"Agriculture, contributed just over 2% of our annual wealth".
Agriculture contributes an ever smaller and smaller contribution to GDP due to it's ever increasing productivity and efficiency. It's now contributing just 2% of GDP, as it only employs 2% of the workforce. This means that 98% of the workforce are doing other very productive things as well. They are working in manufacturing and service industries.
You will find that if 100 years ago agriculture contributed lets say 40% to GDP, it probably also employed 40% of the workforce.
Look at some basketcase African country where they are all starving to death. You will find agriculture contributes maybe more than half of the countries GDP, and that's because it employs most of the workforce, and the poor people spend all day doing hard manual labour in the field.
Look at China. Agriculture contributes a much greater % of Chinas GDP than western nations with highly mechanised farming. And you will also find that agriculture employs 40% of the workforce and this figure is falling rapidly. As agriculture gets more and more efficient and productive in China as they industrialise, agricultures GDP contribution will fall and fall. This is because it allows more and more people to work in manufacturing and service industries.
"Over three-quarters of the Agriculture industry involves food production. In 2011, the industry's revenue is estimated at $57 billion,"
Thats not too bad really. It's about 15% of Australias export income, coming from 2% of the workforce. Don't forget that agricultural production has continued to increase as the workforce was slashed and the 98% went and did other jobs.
"But if we are to have an Agriculture industry as vibrant and profitable as our Mining industry is currently, then we will need to be thinking of corporate-size endeavours with massive acreage, guaranteed water, long-term market arrangements and revenue in the tens if not hundreds of millions each year. Franchising would provide economies of scale to smaller, semi-independent operators or family farms, where such arrangements make sense".
This has obviously been written by someone in an office in the city who has never set foot on a far. It's rubbish. How can agriculture ever be as profitable as mining? Mining is taking an unrenewable resource that is gone forever and leaves a worthless hole in the ground. Agriculture can continue for thousands of years and the land value will rise indefinately. There is no comparison and it's a stupid example to use.
The corporate farm is less productive than the big family farm per acre. There is plenty of proof of that out there. Franchising? Whats that about? Sounds like one more middle man in there getting a cut for doing nothing.
"The final exhibit points to some guidelines for farmers, many if not most of whom would find the sixth 'commandment' the hardest"
So, don't own land? That's ridiculous too. Most farmers will make more profit over their lifetime from the capital gain of their land than they will make in income. That's what happens in the real world, and it's what has happened to me.
"There has to be a new approach: the old one isn't working anymore."
What isn't working? 2% of the workforce feeds everyone in Australia, and we export enough for another 40 million people and contribute greatly to export income. Agriculture is unsubsidised here.
This is a poor article in my opinion. It was written by someone with a very poor understanding of economics and agriculture and how it all works.
