What is your opinon on corporate/large farming operations?

The whole notion of a "Corporate Farm" being a group of rich, faceless investors, and hired help, is mostly inaccurate.

While most (if not nearly all), farming operations are indeed "Corporations", they are owned and operated by farming families, as they have always been.


http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/ag_sy..._overview.html

And operations with over a million in sales, in todays market, may only be farming 1000-1500 acres!!! And they may be investing 900 000 dollars or so to get the million dollar revenue. Not really a 'million dollar farm', just a farm producing a million dollars worth of product, with maybe a net income of an average American, or Canadian. Just so people don't paint farms with million dollar sales as millionaires.

When I was in high school, we farm kids outnumbered city kids. All were on "family farms". Some of those were what were considered BIG farms with 50-60 cows. Our barn had only 38 stanchions but our farm was also only one of 11 on that road which had what later became a symbol of a big farm, 2 silos. It's now the only farm on that road with 3 silos and milking 100 head with Kenyan labor. Look at the symbol which was chosen to represent the purpose behind this forum. It's a barn with TWO silos!

About 5 miles west of there is one of 3 farms owned by 3 brothers and 2 sons of one of them. They milk 2,250. No milk cooler on any of the farms as milk goes straight into a tanker. Manure lagoons are almost an acre in size. They are each family farms united only by being registered under the same dairy name, Blue Star Dairy Farms. They are not something that is tolerated by the other local farmers as simply being there but as a part of the whole picture. The millions of gallons of manure need to be spread somewhere and the cattle have to eat. As soon as wheat and other grains are harvested and manure hauling begins. That crew is 3 drivers manning 8,500 gallon spreaders. Some is on a cash basis but most on what will come back later. Of late, the return has been a huge wagon about every hour or so with 17 big round bales of corn fodder. Yes, everyone is making a little money but that's the #1 hope of every farmer no matter if he owns 80 or 800 acres.

But since the topic question asked for opinion on corporate or large farming, my many years of involvement with farms or farm-related work cause me to scream as loud as I may that more and bigger is the only way to go. From 1866 to 1939, national corn average was static at around 25 bushels per acre. In one year we went from that to over 100. That meant 4 times as many animals could be supported on the same acreage. Since ear corn then was mainly to feed hogs and chickens, that meant more pork and eggs for those city folk who could not raise hogs and chickens. There's land around here that can now produce 250 and a few hog and chicken operations to match. Word among those involved is that even that must double within the next 50 years. If only I could live long enough to see it!

Farmers can't control the number of people that they have to serve when those people are breeding like voles but somebody is expected to feed them. As one previous poster stated, 7 billion now or 1 billion later. The minority who manage much of the worldwide farmland are doing a magnificent job of trying to squeeze out one more quart of milk or grow one more bushel of wheat to keep up with what the majority demand. If anyone is against that, forgive me for hoping that most of them will be among the 6 billion missing when the system collapses. I may have one hellacious garden to keep Sandra and I alive but it won't do much for anyone else who is hungry. We'll water it with the blood of the starving thieves and use their carcasses for fertilizer. That's exactly what will happen when "biting the hand that feeds you" becomes more than just an old adage and fills your belly but one time.

Bottom line on this diarrhea of words? If you don't like knowing that you probably sat down to a good meal last night and most of it was produced by someone else, don't knock it. You had it and that was all that mattered at the moment and means that you will wake up tomorrow without your first concern being to find something else to eat. Having had parents who managed through the "Great Depression", and several times having been virtually bankrupt, I long ago learned that to prepare for and always to follow "better to be looking AT something than looking FOR something". We are fortunate in being able to look AT a huge amount of food in various forms of storage. We hope that we shall never have to deal with those who are looking FOR our food. For those who do not appreciate those who have done so much and then be subject to so much criticism, 72 hours with an empty digestive system may enduce a major attitude change! At that point, one is not going to concern himself if the relief is a single goat or from 2,250 cows.

Martin

Farm-state lawmakers pushing new farm subsidy

__________________
~*~Erin~*~
SAHM, ranch wife, sub and quilt shop proprietress
the Back Gate Country Quilt Shop

You americans and your subsidies!!!!

ErinP> Corn and soybean farmers are pushing for — and Congress is moving to create — a whole new subsidy that could maintain farm incomes at a nearly four-decade high should prices fall or crops be destroyed by weather.........Growers get the direct payments regardless of crop yields or prices. They don't even have to farm.



