Here we have the same in US. Much is made of the dust bowl-----droughts having pushed small farmers in mid-west off their farms. Very little is said about POLITICIANS AND POLICIES passed that forced them to surrender their small farms.
THAT IS WHY THE OKIES FROM MUSKOGIE LEFT OKLAHOMA ----WHY DOROTHY'S AUNT EMMA TALKED ABOUT LOSING THE FARM TO POLITICIANS AND THEIR LAWS IN KANSAS.
National FAKE NEWS MEDIA sells the idea that DROUGHT/A DUST BOWL was the reason as the GREAT DEPRESSION from ROBBER BARON sacking and looting in ROARING 20s ----brought down the US economy and small farmers.
SAME HAPPENED IN UKRAINE/CRIMEA----SAME HAPPENED IN CHINA UNDER MAO-----SAME HAPPENED IN US ALL MANUFACTURED COLLAPSE OF FOOD SYSTEM.
As the "double whammy" of drought and depression deepened on the Great Plains, more and more farmers gave up or were forced off of their land. In addition, the relentless march of new tractors meant that the farmers who were able to scrape together enough money to buy a tractor could buy out their neighbors. Fewer farmers could farm more land. But where would those who left go?
Some went to cities. But many decided to head west. In fact, during the 30s hundreds of thousands left the plains for the West Coast. So many migrated from Oklahoma that they were dubbed "Okies" in the popular press. For years, California, Oregon and Washington had been growing. Many who were pushed off of the plains were pulled west because they had relatives who had moved to the coastal areas. And the boosters of California had advertised that the state offered a perfect climate and an abundance of work in the agricultural industry.
Florence Thompson (above) says she was one of the Okies. She and her family had left Oklahoma in 1925, before the Depression. The 30s made their situation worse. She and the family were following the migrant trail moving from place to place as crops became ready for harvest.
"It was very hard and cheap," Florence said. "We just existed! We survived, let's put it that way."
California – the state that had once advertised for more migrant workers – found themselves overwhelmed by up to 7,000 new migrants a month, more migrants than they needed. So for several months in 1936, the Los Angeles Police Department sent 136 deputies to the state lines to turn back migrants who didn't have any money. Bordering states like Arizona were angry that California was trying to "dump hoboes" back on them. Eventually, the police were returned to Los Angeles, but the migrants kept coming.
There was some work, especially in the new fields of cotton that were being planted in California – a crop that southern plains people knew a lot about. But there was not enough work for everyone who came. Instead of immediate riches, they often found squalor in roadside ditch encampments.
No one knows better than our global banking 1% freemason STARS singing about these small mid-west farmers pushed off their land so global banking 1% BIG AG could consolidate all that mid-west land to become today's GLOBAL BIG AG BIG MEAT BIG DAIRY-----that the economics of GREAT DEPRESSION from massive ROBBER BARON frauds of ROARING 20s and public policies FORCED them off their farmland.
Same happening today ----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA as global banking 1% neo-liberals/neo cons turned our US domestic farming into MILITARIZED FOOD-------FAKE GREEN REVOLUTION farming and dairy CORRUPTED healthy food in US and then exported this CORRUPTION overseas.
LAND O LAKES/UNILEVER---DEANS FOODS ARE THAT GLOBAL BANKING 1% MECHANISM HAVING GOALS OF DOING IN US WHAT WAS DONE OVERSEAS IN FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----CONTROL THE FOOD BECOMES FASCIST----THEN TOTALITARIAN.
COMMUNES, LAND REFORM AND COLLECTIVISM IN CHINA
AGRICULTURE IN CHINA UNDER MAO
Land reform poster
As is true with all land, farm land is owned by state in China. In the Mao-era most farming was done at collective farms and state farms. Food produced by farms was sold to the state at fixed prices that were generally lower than the prices of the same food sold on the open market. As a result the farms were dependent on government subsidies to remain afloat. Agricultural productivity was low. Farmers lacked incentives to be productive; infrastructure and transportation problems prevented food from getting from the fields to people's homes before it spoiled; poor land management exhausted soils and water supplies. There were also weather problems. The low productivity resulted in shortages and even famines. To increase productivity, chemical fertilizer plants were built, hybrid-seed programs were developed, insecticides were used, rivers were irrigated. Many of these programs had negative effects on the environment.
During the war to take power, the Communists promised land to the poor. When the Communists came to power they began seizing land from landowners and distributing it among the poor. Each family got no more than 1.3 acres. Land owners that resisted giving up their land, even as little as two thirds of an acre, were often executed.
