Podcast

Farmland LP

Craig Wichner: A New Model for Investing in Farmland

Profitability through sustainability
Saturday, December 15, 2012, 1:11 PM

At Peak Prosperity, we talk a lot about the need for new models of doing business that will comport well within the growing economic, energetic, and environmental constraints of our global system.

Today, Chris talks with an entrepreneur attempting to do just that: Craig Wichner, the Managing Partner of Farmland LP. Craig and his team have developed a model that is designed to increase the economic yield of farmland through sustainable farming practices.

Their approach is notable in a number of ways. It seeks to improves the quality of the underlying land. To avoid use of fossil inputs. To increase the yield per acre. To enable the production of vegetables, grains, and meats on acreage that before was monocrop. To employ more farmers per farm. To be more profitable than conventional farming. To improve the food resiliency of the local community. To reduce its dependency on liquid fuel transport by serving local markets. To generate annual returns for its shareholders, plus appreciation on their share of the underlying farmland.

The team believes there is an arbitrage in value that can be unlocked by reversing the damage modern farming has done to the land:

People have a mistaken understanding of corn. They think it's incredibly productive.

The fact is, if you have a farmer who farms an acre of land in Iowa and then ships off all the corn, does all the work, puts in all the fuel, and the fertilizer, and the pesticide, and harvests all that corn and ships it to a feedlot. That feedlot will produce around 1,500 pounds of meat from the corn on that acre of land.

If, however, that farmer planted a pasture in that land and put a cow on it, and they owned the cow, they would also produce 1,500 pounds of meat from that grass. However, instead of just getting the value of the feed, they would also get the value of the cow. And that is really how agriculture used to be, for as long as agriculture went on.  Agriculture was having livestock and vegetable crops in a rotation on the land.  Unfortunately, over the past 60 years, we have geared towards this monocropping system of corn and soy. And we have really destroyed a lot of the soil fertility. We've reversed basically 8000 years of agricultural progress over the past 60 years.

And they strive to unlock this value by reverting to the land to its best natural state using sustainable agricultural best practices:

We buy conventional farmland and convert it to organic, sustainable farmland as an investment fund.  It’s very similar to a REIT, a real estate investment trust.  So as we raise capital, we buy farmland, and the investors have the benefit of owning this tangible, appreciating asset over a long period of time.  And farmland, like other forms of real estate, generates cash flow.  And that cash flow can be delivered in perpetuity over time, if it is managed sustainably, and that is what we specialize in.  So we specialize in buying great farmland at great prices that is generating good cash flow, and then adding value to that farmland to increase the cash flow.  And we add value in two primary ways:  by converting it to certified organic farmland and  using sustainable agriculture best practices

We will buy 1,000 acres of land that may be growing corn today. And then my business partner, Jason, develops a land management plan, a sustainable agriculture management plan for that land.  If you've been growing corn year after year on ground, it is really the worst thing for the land.  You end up spending a tremendous amount of money on inputs on fertilizers, and pesticides, and you are losing topsoil and you are spending a lot of money irrigating. And after about five years of doing that, you're spending a lot more money on the inputs to grow than crops than you were if you had just managed it sustainably.

And so we take it through that conversion process -- a kind of detox -- wean it off of the chemical dependency that it is on and restore the soil carbon, restore the soil fertility. And we do that by planting perennial forages, basically pasture, on corn-quality land, and then bringing in expert sheep farmers, cattle farmers, and pasture poultry producers who grow eggs and meat. And we actually get great economics, even during the conversion period to it becoming certified organic farmland. And we're also restoring the soil fertility naturally. And then once that soil fertility has been restored over three to seven years, then we rotate it into vegetable farmers. After two to three years, they have used up that soil fertility and we rotate them onto the next piece of pasture and bring in either a grain farmer or put it back into pasture. So in this scenario, we are acting as the land managers. We are creating a tremendous amount of jobs for farmers to grow locally grown, organic, healthy food. And we're making better revenues. 

So by bringing in these diversities of farmers, what we are doing is we are making sure that our agricultural practices and the farmers on the land are maximizing the soil fertility from a biological standpoint. By doing that, you are starting out with the returns on conventional farmland, growing commodity crops, basically crops that compete solely on price -- and we're adding premiums to that. So, by getting it certified organic, our farmers are able to make extra revenue and we have profit sharing relationships with them. So we participate in that.  Instead of just growing one crop, we grow, we have a sheep farmer, and a chicken farm, basically on the same piece of land, very similar to how Joel Salatin does it. That generates extra returns.  And the fertilizer that they leave behind is a really big benefit to the vegetable farmer, and they generate additional revenues and cost savings from that. At the end of the day, we generate a premium cash flow from the same acre of land simply by using much more sustainable practices. It really is a case where you get premium returns for doing the right thing.

Farmland LP's first fund is still in its early stages, but we're excited that there are entrepreneurs like this team out there pioneering creative new models. It's innovation like this that will counter the fear many feel about the coming low-growth future and will enable us to step into it with optimism and grace.

Those who would like to learn more about Farmland LP's operations and/or fund can send a request for more information here. Note that their fund is available to accredited investors only and that PeakProsperity has an existing business relationship with Farmland LP (full details will be provided when opening an account with the Fund or at any time upon request.)

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Craig Wichner (36m:21s):

Transcript: 

Chris Martenson:  Welcome to another Peak Prosperity podcast.  I am your host, of course, Chris Martenson, and today I am pleased to welcome Craig Wincher onto the program.  Craig is the Managing Partner of Farmland LP, a fund that serves as a great model for sustainable business.  Craig and his team acquire conventional farmland and convert it to organic, sustainable farmland for the purpose of long-term cash flow and capital appreciation. 

I first met Craig a number of years back, and that was when his farmland fund owned about 154 acres of farmland.  And now it manages over 2000 acres and is going to be expanding to over 6000.  I am really pleased that we here at Peak Prosperity were able to direct accredited investors to that initial fund, and that we do have a business relationship with Farmland LP, because we really do believe in it.

I have since watched with excitement the success he and his partner, Jason Bradford, have had in making it a real and thriving enterprise.  At Peak Prosperity, we talk a lot about the need for new models of doing business that will comport well within the growing economic, energetic, and environmental constraints bearing down on all of us.  I believe Craig and his team are setting a great example.  And I get a boost of optimism about our future knowing that there are innovators like them out there, blazing a trail for others to follow.

Craig, thanks so much for joining me.  I am really excited to hear about the latest updates and what you and your team are up to.

Craig Wincher:  Very glad to be here. 

Chris Martenson:  First off, describe Farmland LP – the business model – for our listeners who might be unfamiliar with it, and the factors that led you to pick that model and to believe it would work.

Craig Wincher:  Great.  Well, you did a great job in the intro.  Farmland LP buys conventional farmland and converts it to organic, sustainable farmland as an investment fund.  It’s very similar to a REIT, a real estate investment trust.  So as we raise capital, we buy farmland, and the investors have the benefit of owning this tangible, appreciating asset over a long period of time.  And farmland, like other forms of real estate, generates cash flow.  And that cash flow can be delivered in perpetuity over time, if it is managed sustainably, and that is what we specialize in.  So we specialize in buying great farmland at great prices that is generating good cash flow, and then adding value to that farmland to increase the cash flow.  And we add value in two primary ways. 

