Can American soil be brought back to life?

[Belz...]

Maybe we should feed them with blood?

Isn't that what the tiki-torch protesters want?

Blood and Soil?

I thought it was Fire and Blood.

Or was it Earth and Water?

 

[Spindrift]

No these guys are not beholden to either the Republicans nor the Democrats. They have bought both. We rebelled against an English aristocratic oligarchy combined with the East India Company to form this country, but now we have fallen into the exact same trap.



Sound familiar? Have we now our own mega-corporations "too big to fail"?

Why do you suppose the farmer subsidies are actually paid to financial institutions and not the actual farmers? Maybe to prevent farmers from actually profiting from a subsidy? Instead the financial institutions will gain that profit.

As for my friends processing plant, he certainly never wanted to build it or own it and only did so when forced. It's a huge risk that might open him up to bankruptcy. He is a farmer. Not the first farmer attempting to get past that roadblock. Most loose that bet. I wish him the best. It's not a risk I personally would take though.

Why are farmer subsidies not paid to farmers? I don't understand that.

Doesn't really answer my question about what are the "odious regulatory burdens".

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No offense intended, but I think a lot of this is nonsense. If you want to say that corporate interests are vested in maintaining present policies and representatives from both parties are beholden to them then ok. But I think that is all it is.

That said, if there is to be reform in agricultural policies they have to start with the farmers. And I am sorry, but it can't start out by promoting war with progressives. And the policies must include specific proposals and the benefits of those proposals. It also must explain clearly the issues with the status quo.

Fine, you want to word it that way to make you feel better about it, consider it done. I suppose we could agree it is pork barrel politics? I personally would throw the whole lot of them in jail just like they did to Butz. (Butz knowing he was taking a bribe decided not to pay taxes on his bribes. They threw him in jail for tax evasion rather than taking bribes. Whatever.)

As I said before it is not an issue that has a political party. It is equal corruption from both parties. That's why it still exists to this day unencumbered by either party gaining control of either the presidency or the congress.

As for defining the problem I believe I did just that and before me the OP article. We are paying billions of dollars annually to over produce corn and soy. Far more corn and soy than is even possible for every man woman and child in the whole entire world to possibly eat. To rid ourself of this glut we then have put ridiculously inefficient models of production in other things as standard. Like corn ethanol, and CAFOs for animal husbandry. Both are models of inefficiency. The only thing they do efficiently is wastefully as possible get rid of the corn and soy glut. (Yeah I know it's painful to even think in such a convoluted way)

Did you know that all the corn ethanol we make is so inefficient that we must sell it on the international market to places like Brazil and then import our ethanol from them? (Made with grasses, typically sugarcane grass) Bet you didn't know that! US ethanol is ranked so low, when it is used even after the billions of dollars of subsidies, it is still sold at a loss.

I had a guy this year representing a co-op of farmers that had bought and built a ethanol plant come to me to ask how in the world I could help them avoid this insanity. (I couldn't. They are too trapped by their own infrastructure)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Why are farmer subsidies not paid to farmers? I don't understand that.

Doesn't really answer my question about what are the "odious regulatory burdens".

The strategy is to keep farmers as poor as possible without actually pushing too many into bankruptcy. They want to push only the small farms into bankruptcy so they can be taken over by their larger farmer neighbors. Those neighbors forced to expand their acreage beyond what they can properly manage due to such a slim margin per acre if everything goes right. That was the plan as devised by Butz and for some incredibly stupid reason it has continued to be the plan long after he is gone dead and buried.

His "get big or get out" strategy of destabilizing small farms financially is still in effect to this day. But if a farmer were to take the subsidy directly then he would have the possibility, if he was very very very careful, to get off that insane merry go round and that must be avoided at all costs. So the crop insurance "welfare" plan was devised so that farmers can't ever profit from the government subsidy. They only receive payment following a loss.

 

[Mikemcc]

That is partially correct but the primary subsidies are designed to keep the highest possible over production of corn and soy, even when it is the least efficient crop paying the poorest profit.

There is both a carrot and a stick. The subsidies are the carrot, come this way and receive guarantees in the form of crop insurance. The insurance guarantees both floor price and yields....with the caveat that only GAP approved methods are eligible for the crop insurance, and only those crops directed by the USDA....which is still stuck on overproduction of corn and soy regardless of the radically lower efficiency.

The stick besides the GAP stick is regulations preventing vast areas from raising animals like beef pigs and chickens on the land. The reason for those regulations are because the industrial model, although far far less efficient, needs those animals raised in confinement to use up the part of the excess corn and soy production being subsidized! So if a farmer does actually bring the animals back to his farm,(integrated farms are massively more efficient as waste streams from one side feed the other side of the operation) in many cases over vast areas of the former great plain states, there is no way to legally process and sell the animals! He simply can't legally do it, so therefore he is stuck growing corn and taking the subsidies that just barely keep the bank foreclosure away 1 more year...hopefully.