Before the early 1980s, most of the agricultural sector was organized according to the three-tier commune system. There were over 50,000 people's communes, most containing around 30,000 members. Each commune was made up of about sixteen production brigades, and each production brigade was composed of around seven production teams. The production teams were the basic agricultural collective units. They corresponded to small villages and typically included about 30 households and 100 to 250 members. The communes, brigades, and teams owned all major rural productive assets and provided nearly all administrative, social, and commercial services in the countryside. The largest part of farm family incomes consisted of shares of net team income, distributed to members according to the amount of work each had contributed to the collective effort. Farm families also worked small private plots and were free to sell or consume their products. [Source: Library of Congress]
“Four percent of the nation's farmland was cultivated by state farms, which employed 4.9 million people in 1985. State farms were owned and operated by the government much in the same way as an industrial enterprise. Management was the responsibility of a director, and workers were paid set wages, although some elements of the responsibility system were introduced in the mid-1980s.
State farms were scattered throughout China, but the largest numbers were located in frontier or remote areas, including Xinjiang-Uygur Autonomous Region in the northwest, Inner Mongolia, Autonomous Region, the three northeastern provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning and the southeastern provinces of Guangdong, Fujian, and Jiangxi. *
Hmmmmmm, the UIGHUR AND MONGOLIA REGIONS------sounds familiar!
"Mao Zedong's legacy to Chinese agriculture is mixed," scholar Richard Critchfield writes, "He gave agriculture and the peasant top priority in investment, something India has failed to do. Yet the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, along with forced collectivization, set back scientific research for years and in 1959-61 an estimated 30 million Chinese died of famine. [Source: "The Villagers" by Richard Critchfield, Anchor Books]
Here in Baltimore THE NETWORK public surveillance filled with CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA MOVING FORWARD these goals of collectivized land privatized to OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH----
SEND THOSE REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL DISSIDENTS TO THOSE COLLECTIVE FARMS
Collective farms ARE used by far-right wing global banking 1% corporate FASCISTS HITLER/STALIN/MAO as PRISON---FORCED SLAVE LABOR.
This is why NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance and streaming video PORN wanting me out of my living space to get NEW STUFF to HIT-----are saying SEND HER TO THOSE FARMS.
'During the Cultural Revolution, some collective farms doubled as Chinese gulags for intellectuals and political prisoners'.
Global banking 1% CULTURAL ARTS send in freemason STARS to sell FADS making these MARXIST structures sound 99% POPLIST---PRO-WORKER.
MERLE HAGGARD in the 1980s REAGAN knew LAND O LAKES collectivization policies were MOVING FORWARD today's massive loss of US small farmers and their land-----OBAMA-ERA FARM BILL created the policies which will FORCE small farmers from their land.
MONSANTO AND FAKE GREEN REVOLUTION started when this song was released ------mass turnover of farm and dairy to what is now global BIG AG/BIG MEAT/INDUSTRIAL BIG DAIRY.
Land Reform in China Under Mao
Paper for right to use land
The Communist Party's greatest legacy arguably has been taking land from wealthy landlords and rich farmers and redistributing it in rural areas among the poorest peasants under the principal of “land of the tiller." During the war to take power, the Communists promised land to the poor. When the Communists came to power they began seizing land from landowners and distributing it among the poor. Each family got no more than 1.3 acres. Land owners that resisted giving up their land, even as little as two thirds of an acre, were often executed.
After 1949, farmers classified as "poor peasants" by the Communists were given ownership to land taken away from local landlords and rich farmers. Estates and large farms were divided and peasants got small parcels of land. One farmer told the New York Times, "Of course we were extremely happy---everyone was happy we got land!"
The seizure of land was not always easy. In some cases “certain necessary steps” had to be taken and this resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people. In many cases villagers were executed or beaten to death by fellow villagers to get their land. See Violence in the Early Years of the People's Republic Below.
The peasants didn't hold on to their land for long. By the late 1950s, private land ownership was eliminated and peasants were given usage rights to the land but not ownership. The land from then on was owned by the state. Peasants were organized into teams and then collectives and became property-less members of “people's communes."
Similar scenarios were played in the cities. Rich families who stayed in Shanghai after Communist Revolution were told they had nothing to worry about, but in the end their land and property was expropriated. The Communists also confiscated their art. One Hong Kong art dealer told the New York Times. "The Shanghai museum's best pieces are all from those private collections."
Top down economic plans after independence bore fruit. The national income rose at rate of 8.9 percent a year between 1953 and 1957 bu created problems down the road. Giving peasants usages rights rather than ownership paved the way for the seizures of land by local officials and businesses that is taking place today.
Collectivism in China redistributing land
In the early 1950s the Communists helped form mutual aid teams, the precursors to cooperatives. In 1955, Mao decreed that all farmers should "voluntarily" organize into large cooperatives. The cooperatives were overseen by party cadres and large portions of the output was turned over to the state.