The first way that we do that is by converting it to certified organic farmland, which is a three-year process.  And then once it is certified organic, we can take advantage of the 50 to 200% price premiums for organic goods.  It generates more revenue for the farmers, more income for the investors.

The second thing that we do, which is actually the core and heart of what we do, is we specialize in using sustainable agriculture best practices.  And what that primarily looks like, particularly in the early period, is bringing in livestock back onto the land.  And that livestock is a higher-value crop, so you generate more revenue per acre by having sheep and cattle, and pastured poultry on that land for meat and for eggs.  And the other benefit to that the animals leave behind a lot of fertilizer.  And so after a three- to seven-year conversion period, you have actually restored the farmland to its original, very strong, biologically fertile state.  And it is perfect for bringing in certified organic farmers into the process.  And that reduces their input costs, makes the farmers more profitable, and again, generates more revenue for the investors, as well.

Chris Martenson:  I love the idea.  We have had Joel Salatin on a couple of times.  Am I wrong in assuming that the models that he has talked about that he uses at Polyface Farm are somewhat similar to the ones you are using here?

Craig Wincher:  Yeah, Joel is great.  Joel definitely gets the model.  Imagine what it would be like to scale up Joel's model to thousands and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of acres.  And in essence, that is what you are talking about with Farmland LP's model.

Chris Martenson:  Let's talk about last year.  It was a year of drought and great difficulty for a lot of farms.  How did your operations fare during that?

Craig Wincher:  Well, they fared extraordinarily well.  The first thing is, we really take a long-term view when we are looking at buying farmland.  We look at buying properties that we want to own for 30-plus years.  And so as part of that process, we use 20 major factors in identifying where to buy farmland and which pieces of farmland to buy.  And one of those is looking at the climate models.  And so the two areas that we have farmland in right now, in the Willamette Valley in Oregon and a certain part of Northern California, those are two areas that were not affected by drought.  Whereas most of the rest of the country was.  It was the largest natural disaster in U.S. history by land area, the drought was. 

The second point on that is that one of my favorite photos of the year was a picture of a droughted Indiana farm field that was in the Washington Post a few months ago.  And it was not my favorite because the cornfield was droughted, but what was interesting was that between the droughted cornfield and the road was a bright green strip of grass.  And that bright green strip of grass, here people were looking at this and saying oh, it is an incredible drought condition; poor farmers.  Why were the grasses so green? Well, there was plenty of water for the grasses, because their roots go down six to eight feet and more.  Corn roots only go down six to eight inches.  And so if they had planted more of a perennial crop, rather than an annual crop, we would have produced a lot more beef, for example, in the Midwest than we did. 

And some people have kind of this mistaken understanding about corn.  They think it is incredibly productive.  And the fact is, if you have a farmer who farms an acre of land in Iowa and then ships off all the corn, does all the work, puts in all the fuel, and the fertilizer, and the pesticide, and harvests all that corn and ships it to a feedlot, that feedlot will produce around 1500 pounds of meat from the corn on that acre of land.  If, however, that farmer planted a pasture in that land and put a cow on it, and they owned the cow, they would also produce 1500 pounds of meat from that grass.  However, instead of just getting the value of the feed, they would also get the value of the cow.  And that is really how agriculture used to be, for as long as agriculture went on.  Agriculture was having livestock and vegetable crops in a rotation on the land.  Unfortunately, over the past 60 years, we have really geared towards just this monocropping system of corn and soy.  And we have really destroyed a lot of the soil fertility.  But we have also reversed basically 8000 years of agricultural progress over the past 60 years.

Chris Martenson:  So what I love is that there is a business model here that seems to make sense that comports with the realities that we are currently talking about.  So you mentioned, here is a farmer that grows 1500 pounds of meat either way, but your first example involves a lot of energy inputs to harvest the corn, grow the corn, transport the corn, and do all of that.  And the second one sounds a lot less energy intensive.  So that sounds like there is also going to be some additional hidden value in there, to not just the farmer but to society at large.  And so what I love about this is the idea that we can actually have business models that make sense on ecological foundations, and economic foundations, and energy foundations.  It just sounds great.  So, question:  Are you a mission-driven organization, then? Meaning, are you pursuing this work because of a philosophy, or is it simply a great ROI you have discovered?

Craig Wincher:  I do not think there is a very big difference between having a good long-term investment and having it be a sustainable investment.  In fact, I think that only when you shorten your time horizon over very, very short periods of time is there some kind of tradeoff.  If you think about it, our minimum time horizon is three to four years.  If you look at conventional agriculture versus organic and sustainable agriculture, the academic studies have shown if your time horizon is four years or less, then it makes sense to stay as conventional agriculture.  But if your time horizon is five years or longer, then it actually makes better economic sense, better on a discounted cash flow basis, to convert to organic agriculture. 

And there is this somewhat false dichotomy that people have about their investment portfolios, that they have to get the best returns over the next quarter, the next quarter, the next quarter.  But they have really forgotten that they are actually investing for events that are going to happen 10, 20, 30 years down the line.  They are investing maybe for their kids going to college, or for their retirement, or possibly for something to pass on to their kids.  And from that standpoint, you need to have good investments that will both store value and appreciate over time, as well as deliver great cash flow over those periods.  And when you look at the world that way, from a time period of your lifetime, then you want to invest in things that are going to be a source of durable value over a long haul and also deliver good investment returns.  And then from that standpoint, from that view, farmland for us is a perfect asset class.  Now, gold is a great store of value, but it does not deliver any cash flow.  Oil is a wonderful source of cash flow, but it depletes over time.  And we view farmland, from a financial perspective, as being kind of in this perfect middle world of having the durability of gold plus the cash flow of producing food over a long period of time. 

Chris Martenson:  I am fascinated about this idea of how you would calculate returns on this particular investment.  So, normally, we think of conventional investment, so there is the cash flow.  That might be dividends that might be interest.  And then, of course, there is capital appreciation.  We can just open up the newspaper and/or go online and check the capital portion of our holdings.  How is it that you go about calculating the return on investment or ROI of your fund for investors?

Craig Wincher:  There is a little bit of a back-story.  It is very simple to calculate the returns of our fund.  We have an asset that appreciates over time and we basically get income from rent, lease income from our farmers.  And one thing that has really been interesting for me is that I am 43 years old.  I have had an investing career in both equities and tangible real assets.  My family has owned and managed investment real estate since before I was born.  So I kind of grew up in that world.  But it is really extraordinary to me how stocks and stock returns have really been at the forefront of people's thinking about investments.  There was a time not so long ago when stocks were these strange derivative instruments that people did not understand.  And they wanted real, tangible assets because they could understand owning an asset, and generating rents and other returns from those real assets. 