That's a rather poor edit job there, Erin. You took quote from the new envisioned program, and a quote from the old program, and mashed them together as if they are all in one program. It would be either or, which you seem to be fudging a bit.

Then, the story writer got it wrong as well - The direct Payment goes to the grower (which means the guy planting & harvesting the crop). So - clearly the payment gets paid to the grower, not a land owner who isn't farming........

Myself - I'm a corn/soybean farmer in the USA - I think the Direct Payment is the govt bribe to keep us always signing up with the govt and giving them free info on what we are doing. It _does_ get passed on to the govt in the form of land taxes, or to land owners in the form of higher rents, so really it is of no benifit to farmers themselves. While I certainly sign up for it, I'd be fine with it coming to an end.

Again, myself, I hate the insurance subsidy programs they currently have, and would dislike even more of those types of programs, which the govt is actually pushing. I don't know that 'most corn farmers' really want that either?????

Of all the farm programs - Direct Payment, LDP, and Crop Insurance Subsidies, they could end all those for my part. Then expand the current Counter Cyclical program, which rarely pays off anything, but it is a life (well, farm-) saver when it does. Counter-Cyclical takes the year long average crop price, and pays a farmer a subsidy if that price falls below 'farm poverty' levels.

I think most of you would sorta agree with that sort of a farm program, that does help out our food supply and farmers of any size, when crop prices go real bad?

The govt prefers the insurance subsidies, they don't like to bail out farmers when crops go bad - drought or flood or the like. But this gets the govt and insurance companies in bed with each other, and the farmer becomes besides the point..... It also makes bankers happy, because they can quantify loan risk much better, and so they can make farm loans.

For 'just farmers' we would do well to have a well thought out Counter Cyclical program as a small part of the farm program is; and have a 'bad weather' sort of bailout for truely bad weather issues in a region. Those 2 things would help out farmers when there is need, but not supply cash year in & year out. I think it would cover the 2 pasic needs - ultra low crop prices, and bad disaterous weather.

Make any sense? It's hard to understand the current farm program, I know.

--->Paul

It's not hard if you allow yourself to recognize the trend.

At some point, they will come and say, "we've bought your farm, now farm it for us or get off".

__________________
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater.
III

Totally agree.

I think we should let the chips fall where they may, and if folks (by the millions) die of starvation, well that's just the way it is.

After a year of starvation, the surviving farmers might finally get the Holy Grail... set their own prices, instead of accepting whatever the market is willing to give. I know you know this, but most folks don't.... if the harvest is bad everywhere, the farmer will still eat, and people would be willing to do anything or pay anything to get food....

__________________
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. Seneca
Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival. W. Edwards Deming

What I've never been able to understand in the past few years is how this forum went from being pro-farming to anti-farming. Farmers used to be very welcome here. They didn't have to defend their choice of crops nor their manner of how they grow them. Many good ones left because so many others tried to dictate what they grow and how to grow it. The ultimate was 4 or 5 years ago when farmers growing corn for ethanol were blamed for a supposed vegetable seed shortage. I was even criticized for owning a flex-fuel vehicle!

My advice then is the same that I will give now to those who don't like how American and Canadian farmers are managing their land. YOU buy the land and YOU decide what YOU want to grow and how YOU want to do it. In the meantime, be thankful that they all don't suddenly decide to take next year off.

Martin

The human race seems to be developing a lemming mentality. We constantly try to regulate ourselves into ruins, Or dismantle our food production system. Why can't we rejoice in our ability to kick tail grow alot of food. Lets try and keep our libert intact, if i want to grow GMO corn good for me if you want to grow organic whatever, good.

__________________
www.theidahoagripreneur.blogspot.com

Personally, I'm very much pro-farmer.
I'm just sick to death of paying people billions of dollars, literally, to prop up their enterprises.
No one props up mine, why should I prop up theirs??
For that matter, I'm not even entirely against giving welfare to farmers. I just think (like all other welfare programs, actually) there should be a lifetime cap.
You shouldn't be able to make a few million off US tax dollars just because you're fortunate enough to own a few thousand acres of corn fields...

Paul, I wasn't fudging in the slightest. I just misread.
My apologies.

The current system is absolutely moronic. It's the biggest welfare program in the country.
The proposed one would be equally stupid in that we're supposed to maintain the "record prices" we're currently seeing!