In the early 1950s, in one of the largest peacetime mobilizations in history, prisoners of war, decommissioned Red Army soldiers and “reform through labor” convicts were sent to the Gobi Desert and western China as members of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, to build roads, canals, bridges and dams and transform a wasteland into a rich agricultural area of cotton, maize and rice, complete with its own cities. In some cases the condition were so sever that participants made furniture from sod bricks and used their own hair keep arm in the frigid winters.
Large centrally planned People's Communes were established in late 1950s. The Communists had hoped that collectivism would help the huge Chinese population feed itself, but collectivism did not increase agricultural production.
Within a short time it was clear this system wasn't workable. Distribution was always a problem. Even during the Cultural Revolution when every able-bodied person in the country was put to the task of rasing food, food rotted in the fields and people starved.
Scholar William McNeil once wrote: "The problem is the Chinese have never been able to organize collective effort with the sort of enthusiasm and efficiency of the Japanese. There is a kind of ruthless individualism in Chinese life, a competitiveness and acquisitiveness, that may make modern large-scale industrial organization difficult."
Mao initially followed the Soviet model but became impatient with the slow pace of development and turned to radical mass movements like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. See History
In the 1960s and 70s, the land in effect belonged to a production team---made up of 20 to 40 households---whose members were compensated in shares of the collective harvest by a complex system of shared points.
Implementing Collectivization in
The first major action to alter village society was the land reform of the late 1940s and early 1950s, in which the party sent work teams to every village to carry out its land reform policy. This in itself was an unprecedented display of administrative and political power. The land reform had several related goals. The work teams were to redistribute some (though not all) land from the wealthier families or land-owning trusts to the poorest segments of the population and so to effect a more equitable distribution of the basic means of production; to overthrow the village elites, who might be expected to oppose the party and its programs; to recruit new village leaders from among those who demonstrated the most commitment to the party's goals; and to teach everyone to think in terms of class status rather than kinship group or patron-client ties. [Source: Library of Congress *]
“In pursuit of the last goal, the party work teams convened extensive series of meetings, and they classified all the village families either as landlords, rich peasants, middle peasants, or poor peasants. These labels, based on family landholdings and overall economic position roughly between 1945 and 1950, became a permanent and hereditary part of every family's identity and, as late as 1980, still affected, for example, such things as chances for admission to the armed forces, colleges, universities, and local administrative posts and even marriage prospects. *
“The collectivization of agriculture was essentially completed with the establishment of the people's communes in 1958. Communes were large, embracing scores of villages. They were intended to be multipurpose organizations, combining economic and local administrative functions. Under the commune system the household remained the basic unit of consumption, and some differences in standards of living remained, although they were not as marked as they had been before land reform. Under such a system, however, upward mobility required becoming a team or commune cadre or obtaining a scarce technical position such as a truck driver's. *
Collective Farms, Communes and State Farms in China
Collectives were cooperative organizations in which farmers joined together to collectively raise crops on land worked in common. The farmers were paid in food (grain, vegetables, milk and meat) and money earned by the collective. Sometimes the term collective farm and commune was used interchangeably.
Dazhai commune poster
A commune is a groups of many cooperatives. A typical one embraced 60 villages and 20,000 members. All buildings, tools, machines, land and dwellings were owned by the commune. People worked in teams of 150 to 600 people and were paid a small wage a given clothing, food and housing. A typical rural Chinese family working on a agricultural commune earned about US$700 a year.
Communes were intended to function like small cities or towns. They had their own manufacturing capabilities and worked farmers like factory workers and kept people from migrating to the cities. If needed people on communes could be mobilized for large labor-intensive projects.
State farms were "factory type" farms that specialized mainly in one kind of crop or one kind of animal. They were set up and run by the state. Workers are treated the same as factory workers and paid a regular salary.
Large Collective Farms and Communes in China
Some collective farms in China were massive. "That commune was so large," one saying went, "that the person has to take a train to see the head of the committee." During the Cultural Revolution, some collective farms doubled as Chinese gulags for intellectuals and political prisoners.
Some 26,578 communes were established by 1958. One of the largest, State Farm No. 128 of the No. 7 Division (85 miles northwest of Urumqi) employed 17,000 people (almost all Han Chinese) and had military-style checkpoints, irrigated orchards and cotton fields as well as its own foreign affairs office, television station, oil refinery and enterprises for marketing crops and forestry products.
The Dazhai Commune in Shanxi province was one of the most famous communes in China. Reportedly built up from the ruins of great flood by 500 peasants, it boasted record grain productions and it provided a model for other communes across China. Over the years Danzhai was visited three times by Zhou Enai, twice by Deng Xiaoping as well as by Queen Beatrice of Netherlands, Pol Pot from Cambodia and leaders from Africa, Albania and East Germany. Later it was revealed that Dazhai was a sham. The record grain reports were fiction, production figures were exaggerated and the commune was subsidized. According to one writer, "Nowdays to many people the whole thing about Dazhai looks like a joke."
