Why would farmers extend themselves so much that one bad year breaks them? Why wouldn't they set aside some of that good money so in bad year they could still pay the bills?
Equipment is an insane cost. That's why there are so few new farmers. The start up cost is astronomical. A combine, for example, can run to $400-500k — a piece of equipment that taking up barn space for 48 weeks out of the year. Add in your tractors, planters, spreaders, sprayers … add on top of that your land costs. Many farmers don't own all of their land outright, they hold medium/long term leases. Miss a single year lease costs and you lose the land, which forever drops your future earnings, lowering your margins, and bringing you closer to bankruptcy. There's a minimum amount of land you need to farm to even break even. You add more acres in good years to maybe save up enough for equipment replacement, or a new truck.
When you lose the land, lease, or go bankrupt, your land gets snapped up by huge corporate farms that can run at a higher margin, driving down food prices over the long term, making smaller farms less and less viable.
Why would a farmer own a combine? Aren't they owned by specialized harvest outfits? I don't have any experience in the business but when I was a kid and we needed the hay cut and baled we called the guy who brought in the hay baler on a low-boy. Nobody owned their own.
Rent vs. Own comes down to controlling your own harvest: renting means you may miss out, sometimes by weeks, of optimal harvest. You may have had to book a harvest weeks or months in advance. You may have to fork over cash months in advance. You may have to pay even if a field's yield is ruined due to summer floods.
If you own, you can select even segments of fields to harvest at more optimal times (a down grade, or wetter, portion of a field may harvest differently than an uphill, drier portion).
Modern agriculture depends a lot on financing for machines, seeds, implements, even labor. Banks and suppliers will use this to get as much as they possibly can from farmers. And if you don't get financing you simply cannot produce anything. This guarantees that a bad year is enough to break most farms.
You should watch Food, Inc. on Netflix. They have a segment on Monsanto and how farmers have no choice but to buy seeds from them but the prices are so high most farmers are barely able to keep their businesses running even with subsidies from the Federal Government.
The farmers I know watch their finances closely. Because the yields are better they make more money buying from Mansanto despite the higher price of seed. You cannot be a successful farmer without paying close attention to the bottom line (unless you already own all your land).
If that's a hobby for them then they are just gardeners. If they are gardeners, then I sincerely hope that they get zero consideration from those who are supposed to help farmers.
Gardeners tend to gardens, so even for pro vs hobby that's not the distinction you want to make.
But even the intention behind the distinction is wrong, as not wanting to be a huge agricultural business doesn't mean you're not professional.
In fact, quality-wise the smaller shops can be much more professional. So, no, actually, those are farmers, of the kind with the smaller lots, that have always been there and fed humanity for millennia.
The other are just big business conglomerates who don't give a fuck about farming and just happened to be in the agriculture business -- and will do anything to drop their margins and sell crap.
I hope that they get zero consideration from those who are supposed to help farmers, and hopefully are driven out of farming.
What makes it a business vs. hobby is inability to plan for the not great years. Business is farming. Hobby is gardening. Even if it is on a large scale.