And now [it] has totally shifted so that people do not do not understand that the real value is owning cash-flowing assets for the long haul.  And that is really what we specialize in.  So, from an investment return prospective, normally farmland – you can go out and you can buy farmland today at a basically a 3.5% to 4% cash flow return to the asset.  And that is based on conventional commodity crops.  And what we do is we buy farmland.  We convert it to organic farmland and then use sustainable agriculture best practices.  And what that basically looks like is that we will buy 1000 acres of land that may be growing corn today.  And then my business partner, Jason, develops a land management plan, a sustainable agriculture management plan for that land.  And really, if you are growing corn year after year on ground, it is really the worst thing for the land.  You end up spending a tremendous amount of money on inputs on fertilizers, and pesticides, and you are losing topsoil and you are spending a lot of money irrigating.  And actually, after about five years of doing that, you are spending a lot more money on the inputs to grow those crops than you were if you had just managed it sustainably.

Chris Martenson:  Hmm.

Craig Wincher:  And so we take it through that conversion process to kind of detox, wean it off of the chemical dependency that it is on and restore the soil carbon, restore the soil fertility.  And we do that by planting perennial forages, basically pasture, on corn-quality land, and then bringing in expert sheep farmers, cattle farmers, and pasture poultry producers who grow eggs and meat.  And we actually get great economics, even during the conversion period, to it being certified organic farmland.  And we are also restoring the soil fertility naturally.  And then once that soil fertility has been restored over three to seven years, then we rotate it into vegetable farmers.  After two to three years, they have used up that soil fertility and we rotate them onto the next piece of pasture and bring in either a grain farmer or put it back into pasture.  So in this scenario, we are acting as the land managers.  We are creating a tremendous amount of jobs for farmers to grow locally grown, organic, healthy food.  And we are making better revenues. 

So by bringing in these diversities of farmers, what we are doing is we are making sure that our agricultural practices and the farmers on the land are maximizing the soil fertility from a biological standpoint.  And by doing that, you are starting out with the returns on conventional farmland, growing commodity crops, basically crops that compete solely on price.  And we are adding premiums to that.  So, by getting it certified organic, our farmers are able to make extra revenue and we have profit sharing relationships with them.  So we participate in that.  So instead of just growing one crop, we grow, we have a sheep farmer, and a chicken farm, basically on the same piece of land, very similar to how Joel Salatin does it.  That generates extra returns.  And the fertilizer that they leave behind is a really big benefit to the vegetable farmers.  And they generate additional revenues and cost savings from that.  And at the end of the day, we generate a premium cash flow from the same acre of land simply by using much more sustainable practices.  It really is a case where you get premium returns for doing the right thing.

Chris Martenson:  Well, what are the impacts on the communities that these farms are serving at this point? What have you noticed happening there?

Craig Wincher:  Well, the farmers that we bring in, we work with some very experienced farmers, people who have been, for example, producing premium quality land for the past 30 years. And we are able to provide them with much more acreage to product these high quality sheep than they otherwise would have been able to afford.  And in fact, there is not a lot of wonderful land out there, high-quality land that is specifically geared towards pastured production of meats.

Chris Martenson:  Uh-huh.

Craig Wincher:  And yet this is the area that you get the highest price premiums on and is also in the most demand.  So, the farmers that we are working with – we are also working with the young farming family who is building a pastured egg production business, and we have some housing on our properties.  And so we are able to lease this family a house, and really help bring into fruition a dream that this family has been working for a long time, to create a pastured egg production business at scale, using sustainable agriculture best practices.  And it really is part of a community on this farmland. 

So it benefits these young farmers, giving them access to farmland.  It benefits the large farmers by helping them scale up their businesses even more.  It benefits the community by producing more locally grown food.  And really, the demand for locally grown organic food has really been expanding.  Organic food has grown basically 16.5% per year since 1990.  It is now over 4.5% of the food system.  But only 0.7% of the farmland in the U.S. is certified organic.  And that is only growing at 8.5%.  So you have this big disparity.  There is a real big gap between the demand for organic food and the supply of organic farmland to grow that food.  And so we are really helping kind of restoring the balance.  And the communities really have a tremendous demand for this food, and at the end of the day, it is strengthening communities.

Chris Martenson:  Food quality and security are two big issues in my household.  And I was just reading, I guess it was maybe two months ago in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, they had a whole article in their food section about the central valley of California.  And the summation of that was multiple farmers told this author, the journalist, that they knew they were farming in unsustainable ways but felt locked into the paradigm, and it was very difficult to get out.  And the mysterious part about this to me is that we do find people, such as yourself, who have found a way to step outside of that.  There are lots of farming operations, Joel Salatin’s, that have stepped outside of it.  It seems to be working, and yet a lot of people feel locked.  It is almost like there are two completely parallel universes.  And it seems difficult for people to figure out how to get from point A to point B. 

But as you mentioned, over here at point B, a lot of demand, high-quality food, people are interested in that.  And so I am wondering if you have some advice.  We have a lot of interest among our community for sustainable business models in general, particularly in a net-energy constrained world.  So do you have any advice or a specific criteria that you could share on how folks might go about evaluating, identifying what you would consider to be a good business model in this world?

Craig Wincher:  Yeah, well, I think that was extraordinarily well said.  There are some very specific barriers that separate these two universes of agriculture.  And one is this commodity-based form of chemical dependent agriculture that has really been only in place from the 1950s, when artificial fertilizers – cheap, essentially free, artificial fertilizers – came into play.  And really, for thousands of years before that, you had tremendous diversity in crop rotations.  Actually, in 1950, the average farm produced about five crops per farm per year.  So that includes livestock, vegetables, and grains in sustainable rotations.  If you look at that number today, we have gone from five crops per farm per year to 1.2 crops per farm year.  We have almost a perfect monocrop system all across the United States.  And that was really dependent on these cheap inputs. 

And really over the past 20 years what has happened is that the assumption that those inputs are cheap and essentially free has shifted.  It is actually now more cost effective, more profitable, to produce grass-fed meat than it is to produce the corn, grain-fed meat.  So there has been a shift in the economic system.  But unfortunately we have basically 60 years’ worth of investment that has gone into these monocropping systems.  As farmers got more successful, they would simply buy larger equipment for planting and harvesting corn.  And so we are left with this huge built environment.  Unfortunately, the average age of farmers today is 60 years old.  And so these people have really been farming under this system the whole entire time.  And they have all the equipment, and they have usually debt on their place.  And they are simply not making the transition. 

And so what we generally do is we look for farmland – we buy farmland from the farmers who are retiring or dying and it is in their estates.  And then we take it through that conversion period.  And it is really just a three-to five-year conversion period.  There is a lot more complexity.  You are talking about going from a farmer who may be producing on 1000 acres with a certain set of equipment, to having multiple farmers on the land, producing multiple kinds of crops on the land.  And it takes management, it takes expertise to take it through that conversion period. 

But that end state, as you said, that alternate universe is a fully functional, thriving universe that is proven scientifically, and economically, and agronomically for thousands of years.  And it is incumbent on the communities to figure out how to fund that transition.  And it involves changing the management of the land.  It involves funding the farmers to invest in livestock.  And it involves the community buying those products to help with that transition.  And, it may seem like a little bit of faith at first, but if you break these things down into their little components, investing in farmland, investing in good farmers, and buying sustainably produced local food, you are really talking about things that deliver wonderful economic benefit and community benefit, as well.  And this is really the vision for what agriculture can be again in the future.