Another Dazhai poster
Collective Farm Organization in China
Authority for collective farms was determined by national laws or by rules drawn up by the collective farm. Each collective was run by a chairman-manager and board made up of Communist party loyalists theoretically elected by members of the collective. The collective farm chairman controlled all the resources and incomes.
Collectives, state farms and communes were often very inefficient. They often had armies of administrators, bookkeepers, veterinarians, dentists along with farmers that often wouldn't hit the fields until 11:00am and sometimes did the threshing and winnowing by hand when their machines broke down.
Workers who followed the Soviet model worked in units called brigades or links that were directed brigade or link leaders. They often worked in teams of "labor-day" units, with certain tasks regarded as requiring more labor than others. A day of harvesting for example might be worth a whole labor day while a day of milking might be worth only half a day. Workers "earnings" were drawn against their future "income" of labor days.
Yet another Dazhai poster
At the end of each labor day units were tallied up by the brigade or link leader. At the end of the year, earnings and labor days are added up. If there was a surplus of labor days, a workers might receive a bonus of some sort.
As was true with factory workers, farm workers lacked incentives. A worker on a collective farm told the New York Times, since farmland belongs to the state "nobody is interested in working and producing on it." The man said he hated working on a the collective because his bosses were always telling him what to do.
Frank Dikötter, author of The Great Famine told Evan Osnos of The New Yorker: “The farmers who were herded into giant people's communes had very few incentives to work. The land belonged to the state. The grain they produced was procured at a price that was often below the cost of production. Their livestock, tools, and utensils were no longer theirs. Often even their homes were confiscated."
“Local cadres faced ever greater pressure to fulfill and over-fulfill the plan, having to drive the workforce in one merciless campaign after another," Dikötter said. “In some places both villagers and cadres became so brutalized that the scope and degree of coercion had to be constantly expanded, resulting in an orgy of violence. People were tied up, beaten, stripped, drowned in ponds, covered in excrement, branded with sizzling tools, mutilated, and buried alive. The most common tool in this arsenal of horror was food, which was used as a weapon: entire groups of people considered to be too old, too weak, or too sick to work were deliberately banned from the canteen and starved to death. As Lenin put it, “He who does not work shall not eat."
Benefits on a Collective in China working on a collective in the 1950s
Collectives provided education, housing and transportation. Workers enjoyed a lifestyle similar to that of industrial workers, receiving paid vacation and social benefits such as maternity leave, health insurance, pensions and access to cultural events and continuing education.
Each farm family usually had a small plot of land on which it was allowed to grow vegetables and raise animals. The food produced was supposed to be for the family's consumption. Sometimes extra food was sold for extra cash on the black market or authorized private markets. Farmers who had access to urban markets could earn a considerable amount of money.
People who lived in communes sometimes slept in dormitories and ate in mess halls. But mostly they lived in one- or two-room houses or huts they sometimes built themselves. Until the 1970s these homes often lacked indoor plumbing and electricity. In forested areas these were made of wood. In the steppes they were made of mud brick. In other places they were often made of concrete slabs or brick. They houses often had thatch or sheet metal roofs.
Men only had two days off a week and women had three days off. Women were given a month off after the gave birth. There were special tasks for children and old people. Students often studied at school for five hours in the morning and worked in the afternoons. Measures were taken to keep people from migrating to the cities.
Life in a Chinese Commune
At communes and collectives the traditional family system was broken down. Some people slept in dormitories and ate in mess halls. Children were cared for in day care centers so their mothers could work. Old people were placed in special dwellings called "happy homes." To escape from this system many commune residents lived in small single-story brick houses they built themselves. Chinese peasant were generally allowed to have pigs and garden plots to raise food for themselves but not to sell.
commune life in the 1950s Workers typically worked eight or nine hours a day and had weekends off. Sometimes when there was a lot of work to do they worked on the weekends. A typical day began at 5:00am when loudspeaker woke everyone up. After roll call, calisthenics and breakfast of dark bread and grits, people worked in the fields. Around 12:00noon the workers took a break for lunch, which was often made in a barn near the fields and served to workers near where they were working. It often consisted of stew or borscht served from a common pot served with potatoes, black bread and salted pork.
Work usually ended around 5:00pm. Dinner was served around 6:00. If there was time workers often worked their family garden plots. For entertainment there were self-criticism sessions, propaganda films, discussions of Marxism and gatherings and singing parties held in the collective's recreation hall.
The work was often very tough. A woman told him, "After giving birth to first son I still had to keep working, making shoes for the soldiers, twenty shoes everyday for the soldiers. I kept my son in the corner and had to keep working." On first arrival to collective farm, one peasant told National Geographic, "We came here in March, walking from Urumqi. Nine days. We shot wild pigs and wild sheep for food."