Most of the world doesn't artificially support their ag industry.
Why do we??
For that matter, why are there entire sectors of the ag. industry that receive little to no subsidies and are still able to make a living?

__________________
~*~Erin~*~
SAHM, ranch wife, sub and quilt shop proprietress
the Back Gate Country Quilt Shop

A problem exists in that non-farmers are so coddled that they think that the same applies to the farmers. Non-farmers have jobs which guarantee that they will have an income next week or next month or next year. If their job income stops, they have unemployment insurance income. If their income isn't up to a certain level, working or not, they get food stamps and are eligible for a lot of other aid while exerting little physical effort to get it. Depending upon the type of farming operations, it may be up to 16 hours a day and 7 days a week. And all that in hopes of the farm turning a profit 3 out of 5 years. A drought year in Missouri might be a boon for farmers in Iowa. Following year, deluges in Iowa might mean be a boon for farmers in Minnesota. Late frost in Minnesota may mean a boon farmers in Wisconsin. Ideally, it all works out nationally since we are such a large nation. Nevertheless, farm auctions continue to take place in every farming area as more and more can't maintain the pace. Foolish to not give up when they can move to the city and be guaranteed to never have to work again!

Martin

Martin, I've spent the vast majority of my life in production agriculture.
I assure you, I have developed my opinion based on firsthand information.

__________________
~*~Erin~*~
SAHM, ranch wife, sub and quilt shop proprietress
the Back Gate Country Quilt Shop

[QUOTE=ErinP;5502296]I'm just sick to death of paying people billions of dollars, literally, to prop up their enterprises.
No one props up mine, why should I prop up theirs?
QUOTE]

How do you feel about wind energy? US govt pays 1/3 of each windmill you see. As well as supporting the infrastructure with transmission line easements and subsidies.

Cars & trucks get a lot of breaks with road construction, gasoline and crude subsidies for exploration, pipeline building, etc.

Airplane manufaturerers get big handouts.

Airports and airlines get their share.

In fact, most any business gets a handout.

I agree it's silly, but - why should farmers be the only ones we complain about here, and not your line of work, or any of the others that get big handouts?

Just asking, no big chip on my shoulder, but farmers seem to be the only one's who are to get cuts?

You support the windmill subsidy but not farmers?

--->Paul

I thinkyou are unintentionally right, but you probably dont understand how ironic and unintended your comment is.

'The Farm Program' in the USA contains the Food Stamp Program (goes by another name now?) and several other social programs like it. About 80% of 'The Farm Program' budget goes to these welfare programs.

Another 5-7% goes towards administration of all the 'Farm Program' programs.

That leaves perhaps 10% that goes directly to farmers. And that 15% is not 'welfare', it is a business subsidy. As is the money sent to windmills, airplane manufaturerers, auto and bank and hospital and store owners. Youknow here in Minnesota, they condemed the land of 2 auto dealers, and gave that land to Best Buy to build a big corporate center? So if you happen to work as a checkout for Best Buy, your job too is subsidised by government dollars - they do that sort of thing on smaller scale for individual stores.....

So, yes, the 'Farm Program' is one of the biggest welfare hander outers, but farmers get a small percentage of their budget as well - not as welfare tho.

Your comment was partly unintended humor, and partly unintended insult - harder to have a nice conversation when you throw out words like 'welfare' and such when you are incorrect but mean it in a bad way.

Unintended perhaps, but - it's still there.

Welfare goes to individuals in need. Subsidies go to businesses that the govt feels needs help for one reason or another. They are 2 different things, with different goals, and different rules. If you choose to ignore the differences, it is difficult to have an adult conversation about it.

--->Paul

You might look into China, Russia, France, Japan, Brazil, Argintina, really most of Europe....... Mexico too.

Think you have an education there. Several of these countries do it differently, in a more socialistic way, but the net result is the exact same.

--->Paul

A simple response to that would be that those dollars are an assurance that those enterprises may be there next year.

Martin

Erin, I'm not picking on you here! You just expressed some ideas in a fairly understandable and calm way, so I enjoy the conversation with you. Thanks.

Grains are a bulk commodity, sold around the world. We are a slave to that, whether we want to or not. Just like oil, steel, lumber, fertilizer, etc. It just is.

As long as the world ecconomies are as they are - USA dollar in the dumpster, Pasific Rim countries doing pretty good - All of these commodities will be valued very high in USA dollars.