Chris Martenson:  I think it is fascinating that you mention that it was basically in the 1950s where things really shifted.  I believe the first supermarket in the United States was 1947.  So we are really talking about the way most people think this is just how farming is actually a very recent invention, possibly a diversion from what farming used to be and will be again. 

And so to get from point A to point B, though, this is really fascinating, where I think we need business models like the ones you are talking about, because it does take support.  I am a big fan of saying that where you have to enable and embolden our young people to make a lot of mistakes as we try and figure out how to navigate from a high-energy society to a slightly lower-energy society.  That is not an easy transition.  We do not have any history books to really guide us.  So guess what, we are going to have to make a few mistakes in there. 

And I was really taken this year when I visited an 11,000 acre corn operation.  It was in Maryland, of all places.  And the average age of the two farmers running it was well above your 60-year mark.  And when I queried, were their sons or daughters getting involved, they said no; they almost laughed about it, because here they were running this operation, which nominally had millions of dollars in revenue every year.  They were running at $150 per acre profit.  And it does not take much to wipe $150 of profit, if the margins were, I think they were running at maybe 2%, maybe 3% based on current land pricing.  So, if you are thinking about coming into that as a young person, I cannot imagine wanting to step into that farming operation with that much risk, that much responsibility, that little amount of reward, but also knowing that it is fundamentally unsustainable.  That is not the kind of thing that really compels young people to jump up and say yeah, sign me up.  Maybe that is part of the trend here.

Craig Wincher:  That is exactly right.  And also, how do they come up with all the capital just to buy the farmland to get started? The agricultural system that we have today is based on the same essential game that created the modern financial system, which is requiring literally trillions of dollars' worth of bailouts.  It hilarious, Ben Bernanke basically saying that he is going to print money until the employment situation improves is something that is almost funny to me, and it just makes absolutely no sense at all.  And yet this is the paradigm of the leaders of the politicians and the economic system that we have today. 

Agriculture is basically driven by those same factors that have resulted in the economic system.  And the fundamental mismatch that really put agriculture on the course where we are today is viewing agriculture as a chemical-based system as opposed to a biological-based system.  I was driving around with Bill Niman yesterday.  Bill Niman founded Niman Ranch in the mid-70s, built that up to a $60 million business, left about a half a dozen years ago.  It is the largest natural, ethically produced meat company in the U.S.  And he has now started a new company, BN Ranch. 

Bill is an advisor of ours.  I am on his board of directors.  He is just an absolutely extraordinary guy and very wise.  And as he was talking yesterday, he used the phrase, “Better living through chemistry.”

Chris Martenson:  Uh-huh.

Craig Wincher:  And, when nitrogen was low in people's fields after the war, they basically took this ammonium nitrate explosive and put it on the fields and increased crop productivity.  And then, they were also fertilizing the weeds, as well.  So they say oh, now we have this weed problem.  Well, let's put this herbicide on them and kill the weeds.  Okay, great, well now you have 1000 acres of corn.  Well, now all the pests that like to eat corn are eating the corn.  Great, well, let's spray insecticides, more chemicals.  And oh, well, now we have these herbicide resistant weeds, well let's genetically engineer the crops to be able to tolerate more herbicide.

And you end up with this very focused, very methodical, and somewhat ineffective system over a short period of time, where you view agriculture as a chemical-based system.  And that works until the inputs are not cheap and until the soil carbon has been burned down.  And you have really rid the environment of its life and vitality.  And you can switch it back around; it just takes time and it just takes investment.  Fortunately the economic factors at play say that sustainable agriculture is much better economically now than the unsustainable agriculture that we have in place today.  It is just going to take 30 years of investment in order to transition back.  And I do think it is important that we transition as fast as possible, just in case there are any energy, or supply, or climate issues that we have in place that may happen over time. 

We do not have a Ben Bernanke to print more food for us or print more farmland.  And so it is really incumbent on the agricultural system to build up those reserves in the form of soil carbon and sustainable agriculture practices before we need it.  Because when the Hurricane Sandy hits, you cannot buy insurance as the storm is on your doorstep.  You have to get it into place ahead of time.

Chris Martenson:  And we know all of these pressures in terms of world food production need to increase because we are heading to nine billion people.  We know that soil is being depleted, if not outright lost.  We know that water itself is becoming an extraordinary issue.  There are a lot of issues out there, and it sounds like the model that you are running is one way that we could address that.  I am really glad you are doing what you are doing. It is approaching thousands of acres, and dare I say it needs to be millions and millions of acres to really provide that security you are talking about.  So I am fully in support of it. 

Craig, I am interested, what are some of the most important lessons that you could share with us that you have learned in being a sustainable entrepreneur, if I could use that term?

Craig Wincher:  You can use it.  So there is a social responsible ratings organization called B-Corp, and we received the highest B score ever.  We did not set out to do that.  We really focused on building a business model that just delivered on its fundamental returns, owning a stable cash flowing asset, and increasing cash flow by using agronomic best practices, sustainable agriculture best practices.  And that is what we go to work and do every day.  The reasons why we did it – I really had a big shift when my daughter was born.  And, really, the moment that she was born, I just had what, again, Bill Niman calls a parental epiphany, where my life was now about helping her dreams come true and really, the dreams of everyone in her generation.  And I asked myself, what am I doing to make a difference 20 years from now for the world that we are going to give them? And that timeframe and wanting a world that works is really what drives us every day. 

And I think the lesson for entrepreneurs in this is that if you are going to be an entrepreneur, you have to start with a fundamentally good business model.  And you are only going to be working on things that are really going to make a difference for you and your world in the future.  And it really requires more from the entrepreneur, more thinking about building their business model.  More thinking about how they are going to do it step-by-step and grow their business.  And always keeping a focus on what are the metrics, in addition to the financial metrics, that they are going to make a difference on.

Chris Martenson:  And when you started this, would you say that you had a lot more explaining to do because it was, say, an alternative business model? Or did you find the reception was warm from the get go?

Craig Wincher:  Essentially, the reception was very warm.  Most people do not have a familiarity with real estate, let alone farmland investing.  And so most of the explaining is just around – some people say, well, how can you make any money in farmland? And what they do not know is that 40% of farmland in the U.S. is leased today, and that it is a cash-flowing asset just like an apartment building, or an office building, or one of the timber REITs.  And that we are thinking about it, I would say, slightly differently than people had thought about farmland in the past, where it has been one farmer owns one piece of land and growing one kind of crop.  And it has resulted in the agricultural system that we have today, to us thinking about farmland a little bit more like an office building, where you have a group that owns the asset, like an office building.  Like an REIT, a group that manages that asset, like we manage farmland using sustainable agriculture best practice, and then tenants in there.  I run a business and we rent office space.  And if I need office space, I just rent more office space.  I do not have to own this office building and deal with the headaches of that.  I just get to rent office space. 

But we have an agricultural system where we force farmers essentially to buy a new office building every time they want to expand their production, and then, if they are organic farmers, we force them to take it through another three-year organic conversion process before they can sell the crops that the market demands.  If they are successful – let's say they double their acreage, they then – if they are successful, they are going to sell everything the next year, and then what are they going to do? Well, they have to go out and buy more farmland, a really gigantic burden that we have put on organic and sustainable farmers. 