1988 Wembley UK Merle Haggard & Tammy Wynette "Okie from Muskogee"
As the MERLE HAGGARD song remembering the last round of small farm seizures during GREAT DEPRESSION------LAND O LAKES was expanding ----was merging with GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY corporations-----was tied to global expansion of what was still being called a COLLECTIVE FARM/DAIRY industry.
BEATRICE CHEESE was owned by KKR----that is BROWN AND ROOT---global private military corporation-----expanded MINNESOTA ---then IOWA-----then KANSAS -----into CALIFORNIA.
'Land O’Lakes buys Beatrice cheese plant
Land O’Lakes Inc. has purchased a California-based Beatrice Group cheese plant as part of'
Bringing in WINFIELD UNITED and then MONSANTO GMO SEEDS and farming identified its global industrial foods goal.
Do those 'LAND-OWNERS' as collective workers REALLY have any power over LAND O LAKES driven by global TECHNOLOGY CORPORATIONS? Of course not.
LAND O LAKES never went public ---no stock market profits which is not bad---but collective workers from farm/dairy are now competing with global private corporation employees for a piece of that PROFIT.
Once those mergers with global corporations occurred ------these COLLECTIVE FARM/DAIRY structures eliminate any money-making from rank and file farm/dairy members.
Merger finalized between Winfield and United Suppliers
WinField United has acquired Solum, Inc., a soil testing lab in Ames, Iowa, as well as Armor Seed, an Arkansas-based seed provider with a stronger presence in the mid-South.Nov 16, 2017
WinField United has expanded its offerings in soil and tissue analysis, crop nutrients, seed, and insights capabilities.
“These investments were purposefully designed to deliver a total agronomy solution for our customers,” said Mike Vande Logt, executive vice president and chief operating officer, WinField United. “Our portfolio will now include seed, crop protection products and crop nutrients, in addition to data, technology tools and agronomic expertise — all focused on helping farmers compete and succeed.”
WinField United has acquired Solum, Inc., a soil testing lab in Ames, Iowa, as well as Armor Seed, an Arkansas-based seed provider with a stronger presence in the mid-South. WinField United’s Canadian extension has been fully integrated into the business, enabling the company to help provide insights and products to a growing network of retailers. The merger of WinField and United Suppliers became final Oct. 1.
ARMOR SEED IS MONSANTO.
'Stewardship - Armor Seedwww.armorseed.com/stewardship Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship® (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto’s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops'.
New nutrients, broader seed portfolio
With the finalization of the merger between WinField and United Suppliers, the macronutrient products previously offered by United Suppliers are now available in the WinField United crop nutrient portfolio. This expanded range of both macronutrients and micronutrients helps provide farmers with a one-stop shop for all of their crop nutrient needs and expert agronomic advice on crop nutrients from boron to zinc.
The acquisition of Armor Seed brings new varieties and hybrids to the Croplan seed portfolio in soybeans, corn and wheat. Armor’s geography also extends the reach of Croplan into more of the southern United States. Adding Armor Seed to the WinField United portfolio will help enable faster growth in the competitive seed market and provide farmers with expanded seed purchasing options.
Moving soil testing forward
WinField United adds to its testing services with the purchase of Solum, Inc., a company that has introduced new measurement techniques to agriculture. Innovations in development at Solum include soil health testing and DNA testing. WinField United also has upgraded and expanded its capabilities at SureTech Laboratories, its agricultural testing company in Indianapolis that specializes in tissue and soil testing.
Collectively, these endeavors, along with the new WinField United Innovation Center — a hub for product and technology testing and development that opened in September — transition the company to the next level of innovation.
“One of the most important lessons we’ve learned moving through this process is that we need to be open to possibilities and new ways of working,” said Vande Logt. “That, paired with our deep commitment to helping farmers succeed, our passion for agriculture and our grit, will ensure our mutual success as we achieve, and move beyond, another milestone together.”
Below we see the term OWNER CUSTOMER replacing OWNER FARMER as these once small farm/dairy co-ops grew to regional then national size and partnered with GLOBAL JOHN DEERE/CATIPILLAR tractors ---GLOBAL TRUCKING ----GLOBAL WAREHOUSING----GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION corporations. These support corporations were then called STAKEHOLDERS----being the OWNER CUSTOMERS.
'Together, the two organizations will provide owner customers’
Below we see global banking 1% CORPORATE FEMINISM in selling the idea that being a sharecropper is EQUALITY for women.
'During the Cultural Revolution, some collective farms doubled as Chinese gulags for intellectuals and political prisoners'.
'Land O'Lakes and The Martin Agency reimagine "Old MacDonald Had a Farm" as "She-I-O" to honor female farmers for Women's Equality Day.
