I have made many trips to Brazil over the years visiting ag-aviation operations. Actually, AgAir Update's Latin version is printed in Brazil and mailed throughout Latin America. A couple of years ago, one of my travels to Brazil took me to the state of Mato Grosso, where I traveled to the remote farming town of Primavera do Leste. Twenty years or so ago, this bustling farming town was only about 20 houses, a village. Now, there are several implement dealerships and other vendors for the farming community.
I had the pleasure of visiting one of the small farms, about 50,000 acres. It has a compound with an office that would rival any banker's and of all things, its own cotton gin! But, I stated this was a small farm for the Mato Grosso.
Let me give you an idea of what harbors in the Mato Grosso. Recently the world's largest soybean grower was out-farmed by his cousin. The once-world's largest soybean grower farmed a mere 415,000 acres. He was beat out by his cousin who farms 550,000 acres of soybeans. Imagine nearly a million acres of soybeans between taw relatives and I can assure you these two growers farm more than just soybeans.
What is even more remarkable is the cousin is a 51-year old self-starter. He was raised in a poor farm family. In the 70s when his father died, he inherited 100 acres with his seven siblings. From humble beginnings, he is now the world's largest soybean grower. Amazing.
Although this grower never finished high school, he has now nearly 4,000 employees, 300 combines and produced this year in excess of 660,000 metric tons of soybeans, about 1% of the Brazilian crop. Oh yeah, he also farms 185,000 acres of corn and 130,000 acres of cotton. I wonder how much Headline he uses? (Actually, Headline is marketed under another name in Brazil.)
People mistakenly believe growers are chopping down the so-called rainforest (I call it jungle). There is a degree of that in the Amazonia for pastureland, but the Mato Grosso is nowhere near the Amazon. It was brush land before the large farms moved in, expanding and building infrastructure.
What does all this mean? It means that Brazil, and other South American countries, have a tangible product that dominates their GNP. America should take note.
Until next time, Blue Sky and Tailwinds...
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
New paint and airline runoff
I’ve attended a couple of spray clinics in the past few weeks. It is always good to see old friends and meet new ones. Since the first clinics started over 15 years ago, there has been a notable change with more turbine-powered aircraft and less Ag-Cats, Pawnees and Cessnas on the scene. I suppose this is a sign of the times. Notably at the clinic in Steele, Missouri were the shiny new AT-802s. New paint sure looks good and I hope it is an indication of prosperity.
However, you don’t have to have a new turbine powered aircraft to be a successful and professional flying service. Albeit, who wouldn’t want one? I believe operating a high-end use piece of equipment falls into two categories; either use it until it is completely worn out, or trade it on a frequent schedule, maybe every two or three years while most components are either in warranty or won’t give you a problem.
I know an operator in Mississippi that has been trading his AT-502 every two years for a new one with a great degree of success. He performs one annual that is basically an inspection and rarely has to budget for parts and maintenance during the two years he owns the aircraft. He logs about a 1,000 hours on the aircraft and receives a premium for it on trade.
On the other side of the coin, I have seen operators do very well by keeping their aircraft well maintained and when needed, overhauling major components, such as the engine and prop, keeping up with the ADs, new paint, etc. Their maintenance expenses are considerably higher, but their depreciation and other related costs, like insurance, are less.
Each operator has to decide which avenue is the best for his operation. I do know that during good times, a business needs to upgrade its equipment so that the bad times are easier to navigate.
Changing the subject, I was reading an article not long ago where the U.S. EPA was proposing new rules that would affect the handling of the wastewater for deicing aircraft. Imagine that! I have often wondered how long it would be when deicing runoff concerns would impact the airlines and others.
If an ag operator was to allow any runoff of any kind and it was viewed by the public like when an airliner is hosed with deice fluid, the repercussion would be heard throughout our industry.
What is amazing is the proposed rules would only affect airports with more than 10,000 annual aircraft departures and 1,000 annual jet departures, requiring a re-capture of 60% of the fluid, rather than allowing it to drain off the pavement, where it can end up in nearby water systems.