What we do is, we buy the land, we take it though that conversion process, and then provide the highest quality land at a large scale and on a very low-risk basis to successful farmers, to grow crops that you and lots and lots of people all want to eat.  So that is the role that the investors get to play in helping transition this.  They are really transitioning the land use out of the commodity, chemical-based agriculture system into this organic, sustainable agriculture system where you have many more farmers on a piece of land on a rotating basis and it works very well.

Chris Martenson:  Well, that is fantastic.  Craig, what are your plans for the future? I heard wind that you have another fund coming out potentially in 2013, is that right?

Craig Wincher:  That is right.  So, this fund is closing at the end of Q1 next year, and this will be 6300 acres and $42 million worth of farmland.  And then towards the second half of next year, we are going to open up a second fund, and that will be a brand new pool of farmland.

Chris Martenson:  Well, fantastic, looking forward to that, and how should those who might be interested in learning more about your operations, how would they go about doing that?

Craig Wincher:  They are welcome to look at our website at www.farmlandlp.com.  They can also e-mail us.  I am at craig@farmlandlp.com.  And we are glad to send them information.  This fund right now is open to accredited investors and there is a $500k minimum at this point, just due to SEC requirements that have us limited to 99 investors.  We have 67 investors right now.  And next year's fund will be a much lower minimum again.

Chris Martenson:  Fantastic.  Also, we do have a link provided at the bottom of this podcast, where you can just click on that, e-mail us, and we will get you in contact, as well.  So, with that, I really, really admire what you have done and thank you for taking the time to share some of your insights and learnings.  And the thing I like most about this is that often people ask – they feel powerless, like what could we possibly do? The trends are all heading in the wrong direction.  And the answer is that in fact, there are lots of things we can do today that make sense.  They make economic sense.  They make ecologic sense.  They make energy sense. 

And by the way, in all investments going forward, those are the filters I apply now.  If they do not make sense on all three of those dimensions, they probably do not make sense in the long term.  And by the way, for me, that is what an investment is – it is an investment in the future.  So, thank you for showing us a way that we can invest in the future and that it is possible.

Craig Wincher:  Great talking with you, as always, Chris.

Chris Martenson:  Thanks.

About the guest

Craig Wichner

Mr. Wichner directs the farmland investment program, including overseeing property acquisitions, leases and sales, and oversees the financial and legal affairs for the Partnership.

Mr. Wichner is a seasoned executive with 20 years building companies which have, among other things, developed and currently produce an FDA-approved treatment for metastatic brain cancer, and developed and sold automated employee contribution programs for Fortune 500 Companies such as GM, EDS, and Charles Schwab. Mr. Wichner has helped raise over $125 million in 14 funding transactions (including a $33 million IPO) and has led three M&A transactions. Mr. Wichner served as CEO/President/CFO for three successful companies, two of which were venture-funded, and has served on boards and advisory boards including two venture funds. Mr. Wichner helps manage a multi-million dollar real estate investment property company.

Mr. Wichner received a B.S. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology with a minor in Economics from UCSD, earning Provost’s Honors and performing graduate-level research on HIV/AIDS as an undergraduate. Mr. Wichner’s agricultural experience includes spending 10 summers growing up on a ranch and farm.

Related content

23 Comments

westcoastjan's picture
westcoastjan
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 4 2012
Posts: 466
wow, so exciting to read this!

This is the kind of article that goes a long way in counter-balancing all of the negative news re what is not working. It provides some hope that we may yet muddle through this crisis.

I would love to be able to participate as an investor in something like this, but do not have the big bucks to do it. What is out there, similar to this, for the small investor???

Jan

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 672
Commandeer

Great idea in normal times (I would invest).  In a war the first thing the government will do is commandeer the food supply: the government will dictate how you can sell farm product under threat of confiscation or worse (i.e. jail).  Law and the Constitution?  Ha!

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
skeptical

Well, it all sounds good but I know of a number of farmers around here who happen to have the land and are trying to do the same things for themselves but they're not exactly flush with cash.  Granted, we're in an area that is not an optimal agricultural area but I have an innate distrust in any entity that enters into a business endeavor that is marginally profitable, becomes a "middle man" in that endeavor (so that even more wealth is extracted, further compromising profitability), and claims that everyone wins: farmer, investor, and administrator.  We saw this happen with HMOs.  The Wall Street types who set them up and administered them made a killing.  The medical staff and the patients were less fortunate and although the realization was slow to dawn on them, eventually they recognized that they were taking it in the neck, at the expense of the Wall Street types.

I think a more direct way of running this type of operation is for an individual to partner with someone with farming experience and know how and work on developing a small plot of land (5-10 acres) with a focus on high density production of high value agricultural items.  I've seen it work in NJ with an organic mini-farm that supplied the NY restaurant trade and I've seen it work in Massachusetts with a greenhouse system that supplied the Boston restaurant trade.  It's also working in our area for one particular flower mini-farm where the couple are retired and only need a part-time income stream in the summer.  If I were to get involved in this type of  venture, this is the approach I'd take.  YMMV,

nigel's picture
nigel
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2009
Posts: 90
Maths

If I had an acre of corn producing feed stock that made 1500 pounds of meat, and instead I put a cow on it, I would have a dead cow. It depends on the soil and water content but cows need a certain amount of land per cow, in my area about 6 acres per cow to stock them all year round without feeding them anything other than the grass growing. If I had one cow per acre I would need to buy suplemental feed. I've seen it drop on flood plain and river pasture to about 1 cow per 2 acres but that is the exception not the rule. I've also seen it much worse, as in same pasture that held 1 cow per 6 might need 1 cow per 10. This will happen in a drought. One farm I am thinking of is 2800 acres in size and runs 350 head. Thats 8 acres to a cow. Another is 276 acres and runs 45 head. That's 6 acres to a cow. This farm has 3 (approx) die a year because of starvation/eating noxious weeds. Note: these are beef cattle, not fed hay (maybe 2 bales a fortnight), run year round without any additional inputs. Mixture of Angus, Hereford, Brahmin, Short Horn, Limousine.

Dairy farms are much more efficient and can have cows on way less land, but that is because they really work the land. Massive irrigation cost, massive fertilizer costs, massive supplemental feed costs and so on.

There will always be a year where you can run double the amount, gentle summer, good rain, soft winter, and so on.

So I think the figures in the talk are just plain wrong. Haven't checked the corn figures, I only ever grow about a quater acre of corn, and then sweet corn not feed corn.

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 625
We're about 1-1.2 animal units

per acre   http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/forages/bjb00s17.html. in central va with the only input being imported hay (i rent land for haying, often free because its maintained, and bring the hay,aka nutrition to my land and feed it) the cattle,sheep,goats,pigs,chickens,horses are our manure spreaders. we recieve approx 30" of rain/year and are zone 7. this is a 500acre operation  robie

Rhiahl's picture
Rhiahl
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 17 2012
Posts: 2
And the old is new again

Getting more profit when the farmers pay their rent.  It involves the farmers investing in livestock.  

As a sharecropper's grandaughter this sent chills up my spine.

Farmland investing has drawn my interest lately, but this model bothers me.  Why is the investment company buying the land and renting it out?  There is nothing new here making this attractive to me.  Why not put farmers on the land and pay them a salary plus bonuses - tied to their ability to involve the community in the model?  As an employee they could be rotated around to the farms where their expertise is needed.