Old MacDonald may have had a farm with a dog, cows and some chickens, but he also had something far more important to keeping said farm running—a daughter. At least according to Land O’Lakes’ “She-I-O,” a reimagined (albeit slightly hokey) version of the classic children’s nursery rhyme sung by country artist Maggie Rose'.
During 1990s Clinton era what were functioning small farms/dairies in this collective were CORPORATIZED. The goal MOVING FORWARD SMART GRID has technology replacing FARMERS/WORKERS. Flash forward to today the GREEN REVOLUTION of using tons of chemicals on farmland has killed the fertile soil----the GMO ANIMAL FOOD has made dairy cows unable to give MILK----but the good news is DRIVELESS TRACTORS AND REAPERS.
Land O’Lakes, United Suppliers To Merge Crop Inputs Businesses
Posted by Matthew J. Grassi|June 29, 2015
Land O’Lakes, Inc. and United Suppliers, Inc. of Ames, IA, today announced their intent to merge their crop inputs businesses. Together, the two organizations will provide owner customers’ expanded product offerings, enhanced precision agriculture services, tools and technologies, improved product insights, consulting services and more.
“This move comes at a time when scale is increasingly important in addressing changing industry dynamics, including rapid consolidation on the supplier, retailer and grower levels, fast-paced technological innovation and the need for increasing and expanded service offerings for customers,” said Chris Policinski, President and CEO of Land O’Lakes, Inc. “We are excited to come together with United Suppliers and expect our members, owners and customers will benefit greatly from this merger.”
Under this agreement, the intention is to merge United Suppliers, Inc. and Land O’Lakes, Inc. The first step of the merger will be to combine the two companies’ seed and crop protection businesses, and a second step to follow will bring in the crop nutrient business. This merger builds on the recent successes of the two companies and aims to create a single, strong, relevant and competitive entity. In 2014, WinField had $4.9B in seed and crop protection product sales and United Suppliers had $2.6B in crop protection, seed and crop nutrient sales.
“United Suppliers is excited to join with Land O’Lakes, Inc.,” said Brad Oelmann, President and CEO of United Suppliers. “We are both experiencing great growth in this industry and together we view this merger as a continuation of that journey.”
Going forward, both organizations will continue with their existing go-to-market strategies and will draw upon each other’s expertise to better meet customer needs. Before the deal is final, both United Suppliers’ owners and Land O’Lakes, Inc. members will need to vote on the details surrounding the merger. Those votes are slated for August 2015, with the closing anticipated in October 2015.
'with a membership of over 4,500 farm owners'.
These 4500 farm owners are said to be LEVERAGING their profits by bringing in more and more global technology corporations taking all farm operations away from them-----placing it onto a internet grid which operates IN THE CLOUDS. But, these guys are really active in being DECIDERS.
Like CRIMEA ---like MAOIST CHINA ---and those FARM COLLECTIVES---these 4500 farm owners thinking themselves PARTNERS in all these mergers-----will be thrown under the bus by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS---KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH who own all these global TECHNOLOGY CORPORATIONS and are the original CO-OP LAND OWNERS of LAND O LAKES.
BUT WE ARE GETTING STOCK DIVIDENDS FROM THESE NEW GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND THIS PRIVATE DISTRIBUTION NETWORK HAS CREATED UNION JOBS!
'Land O’Lakes wants to also test the feasibility of autonomous trucks. Their partner here is Uber Advanced Technologies. Self-driving trucks are not legal yet, but some states are allowing pilots to be run. Land O’Lakes would like to work with the Department of Transportation in Minnesota and Uber to begin testing certain lanes. “This might not happen for years,” Mr. Dewberry admits, “but we have to start somewhere.”'
This is where our US LABOR UNIONS thinking they are WINNING-----they are 'US' not 'THEM' promote all these BRUTAL MARXIST structures always ending with DEATH, DEMOLITION OF CIVIL SOCIETIES. Small farmers are not unionized they get some dividend checks.
LABOR UNIONS have support CLINTON and MONSANTO because the greater network of these BIG AG BIG MEAT create union jobs FOR NOW.
Most Active Large Agribusiness Corporations In The AgTech Domain
Mar 14, 2018 · 7 min read
For this post, we conducted a thorough analysis of the entire agricultural value chain to identify the largest agribusiness corporations who are most active in the AgTech domain. Our list includes 1 to 2 of the most involved companies for each category in the agribusiness industry.
Agriculture Machinery Producers
John Deere is one of the most recognizable corporations within the agribusiness industry, so it makes sense that they would be one of the most active companies in the AgTech domain. John Deere started all the way back in 1837 and provided simple tools like shovels and plows. Now, they are a company making several billions in revenues each year.
In terms of their AgTech activity, they recently acquired Blue River Robotics for $305 million so that they can focus on integrating machine learning into their agricultural solutions. Machine learning is a subset of artificial intelligence that focuses on a computer’s ability to learn by itself. It does this through algorithms that dictate how the computer should process information and ultimately leads to an AI that can learn without explicit directions.
