcisse, Manitoba — famous for its garter snake pits — but the land was too far away and could only be used to graze cattle, so he sold it. However, he had no idea that it was going to be turned into a marijuana grow operation.
In Fisher Branch and the surrounding area, Basaraba and his family have been farming for many generations; this farming heritage goes back to his great-grandparents. For someone to buy this land from him and not to farm it provokes an unsettling feeling.
“It just feels like a waste of time. They never put one cow on the property . . . it’s just a waste,” he said.
In Sundown, where another grow operation was recently found by the RCMP, people in the area witnessed the same type of transaction. They too found it suspicious that people would move into the area — obviously meant for farming — and not even own a tractor or cow.
Grow operations have been found across Manitoba, including the towns of Tolstoi, Ridgeville, Sundown and most recently, Narcisse. Big gangs from out of province can afford to foot the bill and build these grow operations in isolated rural areas with cold hard cash. When someone like Basaraba — who considers himself a “small guy” when compared to other farmers — is offered more than enough money for land that is not very profitable, his suspicions are overcome by the smell of money.
“I got a call from a guy in Toronto . . . he said he had cattle near Sundown. I was kind of suspicious, like, what the hell is a guy from Toronto buying it for? But, the guy made an offer, I made a bull-shit counter offer . . . and he agreed,” exclaimed Basaraba.
This is becoming common practice in Manitoba — not that everyone is selling out to marijuana grow operations, but when the chance comes to sell a farm, the family heritage comes second. The land Basaraba sold might not have come directly from his family, but it was acquired through another family that was retiring.
Curt also said that most farmers from whom he has purchased hog farms were retiring.
“I’m not sure about what the kids were doing in these cases, but as far as I know, none of the next generation was working in these farms at the time we purchased them,” he said.
Families decide to retire because, in most cases, their children are not staying on the farm or do not plan to take it over.
Where are they going?
The children of farming families are not taking over the family farm because it’s just not the way of life anymore. Farmers do not need to be “self-sufficient” and rely solely on their farms for their family to survive. They can allow themselves to grow only one kind of crop or raise one type of animal and use that to generate profit. Then, they can go to the store like everyone else to get anything else they need. The context in which farming is undertaken has changed and has, in turn, changed the lifestyles of farmers everywhere; farmers can coexist alongside corporations and not have to worry about marketing or even feed supplies.
Also, farmers can manage without their children due to the advent of technology in the agricultural sector. Tractors and combines are facilitating the workload, allowing farmers to do more with less human labour. Farming families are starting to have fewer children as result — there is no need to have six or seven kids anymore to help out with the chores of the farm.
According to Stats Canada, in 1941, the total percentage of Canada’s population living in an urban area was 54 per cent, with 46 per cent living rurally. In 2001, urban areas held 80 per cent of the population while the share in rural areas dropped to 20 per cent. The pattern is obvious: more people from rural areas are moving to the cities.
But, descendents of family farms are moving to the cities because of a change in their parents’ lifestyle. Descendents of farming families have witnessed the struggle their parents had to take on to maintain the farm and keep independent from agricultural pressures, so that their children could inherit the farm.
More children from farming backgrounds are finding it easier to move to the cities and join the workforce or get educated in universities or college. After obtaining a degree, they can return to their farming roots and have a better understanding of the business. In recent years, this seems to be the trend. In 1996, 9.5 per cent of female farmers and 10.5 per cent of male farmers in Manitoba were educated in a university institution. In 2001, 11.5 per cent of male farmers and 13.9 per cent of female farmers were educated in university.
Farmers everywhere are leaving the homestead and moving to the cities. Darren Froese — who is in his second year of agriculture — said that after he graduates he would like to get a good job with a major agriculture company. He does not have any intentions of taking over his dad’s hog farm but still hopes to one day own his own farm.
For others like Curt, who is currently a student at the University of Manitoba, perhaps a university education offers the possibility of a more structured life. A nine-to-five job has its attractions: if you screw up at work, you can shrug your shoulders like any other person and blame it on the next guy without having to uphold the legacy of the family farm.