I don't want to give my children the lifestyle my grandparents lived through.  It was horrific and backbreaking. 

There are other farmland investment groups out there, this one bothers me.

The carpetbaggers are back.  What was old is new again.

rheba's picture
rheba
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 22 2009
Posts: 29
Comment from a NE farmer and appraiser.

I disagree with the approach to farmland reclamation from a scientific point of view. If anyone is really interested in this topic check out Steve Solomon's new book, "The Intelligent Gardener."

I also disagree that any kind of farming could make the kind of profit that an investor would be interested in. Farming is a losing proposition under current economic conditions. Ask any farmer who isn't getting a government subsidy.

If a farmer has a great piece of land such as the Class I farmland found in the Connecticut River Valley and works hard and doesn't have a mortgage, then I think he might make a living. Then there are other farmers on Class II land who take their food in trucks to farmers markets in high priced urban areas. They say they make some money but I wonder how they pay the big mortgages that the USDA gives them. I worry about them especially as the price of gas goes up and the rich get poorer.

I am a commercial real estate appraiser specializing in farms. I see that farmland is holding up in this market but it stil doesn't compare, on a per acre basis, with the prices that we used to see for developable residential land. If you are trying to build a fund that is speculating on increases in the price of farmland I would be very careful. Most land in New England is totally depleted and will require huge inputs of things like phosphorus (some say at peak already) in order to produce healthy food.

This is an interesting conversation. I hope that someone will follow up on the soils science part of it because what is being suggested is overly hopeful, IMHO!

KeithM1116's picture
KeithM1116
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 10 2012
Posts: 68
Organic Farming

I tend to agree with a few of the comments here about the "value" of a middleman in this equation.  I grew up on a farm, and now have some farmland being "sharecrop" leased, and know someone in the area that is organic farming, and considered doing it for my own land.  So maybe I have some qualifications to weigh in on this one.

First, an acre of good farmland will produce 100 - 200 bushels of corn (depending on rainfall, etc.).  A beef cow typically will "range" and eat grass and hay until they're about 500 lbs.  To take them up to "market weight" of 1250 - 1500 lbs will take about 50 bushels of corn (2800 lbs).  So, that acre of ground would produce enough corn for 2 - 4 cattle, but they needed some range or hay before that.  So, in aggregate, maybe an acre could raise a cow, but not as a single acre.  So farming becomes "specialized" just like everything else - range land in North Dakota that won't grow good corn is used to bring them up to a point, and then feedlots bring the corn from Iowa and Illinois to take them up to market weight.

The economics on organics is OK, but no one is getting rich at it.  It's hard work, with much lower yields.  Prices for organic produce are higher, which mediates the yields and allows the farmer to make a profit, but only a minority of farmers are making this leap.  And arguably, when people start getting hungry, they won't care if the label says "organic" any more.  Plus, I think I saw an article in Time (?) about a month ago that opined that humans really didn't benefit much from eating organic, nor are they "damaged" from eating non-organic (NOT that I want to start that debate - just saying what I read).

As far as other ways to "invest" or get involved, here's a website you may want to investigate.  I know the woman that started this and her siblings are part of the organic movement in Illinois.  If you peruse this site you can find links to farmers that are looking for land, and land owners looking for organic farmers.  Enjoy! www.thelandconnection.org

bigelow's picture
bigelow
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 17 2008
Posts: 13
all in favor

Since I am simply a backyard gardner not a farmer can't make useful suggestions except to say I am all in favor of more organic farming.

This is an excellent site: http://www.bigpictureagriculture.com/

Dwig's picture
Dwig
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 5 2009
Posts: 102
Rhial, There are other

Rhial,

There are other farmland investment groups out there,

This piques my interest.  What are the models of these other groups?  Can you provide pointers?

Dwig's picture
Dwig
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 5 2009
Posts: 102
Could Wichner join the dialogue here?

Chris,

We've seen some folks with farm experience weigh in on this topic.  Would/could Mr. Wichner join the dialogue, based on his experience?  In particular, thinking of Rhial's comment, I'd be interested to hear how the farmers in the scheme make out.  My sense is that for true long-term sustainability (not to mention basic fairness), a system must benefit all parties.

Dwig's picture
Dwig
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 5 2009
Posts: 102
Another thought...

I'd guess (as one with absolutely no farming experience) that there's another aspect of sustainability for farmland: the degree to which those who work the land are personally invested in it, and empowered to act on their knowledge and intuition.  They'd be the ones to notice subtle changes that indicate problems developing, to evaluate how a new idea might work out in practice in this little ecosystem, etc.  If I'm right, it'd be important to find, enable and reward such people.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 724
KugsCheese wrote: Great idea

KugsCheese wrote:

Great idea in normal times (I would invest).  In a war the first thing the government will do is commandeer the food supply: the government will dictate how you can sell farm product under threat of confiscation or worse (i.e. jail).  Law and the Constitution?  Ha!

With all due respect I would suggest that the corporations are war profiteering entities who have commandeered govt. Agri-business fits under the general rubric. I wonder what set of dynamics would alter  a system that is firmly in place?  I would think another war for profits would exaggerate the phenomenon rather than change it. 

yieldqwest's picture
yieldqwest
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2012
Posts: 1
I would caution against "new model"

While I think "Food" is an attractive investment area, I think affixing the label "new model" to this fund  may be a bit misleading. When I think of a new model I think of entities with differing notions of the relationship between capital and labor; two areas that have grown to disparate ends these days. Not models that reward first, best, and foremost the securitizers.

Because one is applying a sustainable and high value bias to conventional ag seems to me, from the surface, to be  no more different than a PE Fund that specializes in turn-arounds or management restructurings.

I also noticed that the fund seems to share in multiple facets of potential "upside".

To be a new model, the first thing I would look for is the abscence of an intermediary.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 3437
Wichner join the dialog?

Dwig wrote:

Chris,

We've seen some folks with farm experience weigh in on this topic.  Would/could Mr. Wichner join the dialogue, based on his experience?  In particular, thinking of Rhial's comment, I'd be interested to hear how the farmers in the scheme make out.  My sense is that for true long-term sustainability (not to mention basic fairness), a system must benefit all parties.

Good question...let me see...I agree there are some very good points being made in this thread and I'd love to see them fleshed out a bit.

Nate's picture
Nate
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 6 2009
Posts: 461
hope this answers some questions

Rhiahl wrote:

Why is the investment company buying the land and renting it out?  

I can provide a Central California perspective to your questions.  The majority of local farms are family farms - not corporate farms.  Land is very expensive, especially 20 to 40 acre parcels.  Equipment, which has a finite life, is even more expensive.  Recent laws have changed and no longer allow tree crop prunings to be burned.  They are shredded in place by equipment that costs $300,000 and is used 6 weeks of the season.  Likewise, harvest equipment is used for 6 to 8 weeks and is extremely expensive.  Having investors purchase the land and rent it allows operators to expand their the land they farm at a small cost and pay for their equipment.  Remember, it this doesn't work for both parties it doesn't happen.  (the local land is too expensive to make Wichner's beef program work)

Rhiahl wrote:

Why not put farmers on the land and pay them a salary plus bonuses - tied to their ability to involve the community in the model? As an employee they could be rotated around to the farms where their expertise is needed.