These insurance programs are designed to garentee a current set income per acre based on the history of that filed, and the prevailing crop prices for the year. They use some complicated averaging of grain prices, and your 5 year history of crop production. So yes, right now, it would garentee the current high (in USA dollars) value. In a few years if/when grain prices drop in USA dollar value, then so will fertilizer, steel, rubber, fuel, and then of course these programs will garentee whatever the urrent - at that time - vlalue of a crop will be. They do not in any way lock in today's value of corn forever more - each year starts new, with new target values of the crops.

Just like if you got insurance for your house - you can buy a cheaper policy for the value of the house - what it cost to build minus depreciation - but that means you won't be able to rebuild a new house if yours burns down.

Or you can buy a more expensive 'replacement' policy so if your house burns down, you get a similar one built to replace what you lost. Since house values have gone down, house insurance polices have adjusted too.

Lielwise with the crop insurance policies.

They would _not_ garentee %6 corn forever, even if corn follas to $2.00 again - the insurance would also fall to those values.

--->Paul

Three reasons.

USA livestock generally benefit from subsidies to grain farmers. Livestock growers benefit from the low-priced, stable grain supply. They actually share in the Farm Program, tho the dollars don't go to them. Not mny will admit this, but it is true - how many cattle, dairy, and poultry producers laughed and said they can't afford to grow corn and soybean meal for as cheap as grain farmers sold it to them back in the low cycles.....

Fresh fruits and veggies are on a different pay scale in the USA than bulk commodity grains. Fruits and veggies can't be stored, shipped, and traded across the world quite like grains can. While a lot of fruits are imported intot he USA, it still isn't the same deal.

Fruits and veggies don't have to compete with the rest of the world so much, and are more directly sold to the consumer.


And, the USA has used food as a weapon two times. Nixon & Carter. This has destroyed our creadability and ability to sell grains to other countries. China and Japan turned to South America after that, Soviet Union worked on other deals and left our markets. The USA govt deeply, horribly, totally destroyed the grain market in this country 2 times in my lifetime..... They owe grain farmers something for doing that to them. Livestock, fruit & veggie sectors of ag have never faced anything like that.

--->Paul

Why do you call govt subsidies to a businress 'welfare'? Totally different things. I think thst is what prevents you from understanding them. They are not welfare programs to farmers - this was actually proven in court, thanks to EWG.

Like any subsidy to a business, they need to be provided to all in that business, not here & there. There are limits on how much one can recieve, the past 3-4 years it is a troubling bit of paperwork to go through with sharing IRS forms and such.

But how would a lifetime cap work, or why, or to what purpose?

The farm programs do not give 100 dollars to a farmer.

They give 12 dollars to an acre, or 7 cents to a bushel of corn, or 12 cents to a bushel of soybeans.

People are irrelevent in a business subsidy, it's not about the farmer. It's about the business, about what is produced. USA wants cheap plentiful food, and the way they get that is to subsidize the food production - they subsidize the bushels of corn, soybeans wheat. Purtting caps on things would then mean you are subsidizing people and not caring about production. Your plan would be very counter productive to what the USA wants - cheap plentiful food. It's not about the farmer, never has been.

It's abot ensuring cheap plentiful food supplies. Keep corn, beans, and wheat cheap and oversupplied, and everything else falls into place - if fruits veggies and meat get a little in short supply or over supplied, thart willw ork itself out quickly - AS LONG AS people can turn to cheap staples to create more meats, and even out the veggies/fruits supply with pastas and such.

This isn't a haphazard plan - it's been worked out over a century to regulate food supply in a fairly even supply.

If we stop subsidising grains, and start subsidising only some farmers you approve of, _then_ we are all in trouble, then it will be welfare, and the then we are in for a wild price and supply situation with food.

I think many of us need to understand all this a whole lot better, before we get what we think we want.

It would be bad.....


Now, as I said before, there is alot to dislike in the farm program, and we could cut out a lot of it and retool that 'counter cyclical' portion of it, and instead of insurance offer disaster aid for major weather issues as we used to do - and the farm program would be a little cheaper, and more resemble what you probably want it to look like, and I'd agree those would be good things. What we have can sure be improved!

But be careful to retain the point of the farm program, when you ask for major changes in it - you would actually be creating a welfare system with your ideas, and hurting the stable food supply point of the program.

Just some thoughts, appreciate the conversation, you presented a lot of different thoughts there so I broke them into individual ideas, hope you don't mind. Gets confusing to try to put everything in one message.

--->Paul