Gosh, I suppose the other 40% has no affect on the water systems, huh? What about airports that have less than the 10,000/1,000 departures? Is the affect any different for half that many?
I know that in our industry even a one-aircraft loading area is subject to as much scrutiny as a fleet would be. Either the runoff is a problem or it is not. I can’t visualize “part of a runoff” being any less of an issue than all of the runoff. Maybe it’s some kind of dilution-thing calculation.
It just goes to show that the government does not work in an equal and fair manner. But, you already knew that. This only proves it. The airlines are already bankrupt for the most part, no sense in the EPA putting them out of business. That’d be a hardship on the flying population (read voters). I wonder if skyrocketing prices and limited availability of food and fiber would be a consideration for the EPA?
For my two cents worth, I think runoff should be contained, both for our industry and the rest of aviation. For ag-aviation, runoff looks bad, smells and is an all-around detriment to a professional operation. I know it is a problem and rainfall only exacerbates the issue, unless loading under cover. If you are doing any long range budgetary planning, you might need to figure in a covered loading pad, or one that is portable. Actually, covered loading areas are pretty nice. Your loader will love you for it!
Until next month,
Blue Sky and Tailwinds...
However, you don’t have to have a new turbine powered aircraft to be a successful and professional flying service. Albeit, who wouldn’t want one? I believe operating a high-end use piece of equipment falls into two categories; either use it until it is completely worn out, or trade it on a frequent schedule, maybe every two or three years while most components are either in warranty or won’t give you a problem.
I know an operator in Mississippi that has been trading his AT-502 every two years for a new one with a great degree of success. He performs one annual that is basically an inspection and rarely has to budget for parts and maintenance during the two years he owns the aircraft. He logs about a 1,000 hours on the aircraft and receives a premium for it on trade.
On the other side of the coin, I have seen operators do very well by keeping their aircraft well maintained and when needed, overhauling major components, such as the engine and prop, keeping up with the ADs, new paint, etc. Their maintenance expenses are considerably higher, but their depreciation and other related costs, like insurance, are less.
Each operator has to decide which avenue is the best for his operation. I do know that during good times, a business needs to upgrade its equipment so that the bad times are easier to navigate.
Changing the subject, I was reading an article not long ago where the U.S. EPA was proposing new rules that would affect the handling of the wastewater for deicing aircraft. Imagine that! I have often wondered how long it would be when deicing runoff concerns would impact the airlines and others.
If an ag operator was to allow any runoff of any kind and it was viewed by the public like when an airliner is hosed with deice fluid, the repercussion would be heard throughout our industry.
What is amazing is the proposed rules would only affect airports with more than 10,000 annual aircraft departures and 1,000 annual jet departures, requiring a re-capture of 60% of the fluid, rather than allowing it to drain off the pavement, where it can end up in nearby water systems.
Gosh, I suppose the other 40% has no affect on the water systems, huh? What about airports that have less than the 10,000/1,000 departures? Is the affect any different for half that many?
I know that in our industry even a one-aircraft loading area is subject to as much scrutiny as a fleet would be. Either the runoff is a problem or it is not. I can’t visualize “part of a runoff” being any less of an issue than all of the runoff. Maybe it’s some kind of dilution-thing calculation.
It just goes to show that the government does not work in an equal and fair manner. But, you already knew that. This only proves it. The airlines are already bankrupt for the most part, no sense in the EPA putting them out of business. That’d be a hardship on the flying population (read voters). I wonder if skyrocketing prices and limited availability of food and fiber would be a consideration for the EPA?
For my two cents worth, I think runoff should be contained, both for our industry and the rest of aviation. For ag-aviation, runoff looks bad, smells and is an all-around detriment to a professional operation. I know it is a problem and rainfall only exacerbates the issue, unless loading under cover. If you are doing any long range budgetary planning, you might need to figure in a covered loading pad, or one that is portable. Actually, covered loading areas are pretty nice. Your loader will love you for it!
Until next month,
Blue Sky and Tailwinds...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)