Local dairies, the largest local farmers, are in trouble.  A typical 1000 cow dairy is losing $20,000 / month.  Every month more herds are being liquidated.  The alfalfa we grow goes to a local dairy and this operator is 1 year behind on his payments.  This dairymans son went to study ag at Cornell - these aren't stupid people.  Farming is a no to low profit margin activity and a tough business.  Clearly their hired milker is making more than they are.

Let's view this from 30,000 feet.  What % of Americans income goes to food?  Where does this place us on this planet?  If ALL farm laborers were paid a fair, living salary, we would have riots in the streets.

Craig Wichner's picture
Craig Wichner
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 1 2013
Posts: 6
Hi Dwig, Thanks, we'll

Hi Dwig,

Thanks, we'll respond soon. We just completed a large acquisition on December 31st so we've been fully occupied for the last few weeks.  I will respond to these questions over the next few days.

Best regards,

Craig

Craig Wichner's picture
Craig Wichner
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 1 2013
Posts: 6
Re: And the old is new again

Hi Rhiahl,

Sorry about your grandfather.  Agriculture is hard work, and there have been problems across many economic and political systems.

I hope you take time to learn more about us.  Independent third parties have done extensive due diligence on us and have given us the highest socially-responsible ratings of any company, including B-Labs (who gave us the highest B-Score ever), Spring Creek Foundation and others.  Our 69 investors are people like you, and they care about the farmer we work with, as well as our land practices.   We started doing this because we wanted to have a positive impact on the environment, on social issues, and to help investors and farmers have a good retirement, and so all our children could grow up in a world that works. 

  • We buy land because that is how we can be certain it will always be managed using sustainable agricultural practices.  The current system, just looking at the data, results in farmers using un-sustainable practices.  This way we can be certain the long view is always present.
  • We help young as well as experienced farmers get access to sufficient amounts of already-organic, sustainably managed farmland.  While we could hire the farmers to do what we tell them to do, we’d rather use our farmland as a platform for entrepreneurial farmers who want to grow healthy, sustainably produced food for quality-aware buyers.  This is consistent with our view of the value of diversity, rather than us thinking we have the one monoculture/commodity solution – the farmers are all smart and will come up with new crops and markets better than we could.  We do one thing well, which is managing farmland using sustainable agriculture best-practices.
  • On the retirement side, both farmers and investors need diversification in their investments, however farmers can be over-invested (and over-leveraged) in farmland, and investors under-invested.  We help balance that and bring everyone closer together, helping farmers get access to enough farmland to operate at good economies of scale without going into debt. With long-term profit sharing, everyone benefits when times are good, and when times are bad it’s the investors who lose cash flow, rather than a farmer loosing land to a bank on a bad loan.

To us, sustainable agriculture is a team sport. It takes great farmers who understand sustainable agriculture practices;  land managers who manage rotations based upon the best rotation for the land, not one individual farmer; investors who have a long-term view (rather than banks who will foreclose on the land if there is a bad season); and customers who want high quality, healthy, safe food grown in responsible ways.

The proof is with the farmers we work with.  Mac Stewart is a 4th generation shepherd, and was managing a blueberry operation when we first got together. We helped him get back into managing sheep, and he is now producing lamb for premium restaurants up and down the West Coast. Neal and Karen Wells worked for three years to get a pastured poultry operation running, and now they live in a house on one of our properties with their kids and are raising 2,500 chicks right now, growing to 4,500 laying hens soon.  We work with Bill Niman as well, founder of Niman Ranch who now runs BN Ranch.  These relationships are fundamental to what we do. They happen with people.  There are no sharecroppers or carpetbaggers here.  This is a team sport, and everyone has an important position to play.  Is this old?  Is this new?  I’m not sure, but it works, and it leaves me inspired and hopeful for the future that our children are growing up in.

Craig Wichner's picture
Craig Wichner
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 1 2013
Posts: 6
Re: Maths

Hi Nigel,

We use diverse crop and diverse livestock rotations, so for your (and the cow's) sake please don't put one cow on one acre and fence it in.

The purpose of the example of meat produced per acre is for people to do the math, looking at the agronomy of meat production, separate from the economics. The economics of meat production have been affected by subsidies on corn, and corn has been a nearly free source of feed for beef producers resulting in enormous feed lots and cheap beef in the U.S. But corn is no longer cheap due to increased input costs (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, GMO seeds, and fuel costs) and 40% of the U.S. corn crop going to Ethanol, so at what point does it make sense to emphasize pasture-based systems? To do that calculation, you have to know how much meat you can produce per acre of farmland if it is growing corn or a diverse pasture including legumes.

Of course farmland has different quality levels, and cropland is different than rangeland, so the point of the example is to hold all other factors constant and look at a single acre of high quality irrigated corn land, and compare that to that acre's ability to produce dry matter tons per acre. Grain conversion is more efficient metabolically than rumination, but more solar energy is captured in a pasture system (corn need to dry out in late summer, while irrigated forage crops can continue to convert that sunshine to sugars). Net it all out, with good rotational grazing, and it is about equal. And for high quality irrigited corn land, the number is about 1,500 lbs of meat per acre. Depending on the quality of soil, water, weather, etc your actual livestock carrying capacity will vary, just as the Corn Suitability Rating varies over land in the midwest.

A quick example table is below. (Again, this is an illustrative math exercise and does not reflect either seasonal productiity nor our extensive land and crop diversity and rotaitions. Our actual ruminant allocaton, land rotation and forage management is done with our team which includes multi-generational pasture and livestock experts, scientists, and business people.)

Meat produced per acre tons dry matter/acre corn bu/acre
  8 180
lbs of feed 16000 10080
growth conversion factor 10.5 6.7
lbs of gain 1524 1504

By the way, corn is a fine crop, for many many reasons...just in moderation. I wouldn't want to see cows, sheep, goats or bison covering 30% of U.S. cropland year after year, just as I'm not a fan of having 30% of U.S cropland in corn year after year. The natural capacity of any system will balance out economics over time – and the economics says we’re past that time.  We’re just so heavily invested in today’s dominant system that its hard for people to convert to other systems…or even remember what other systems might be.

Craig Wichner's picture
Craig Wichner
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 1 2013
Posts: 6
Re: Comment from a NE farmer and appraiser.

Hi Rheba,

I'll start with the soil science question and then address the other questions.

Restoring natural soil fertility is a very core aspect of what we do: Jason, my partner, is a PhD in biology and my degree is in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (with minors in Economics and Music). A particularly powerful way of enhancing soil fertility is by emphasizing perennial crops with livestock. Perennial root systems bring up nutrients from deep in the soil (6+ feet down) up to the surface (partially after going through ruminants). Crop rotations with perennials such as alfalfa have been shown to be as productive as chemical based systems with less inputs and equal profitability by a recent scientific study done by Iowa State University and the USDA. We wrote about the study here http://www.farmlandlp.com/2012/10/the-many-benefits-of-multi-year-crop-rotations/

Note that the study did not get the land certified Organic, and so there are no price premiums used in their analysis.  Farmland LP does both more extensive rotations as well as benefits from the Organic price premium.

