Corporate farming
In public discourse, the term "corporate farming" lacks a firmly established definition and is variously applied.
The family and the farm are linked, coevolve and combine economic, environmental, reproductive, social and cultural functions.
Beyond just the farm contractors mentioned above, these types of companies commonly considered part of the term include Cargill, Monsanto, and DuPont Pioneer among others.
While this is technically incorrect, it is widely considered substantively accurate because including these companies in the term "corporate farming" is necessary to describe their real influence over agriculture.
[18] Family farms maintain traditions including environmental stewardship and taking longer views than companies seeking profits.
Family farmers may have greater knowledge about soil and crop types, terrains, weather and other features specific to particular local areas of land can be passed from parent to child over generations, which would be harder for corporate managers to grasp.
In the 1970s, similar laws were passed in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
[29] In 1982, after failure to pass an anti–corporate farming law, the citizens of Nebraska enacted by initiative a similar amendment into their state constitution.
[31] The precise wording of these laws has significant impact on how corporations can participate in agriculture in these states with the ultimate goal of protecting and empowering the family farm.
[34] Corporate farming has begun to take hold in some African countries, where listed companies such as Zambeef, Zambia are operated by MBAs as large businesses.
In some cases, this has caused debates about land ownership where shares have been bought by international investors, especially from China.
Some oil-rich middle east countries operate corporate farming including large-scale irrigation of desert lands for cropping, sometimes through partially or fully state-owned companies, especially with regards to water resource management.
