|
Aberdeen MS | I'm inbetween paul and hamm.
I can relate quite well to what both are saying. Maybe hamm got outbid, maybe he didn't.
Here is basically how it happens "here".
In order grow one acre of beets, you need one share. Share value, "has been" equal to the value of an acre of land to purchase, ... ie $1600/share when land value was in the 1500-2000/ac. What the value of a share is today in regards to elevated land cost of the last couple years, I don't know.
Beets are on a 4 yr rotation "here", mandated to my knowledge. There are enough acres of beets grown in this area that finding ground that hasn't been in beets the last 3 yrs is tough sometimes. Those that are what I call a "closed" operation, meaning land is owned by the grower and puts his own land into a 4 yr rotation are not part of the situation that hamm describes.
The problem is some of the progressive/aggressive growers ( I won't call them BTO's everyone has the opportunity) will bid up a parcel for a 3 yr contract on land so they control what herbicides are used prior to growing beets (not so bad now with RR ) over and above what grain production can sustain, setting the high benchmark rental price if you will.
Once the beets are off, the grower moves onto another parcel and leaves the beet ground for someone else to rebuild and fix. Landlords want only top price and base their acceptable rent paid based on beet acre rental. Over the course of years, it hasn't been as bad as in the past, but it is still a problem of sorts. There are some landlords that will NOT allow a beet to be grown on their land, but not many.
I don't fault either side for operating the way they do. But for "here", the beet grower has the upper hand so to speak and they use it freely.
| |
|
Sugar hits 29-year high as crops weaken in Brazil, India