In addition, by not using chemical fertilizers or pesticides, we support micorrhiza development, which further unlocks micronutrients and minerals from deep soils and rocks. Kay wrote about it recently here http://www.bigpictureagriculture.com/2012/12/mycorrhiza-proves-valuable-in-qatars-saline-soils-307.html. If there is magic in agriculture today, it is in the realm of the fungi. Their role is under-appreciated, and they are very sensitive to chemicals and tillage. Supporting subsoil fungi development is part of our focus as land managers (though it's not very romantic to talk about).

Regarding New England farmland prices, economics and fertility, in a macro sense we're not focusing on the farmland up there based upon our initial selection criteria, but I'd be careful not to over-generalize. For example, I know many farmers who make a wonderful living from farming and who don't get subsidies, including Elliot Coleman in your area. Agriculture generates over $450 billion per year in gross farm income and $132 billion in net cash income, and the specialty crops and livestock producers get little if any subsidies. There are very large niches that farmers are great at accessing beyond the seven main subsidized commodity crops.

On farmland values, there are 800 million acres of farmland in the U.S worth $2.2 trillion dollars. All the different geographies in the U.S. have different pricing and agricultural dynamics, with the farmland in the upper North East being smaller parcels, farmed for longer (less fertility and more time for topsoil erosion), closer to high-density population centers (farmland prices increase with proximity to cities at between a square and a log rate), and it has colder winters which has some limits on livestock and crop options. Not to say that there aren't certain geographies or prices that do work there, but just that each region is different in many ways. We've been successful at buying 6,300 acres of farmland in Oregon and Northern California which met all our agronomic and economic selection factors, but every single property is different (which you know as an appraiser), just as each region is different.

You and I do absolutely agree on two points. First is that debt is a problem in agriculture. Our farmers need a certain scale to operate profitably, and yet land is so expensive it is difficult for them to scale well without taking on what I consider to be risky levels of debt. Second is that farmland is not an asset class to flip or to be "speculating on increases in the price of farmland" as you said.

We buy large tracts of land that most farmers would not be able to affort on their own (generally worth millions or 10s of millions of dollars). We convert the land from chemical-based agriculture and get it certified Organic and implement land management practices that restore the soil fertility naturally. We give young new farmers and experienced farmers access to enough land to augment or run a successful farming business at scale, and without going into land debt. And our 69 investors are long-term investors who think of this as a 30+ year investment (though they can exit at almost any time if they want to).

Personally I think this is an improvement to the current system, though it will never be a large part of the $2.2 trillion farmland sector. Currently only somewhere between $6 billion and $20 billion worth of farmland is institutionally owned (less than 1%), and yet 40% of farmland in the U.S. is leased, generally by retired farmers or by their kids who live in cities. What we do is much more hands on and is better than just leasing land to chemical-based farmers growing commodity crops.

This has been a long-enough answer...but I'm glad to discuss more.

Thanks,

Craig

Craig Wichner's picture
Craig Wichner
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 1 2013
Posts: 6
Re: Organic Farming

Hi Keith,

I'll reply regarding how we are an important part of the agricultural team and not just a middleman in a later post, but since you own and lease out farmland, I wanted to ask a question - does the farmer that you have a "sharecrop" lease with use sustainable agriculture best practices? Do you require that as part of your leases? If not, why not?  Also, what type of crop rotations do you do?  It sounds like you are in commodity corn country, possibly in or near Illinois.

The comment on Organics doesn’t seem related to what we do, and I wonder if you listened to the interview or just responded to a headline. Farmland LP focuses on sustainable agriculture on high quality farmland, integrating livestock and crops in rotations, with Organic certification being a small part of the value that we add. And Organic agriculture, even by itself, works. There are 3.6 million acres of farmland certified Organic in the U.S.; 9,140 farms in the U.S. are certified Organic; Organic food generates over $30 billion per year in retail sales. For farmers, a study by Purdue University in Indiana showed that if your investment time horizon was 5 years or longer the returns to Organic farming is higher than chemical agriculture, even with a similar crop mix. http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/extension/pubs/paer/2010/february/alexander.asp .

Over-generalized and stereotypical comments like "The economics on organics is OK, but no one is getting rich at it. It's hard work, with much lower yields" typically come from monocrop farmers that are highly dependent on fertilizers, pesticides, GMO seeds and commodity market pricing. From that world view, and after 60 years of adding pesticides and fertilizers to the soils, trying to grow Organic corn on depleted land as a monocrop isn't something that anyone would expect to do well.  It takes a number of years of regenerative agriculture to restore and rebalance soil to the point that corn yields are good again -- and then only on a portion of the land in corn rotation. Monocrops of corn aren’t sustainable, and nor are systems that try to grow them. Converting to a different, sustainable system is challenging enough, and takes long enough, that it necessitates us buying land and converting it ourselves. Fortunately it is also rewarding enough. 

Some quick examples.  Organic farmers are 2.5 times more likely to make $100k per year than conventional farmers. An Organic vegetable farming family I personally know does $44 million a year in California, on not a lot of land. Earthbound Farms is now the largest leafy greens producer in the U.S, and is Organic.  And smaller but very successful companies and families produce pastured eggs, premium grass-fed beef, poultry including turkeys, and more very profitably.  

I mention these things just to bring the diversity of agriculture into the conversation. It’s easy to over-generalize, and there is a lot of mis-information and bias out there, and not enough science or long-term thinking. Organic and sustainable agriculture farmers are doing very well both growing crops and making profits. How they do it looks very different than commodity crops, but it is valuable to remember that it is the chemical-dependent systems that are the brave new experiment, not the tried-and-true crop and livestock rotation systems.

Craig Wichner's picture
Craig Wichner
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 1 2013
Posts: 6
New Model reply to Yieldqwest

Hi yieldqwest,

It seems like you just read the headline and commented, rather than reading the article.  We take a very active role in the farmland.  We convert the farmland to certified Organic farmland, we develop sustainable agricuture plans for the farmland and then implement them, either with farmers or our own people, we find and help coordinate the different farmers (sheep, cattle, poultry, vegetable, etc), and much more.  We do make it easy for investors to participate in this, but the fact is that not ever farmer can afford 1,000 acres or 4,000 acres, and in fact 40% of farmland is rented today.  Office buildings are a good analogy -- do you own your office building?  When you double the size of your business, do you have a buy a second building?  Not likely. Yet this is what we force or farmers to do, and Organic farmers have it much worse, as it takes them 3 years to convert farmland to organic land before they can sell their primary products.  With what we do, farmers are more profitable with less risk, they have access to more land to build a successful business without going into debt to buy land, we create environmental benefits and produce safe and healthy food, and there is more revenue and profit per acre, so the investors benefit as well. It's win-win. Sustainable agriculture is a team sport, and our fund, our investors, and the farmers are all part of the same team.  If you have a better idea, please get to work on it.  There is a great demand for solutions, and scaling up sustainable agricultue is one of the key needs for our future. 

Thanks,

Craig

nigel's picture
nigel
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2009
Posts: 90
Thanks

The reply was nice, I think I suffered from misunderstanding of the meaning of the article, thanks craig.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments