The Rural Voice, 1990-01, Page 12treleaven's
Iucknow
feed mill limited
COMPLETE LINE
OF ANIMAL FEED AND
VETERINARY SUPPLIES
HOG — BROILER — LAYER
TURKEY — BEEF — DAIRY
VEAL — FISH — PET FOODS
10 THE RURAL VOICE
THE REALITIES
OF CHANGE
Adrian Vos, from Huron County, has
contributed to The Rural Voice since
its inception in 1975.
Reality is sometimes hard to
accept. And so we have the refusal
by government and industry, both in
Canada and abroad, to move fast on
pollution elimination. A prime exam-
ple was former U.S. president Ronald
Reagan's insistence that acid rain
came exclusively from natural causes.
That Earth's total environment is at
risk didn't faze him. The short-term
pain of change would be too much.
Many students of agriculture also
refuse to accept the reality that rural
society has been changed and is still
changing irreversibly because of
labour-saving machinery.
How often do we hear the lamen-
tations about the declining number of
family farms? The reality is that the
industrial revolution changed all
industry, including agriculture.
Just as the industrial revolution
destroyed the textile cottage industry,
just as it destroyed the family cabinet-
maker and tailor, just as it destroyed
the small family grocery store, hard-
ware store, and other small family
businesses, so is the industrial revol-
ution destroying the family farm (as
we know it).
We can bemoan society's loss of
part of its foundation, but that doesn't
change the facts.
Modern machinery, which replaces
labour at an accelerated rate, allows
farmers to do more in less time. This
leaves the farmer, not with more prof-
it, but with time on his hands, time he
wants to fill. To do this he can go in
several directions.
a) He can buy out his neighbour.
The bigger acreage will fulfil his wish.
b) He can take an off -farm job, if
available (driving a school bus, man-
aging an arena, etc.).
c) He can take a full-time off -farm
job.
d) He can spend his free time in
the local coffee shop.
e) He can get disgusted with a life
of hard work and unsatisfactory re-
turns and sell out for a job in the city.
If he buys out his neighbour, the
number of farms in Canada is reduced
by one farm. That is reality.
If he takes a part-time off -farm
job, the off -farm job often takes prec-
edence over his work on the farm. In
that event the farm becomes less prof-
itable. That is reality.
If he takes a full-time job he be-
comes a hobby farmer who produces
food for self -gratification. Profit then
becomes secondary. That is reality.
If he spends his leisure time in the
local coffee shop, he will go broke.
That too is reality.
Many participants in agriculture as
well as concerned observers want
governments to do something to stop
the erosion of farm numbers.
But even if support is targeted on
the family, separate from production,
all five options mentioned above
remain, with their drawbacks. And I
don't believe that society will support
a class of people that works half days.
Nor will it support a class that earns
most of its income from other sources.
We see this already in the refusal of
the Peterson government to reimburse
hobby farmers for part of their taxes.
I may sound tedious, as I have said
all this several times before. But the
repeated demands to keep farmers on
the land regardless of the realities also
keep cropping up.
Instead of bewailing realities, we
must press our farm organizations to
develop programs for government to
help minimize the trauma of the
changes — assist this farmer in buying
out his neighbour, or in renting more
land; assist the one bought out with re-
training and in finding a job.
If we refuse to accept realities we
are no better than the proverbial
ostrich. It is a sad prospect for some
who see farming as their mission, but
facts cannot be denied.0