My apologies , my Google-fu appears to be weak, but WTF is a beef pig?

 

[Spindrift]

The strategy is to keep farmers as poor as possible without actually pushing too many into bankruptcy. They want to push only the small farms into bankruptcy so they can be taken over by their larger farmer neighbors. Those neighbors forced to expand their acreage beyond what they can properly manage due to such a slim margin per acre if everything goes right. That was the plan as devised by Butz and for some incredibly stupid reason it has continued to be the plan long after he is gone dead and buried.

His "get big or get out" strategy of destabilizing small farms financially is still in effect to this day. But if a farmer were to take the subsidy directly then he would have the possibility, if he was very very very careful, to get off that insane merry go round and that must be avoided at all costs. So the crop insurance "welfare" plan was devised so that farmers can't ever profit from the government subsidy. They only receive payment following a loss.

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting this.

What regulations are forcing the small farms into bankruptcy?

If it's insurance why would it pay if there wasn't a loss?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

My apologies , my Google-fu appears to be weak, but WTF is a beef pig?

No one likes a grammar NAZI, but my apologies for writing quickly. You are correct. That should say beef, pork, and poultry; and have the proper punctuation.

 

[Spindrift]

No one likes a grammar NAZI, .

That's uncalled for. Unfortunately nowadays farming and agriculture terminology is not as familiar as it used to be, so 'beef pig' looks like it could be some special kind of pig to the (sub)urbanite. I'd bet a vast majority don't know the difference between a bull and a steer.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting this.

What regulations are forcing the small farms into bankruptcy?

If it's insurance why would it pay if there wasn't a loss?

The regulatory burden is designed to prevent the farmer from producing "value added" goods or services. They are so odious a farmer cant even slice a tomato at a farmers market to offer a free taste test. It then becomes a "processed" tomato and a huge set of regulations so vast they could fill a small library come into play.

That leaves the farmer with producing commodity crops only. In a good year corn nets MAYBE 300 dollars an acre as long as all the equipment like tractors combines etc..are paid for and never break down. So at best in the magnificently lucky best years a farmer with 100 acres of prime fertile highly productive land has an income of $30,000. Most years are far far far far worse. Forget about even trying to buy a 100 acre farm unless you are a neighbor with 1000 acres next door.

For a long time those farmers instead grew specialty truck farm products like tomatoes. But the processors all made a deal to pull out and move to California in the late 1970's early 1980's. Since a farmer can not so much as slice a tomato without being charged with ridiculous fines, up to and including jail time, and California is too far to ship ripe Indiana/New Jersey production tomatoes, that farmer is forced out of business and his farm sold to either developers and/or the corn and soy farmer next door. Do that enough times across the entire country and it explains why:

In 1945 27% of farmers in US were forced to work off farm to earn a decent living. By 2002 93% of farmers had off-farm income to make ends meet.

Source: Compiled by Economic
Research Service, USDA, using
data from Census of Agriculture
and Census of the United States

In 2012 the average age of farmers was 58.3 with over 20 times more farmers over age 75 as under 25. This has been growing steadily every year, as income:cost of living ratio has dropped. When new young farmers can’t afford to get in, old farmers can’t retire. 52.2% of those farmers principle income off farm and only 46.1% of farmers with net positive income from farming.

Source: USDA-NASS, Census of Agriculture

In 1950 farmers received 41% of the food dollar spent by consumers. Now it is 17.4% on average. Certain things like commodity grains even as low as 3%.

Source: USDA-ERS

 

[Spindrift]

The regulatory burden is designed to prevent the farmer from producing "value added" goods or services. They are so odious a farmer cant even slice a tomato at a farmers market to offer a free taste test. It then becomes a "processed" tomato and a huge set of regulations so vast they could fill a small library come into play.

That leaves the farmer with producing commodity crops only. In a good year corn nets MAYBE 300 dollars an acre as long as all the equipment like tractors combines etc..are paid for and never break down. So at best in the magnificently lucky best years a farmer with 100 acres of prime fertile highly productive land has an income of $30,000. Most years are far far far far worse. Forget about even trying to buy a 100 acre farm unless you are a neighbor with 1000 acres next door.

For a long time those farmers instead grew specialty truck farm products like tomatoes. But the processors all made a deal to pull out and move to California in the late 1970's early 1980's. Since a farmer can not so much as slice a tomato without being charged with ridiculous fines, up to and including jail time, and California is too far to ship ripe Indiana/New Jersey production tomatoes, that farmer is forced out of business and his farm sold to either developers and/or the corn and soy farmer next door. Do that enough times across the entire country and it explains why:

In 1945 27% of farmers in US were forced to work off farm to earn a decent living. By 2002 93% of farmers had off-farm income to make ends meet.