Machine learning is key for several of John Deere’s AgTech solutions like variable rate application, data management, automated guidance systems for tractors, and field/water management. All of these solutions are made available through the John Deere Operations Center, which is found at www.MyJohnDeere.com. Here, you can connect your machinery, manage your fields and operations, and view analytics and reports. Another added benefit of working with John Deere is that you know they are handling your data responsibly, considering they just received their AgData Transparent seal of approval.
Monsanto + Bayer
In September of 2016, Monsanto and Bayer announced that they signed a merger agreement where Bayer would acquire all of Monsanto’s shares in cash. The deal, which is set to close sometime this year, is worth a staggering $66 billion. The goal for these companies is to provide enhanced solutions in seeds and traits, digital agriculture, and crop protection. Together, this newly formed partnership will account for more than 25% of the world market for seeds and pesticides in the farm supplies industry.
Outside of this merger, Monsanto and Bayer were already quite active in the AgTech industry. The Climate Corporation, which is a subsidiary of Monsanto, has been providing the Climate FieldView platform to help farmers centralize their data, gain insights about their operations, and optimize their work. Monsanto also has a venture capital wing, the Monsanto Growth Network, where they have been funding a diverse range of businesses from pharmaceutical to agricultural software/hardware companies.
Bayer has also been involved in the AgTech industry, with one of their most recent ventures, Xarvio. Xarvio is a digital farming platform that allows farmers to optimize their fields, increase efficiency and production, save time, and produce healthier crops.
Syngenta was established in 2000 when Novartis, a crop protection and seed agribusiness, merged with Zeneca Agrochemicals. The result was a company that became the world’s biggest crop chemical producer, with a very strong presence in Europe.
Syngenta Ventures, their venture capital fund, is one of the most active global investors in agricultural businesses and have injected capital into many companies from pest and weed management platforms to satellite imaging solutions. Additionally, Syngenta acquired two AgTech companies (Ag Connections and Farmshots) to continue to develop their precision farming solutions.
Yara N sensor installed on machineryYara
Yara is the world’s leading supplier of mineral fertilizers for the agricultural industry. Their products and services are not just limited to crop nutrition however, and also include numerous precision farming technologies like variable rate application, sensors, hand-held testers, and more.
Their N sensor, for example, is a tool that allows farmers to make use of variable rate application. The N Sensor is mounted to a tractor and measures the nitrogen requirements of the crops that it passes over. This data influences the rate and quantity of fertilizer applied to the crops.
As with most industry leaders, Yara is very active in investments and acquisitions. One notable agribusiness acquisition was their takeover of Agronomic Technology Corp (ATC), which was completed in November of 2017. Agronomic Technology Corp had a nutrient recommendation platform, Adapt-N, which Yara plans to use to strengthen their digital farming offerings within the AgTech domain.
Commodity Traders Cargill
Cargill is an American company that was founded in 1865. It is now the largest US privately owned corporation in terms of revenue and focuses on providing end-to-end solutions for agricultural businesses. They recently became much more active in the AgTech domain and launched a digital suite equipped with farm analysis and data management products. Cargill has made several investments through their venture capital fund in agribusinesses like Descartes Labs, Cainthus and more.
Descartes Labs is an imagery and intelligence platform that analyzes and makes meaning out of satellite and drone imagery, and Cainthus provides facial recognition software for monitoring the wellbeing of livestock. Overall, Cargill is putting a large emphasis on high tech, digital solutions for their agribusiness offerings.
Ag Retailer and Grower WinField United
Wilbur Ellis is a multibillion-dollar corporation that consists of three main businesses: the Agribusiness division, Connell Brothers Specialty Chemicals and Ingredients division, and the Feed division. Although their main focus is on selling agricultural retail products like chemicals, seeds, nutrients, etc., they also have been stepping up their activity within the AgTech domain. This is evident through the investment history of their venture capital fund, Cavallo Ventures.
Specifically, their investments in AgCode and AgVerdict show clear signs of their interest in this domain. AgCode is a software management platform for vineyards and other types of crops. It includes tracking systems and also integrates features for billing and payroll. AgVerdict is another software solution that is focused on more general farm management and optimization tools.
Although more commonly known for their butter, Land O’Lakes is an agricultural cooperative with a membership of over 4,500 farm owners. They pool resources together to ensure that their crop production can be maximized, and this is why they are also focusing on the integration of precision agriculture technologies.
Some of the AgTech solutions that they offer include Answer Plot, AnswerTech, and their own ATLAS web portal where their customers can easily access these tools and more. Their activity in the AgTech domain is funneled through their own venture capital fund, Thrive AgTech, and through WinField® United, which is their seed and crop protection products business.