Source: Compiled by Economic
Research Service, USDA, using
data from Census of Agriculture
and Census of the United States

In 2012 the average age of farmers was 58.3 with over 20 times more farmers over age 75 as under 25. This has been growing steadily every year, as income:cost of living ratio has dropped. When new young farmers can’t afford to get in, old farmers can’t retire. 52.2% of those farmers principle income off farm and only 46.1% of farmers with net positive income from farming.

Source: USDA-NASS, Census of Agriculture

In 1950 farmers received 41% of the food dollar spent by consumers. Now it is 17.4% on average. Certain things like commodity grains even as low as 3%.

Source: USDA-ERS

You keep talking about the regulations and their results and burdens, but what are they and how do they work? (Or don't work, as may be the case.)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You keep talking about the regulations and their results and burdens, but what are they and how do they work? (Or don't work, as may be the case.)

I honestly don't know if I can explain it to you. You seem to know so little about the subject I can't seem to be able to simplify it down into something you can understand.

Potentially someone who understands business and has better communication skills than me can help you out there.

Just suffice it to say that requiring an individual farmer to purchase and build a multi million dollar processing plant so he can sell his tomatoes or chickens is ridiculous, and you will find damn few farmers even make the attempt.

A few try to do it based on traditional methods and most of them either face heavy fines or jail time.

 

[Elagabalus]

The strategy is to keep farmers as poor as possible without actually pushing too many into bankruptcy. They want to push only the small farms into bankruptcy so they can be taken over by their larger farmer neighbors. Those neighbors forced to expand their acreage beyond what they can properly manage due to such a slim margin per acre if everything goes right. That was the plan as devised by Butz and for some incredibly stupid reason it has continued to be the plan long after he is gone dead and buried.

His "get big or get out" strategy of destabilizing small farms financially is still in effect to this day. But if a farmer were to take the subsidy directly then he would have the possibility, if he was very very very careful, to get off that insane merry go round and that must be avoided at all costs. So the crop insurance "welfare" plan was devised so that farmers can't ever profit from the government subsidy. They only receive payment following a loss.

This sounds rather fanciful. Are you sure this isn't just an Oklahoma thing?

https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2016/02/26/slaughterhouse-shortage-in-the-u-s/

Click on sidebar maps.


Most of the States have an 1000 to 20,000 exemption for poultry.


And most States have Custom/on-farm slaughter Laws with Oklahoma having the most restrictive for beef.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This sounds rather fanciful. Are you sure this isn't just an Oklahoma thing?

https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2016/02/26/slaughterhouse-shortage-in-the-u-s/

Click on sidebar maps.


Most of the States have an 1000 to 20,000 exemption for poultry.


And most States have Custom/on-farm slaughter Laws with Oklahoma having the most restrictive for beef.

Lets see you claim it is fanciful and maybe only in OK but then link to an article on a lawyer advocacy page (required as the regulations are so vast) titled "Slaughterhouse Shortage in the U.S."

What exactly are you missing? Does shortage have a different meaning in the rest of the country?

 

[Spindrift]

I honestly don't know if I can explain it to you. You seem to know so little about the subject I can't seem to be able to simplify it down into something you can understand.

Potentially someone who understands business and has better communication skills than me can help you out there.

Just suffice it to say that requiring an individual farmer to purchase and build a multi million dollar processing plant so he can sell his tomatoes or chickens is ridiculous, and you will find damn few farmers even make the attempt.

A few try to do it based on traditional methods and most of them either face heavy fines or jail time.

I'm seeing capitalism not government regulation here.

Please give me a specific government regulation that is causing the issues you are talking about.

 

[Elagabalus]

Lets see you claim it is fanciful and maybe only in OK but then link to an article on a lawyer advocacy page (required as the regulations are so vast) titled "Slaughterhouse Shortage in the U.S."

What exactly are you missing? Does shortage have a different meaning in the rest of the country?

Yes. Poorly worded by me. I wasn't arguing about the slaughterhouse shortage only that the anecdotes that you provided up thread (poultry quotas, beef laws, etc.) seemed specific to your locale and not to the entire US.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Yes. Poorly worded by me. I wasn't arguing about the slaughterhouse shortage only that the anecdotes that you provided up thread (poultry quotas, beef laws, etc.) seemed specific to your locale and not to the entire US.

Details can be specific, the premise is not regional at all. It is nationwide.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm seeing capitalism not government regulation here.

Please give me a specific government regulation that is causing the issues you are talking about.

I already did, you didn't understand, please ask someone who is better at explaining these realities to you for help. I will just get angry and start calling you names like idiot etc.... We don't want to start that here because mostly so far this is a relatively friendly thread as political threads go.

I am serious. My brain can't conceive of a way to simplify it any easier for you than I already have done. If you still can't figure it out then please ask someone else why slicing a single tomato for a free taste test sample requires a multi-million dollar facility would significantly hamper any attempt by a farmer to even try to provide his goods in even the tiniest value added form.