Inspection and Testing ServicesSGS
SGS is the global leader for inspections, verifications, testing and certifications. They provide solutions that help businesses improve their product quality and safety while at the same time reducing risks. Their business covers a huge variety of industries, but for the agricultural industry, they provide an end-to-end range of services for the entire supply chain.
They are also active in their AgTech investments and acquisitions. Less than two years ago, SGS acquired a 75% share of Unigeo, which is software platform that helps with crop production and overall productivity. Another AgTech initiative that SGS is involved with is drone-based inspection services. They recently entered a partnership with BAFA to focus on this initiative.
AgFlow is another interesting platform that SGS invested in.
AgFlow provides trade intelligence for the grains, oilseeds/proteins and edible oils markets, and generates transparency and insight for these markets.
General Mills is famous for their brands like Cheerios, Häagen-Dazs, Yoplait, and countless others, but what they are less famous for is their venture fund, 301 Inc. Through this fund, they have invested in numerous startups and businesses alike. These investments have all been focused towards food producers. The type of technology used in food production can be quite different than the traditional software platforms that you expect to see in precision agriculture, but this sector of the industry is just as important.
One such company is Kite Hill, who produces cheese from nuts. The types of technology used in this production process are important because they can pave the way for increased sustainability for food production in general. Their other investments also can help influence how crops are used after the harvest.
Kellogg is another company with a handful of iconic brands. They also have a venture fund that is dedicated to investing in food startups. Their first investment was in the company Kuli Kuli, who produces moringa-based products. Moringa is a type of plant-based protein that is found in the leaves, pods and oils of certain plants and trees. Overall, Moringa can provide a new source of non-animal protein, which is always important for environmental sustainability.
What is important to note about the investments into food production is that they have an indirect effect on the supply chain for farmers who are involved in producing those crops. For example, because Kuli Kuli received this funding, they are now able to pay the crop producers more money and help develop this measure further.
The Entire Value Chain
From the beginning stages of field analysis to the final stages of food production, the entire agribusiness value chain is covered by some of the largest companies in the industry. The capital and man-hours that these companies are contributing will continue to change the AgTech domain for the future.
'The reporter persisted with the follow up question: “But are they going to survive as they have in the past as a small operation, or are they going to have to get big or get out?”
(So… the words “get big or get out” were used in this interview, but not by Secretary Perdue.)'
As much as national FAKE NEWS media tries to sell GEORGIA GOV PERDUE now TRUMP AG SECRETARY as not same family as global CHICKEN PERDUE----that would be FAKE NEWS.
This article and interview of global BIG MEAT saying these Wisconsin dairy and beef ranchers don't need to worry is LYING, CHEATING, AND KILLING OUR SMALL US AG AND MEAT FARMERS/RANCHERS.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perdue Farms is the parent company of Perdue Foods and Perdue AgriBusiness, based in Salisbury, Maryland.
Perdue Foods is a major chicken, turkey, and pork processing company in the United States. Perdue AgriBusiness ranks among the top United States grain companies. Perdue Farms has 2016 annual sales of $6.7 billion'.
October 6, 2019
Opinion: Get the 'Get Big Or Get Out' Outta Here
| By: Chip Flory
Stressful financial conditions throughout the ag industry are… stressful.
That stress leaves many (most) more sensitive to messaging from leaders in the industry. It also leaves industry leaders vulnerable to misinterpretation of what they said… and to misrepresentation from the media. I believe that happened to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue earlier this week.
Secretary Perdue was at the World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin. In a question-and-answer session, a reporter asked the Secretary about the hard financial times in Wisconsin’s dairy farming. Secretary Perdue answered the question with comments about “efficiencies of scale” – which included a reference to U.S. dairy herds getting bigger, smaller operations exiting the business and the cows from those smaller operations changing an address rather than leaving production. Secretary Perdue also explained that he felt there were provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill that will give “smaller operations” a better chance at success.
The reporter persisted with the follow up question: “But are they going to survive as they have in the past as a small operation, or are they going to have to get big or get out?”
(So… the words “get big or get out” were used in this interview, but not by Secretary Perdue.)
“That remains to be seen,” said Secretary Perdue. “Everyone will have to make their own decisions economically whether they can survive. I don’t think in America we, or any small business, have a guaranteed income or a guaranteed profitability of survival. That depends on each and every farmer and dairy farmer. Farmers are pretty good at managing and managing through tough times. I think those that have survived the ’14 Farm Bill should do well in the ’18 Farm Bill.”
That seems to be a fair assessment. And not nearly as inflammatory as “Secretary Sonny said, ‘get big or get out.’” But the inflammatory message made it out of Madison and across the Midwest.
I had an opportunity to talk with Secretary Perdue about the Administration’s biofuels plan Friday morning. I couldn’t let the conversation with him get away without addressing “his comments” at World Dairy Expo. Please listen…