Farmers help a brotha out

[michigancat]

Also pretty LOL for farmers to claim to worry about feeding the world, when our ridiculous ag subsidies and policies completely undercut the ability of much of the third world to compete in the market and feed themselves.

This is true, but I wouldn't call those subsidies ridiculous. There is a huge strategic advantage to the United States subsidizing agriculture the way we do. Undercutting prices ensures that we supply food to most of the world. It's great for national security because we do not have to import much food and other nations do not want to see their cheap US food go away. Americans also pay next to nothing for food compared to most of the world, largely as a result of those ag subsidies.

Yeah, it's great for national security and American farmers and American consumers. I just don't like American farmers acting like world-feeding martyrs in the process.

[Rage Against the McKee]

We shouldn't subsidize to the point of keeping bad farmers in business, though. Agree on the strategic advantage part.

I haven't seen a lot of stats, but I'm always hearing gripes about how all of the subsidies go to large scale operations and the small-time farmer gets put at a disadvantage by them. I guess I had always assumed that these small-time disadvantaged farmers were the bad farmers blaming the government for their failures.

[MakeItRain]

I was thrilled to see this at two pages, not to thrilled to see that my question went unanswered.

BTW this article, more accurately blog entry or press release, was the second listed on the Google news search when I typed "farm bill" yesterday.

[michigancat]

I was thrilled to see this at two pages, not to thrilled to see that my question went unanswered.

BTW this article, more accurately blog entry or press release, was the second listed on the Google news search when I typed "farm bill" yesterday.

I think they're upset mostly that nothing will really change - corn, wheat, and sugar will continue to receive big subsidies while fruit and vegetable farmers mostly won't.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/fairness-why-fruits-vegetables-are-excluded-from-farm-subsidies/#.UOX1Znc5eGU

[MakeItRain]

Thank you.  I meant to mention how you, as usual, are killing it in this thread.

[CNS]

The fruit and veggie guys need to separate from the organic guys for the subsidies.  two diff political issues that happen to converge on a small group.

What I mean is that of course Veggies need better subsidies.   There is constantly discussion on outlets like NPR about how to increase the amt of veggies and fruits consumed and one reason always given is how expensive they are.  If the govt was sincere about taking steps to resolve America's health issues, subsidies to resolve the expense issue would be a good start.

As for the organic/soil ppl, they need to attack through some other method under the guise of environmentalism. 

The former is something that could have a chance in this political climate.  The latter is something that will be politically battled over like mad.

[06wildcat]

So I was looking for info on the farm bill and I came upon this.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-years-day-farm-bill-disappointing-0355.html

I really didn't feel like clicking 8 more links to get to the root of these people's beef.  Are they pissed at the lack of incentives for "organic" farmers?

I don't think the Union of Concerned Scientists consists of very many farmers. I haven't really read over the new farm bill, but I don't really have a problem with any of the concerns laid out in the linked article. I think the government should subsidize ag to maximize production of commodities and conserve water and soil to ensure we continue to have the cheapest food in the world. That doesn't really include subsidies for organic foods.

You can have the first or the second two, you can't have both.

Sure you can.

I suppose its possible. Not with the commodity crops grown in the U.S. but I suppose it's possible.

Compare an irrigated corn field in 1960 to an irrigated field in 2012 and you will find that the 2012 field has double the production using less water, with less soil erosion.

That's great, except that a bunch of corn/soybeans is grown on marginal land that need much more groundwater than could ever be replenished. Guess what, that describes almost all of the states west of the Mississippi, and every state in the Colorado River watershed.

Corn is subsidized at so many steps farmers will spend a shitload on water and fertilizer to grow it. There's no incentive to conserve water/soil with a natural ground cover/area appropriate crop.

And it also comes at the loss of native habitat for wildlife like upland game birds that decimates hunting tourism.

[Rage Against the McKee]

So I was looking for info on the farm bill and I came upon this.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-years-day-farm-bill-disappointing-0355.html

I really didn't feel like clicking 8 more links to get to the root of these people's beef.  Are they pissed at the lack of incentives for "organic" farmers?

I don't think the Union of Concerned Scientists consists of very many farmers. I haven't really read over the new farm bill, but I don't really have a problem with any of the concerns laid out in the linked article. I think the government should subsidize ag to maximize production of commodities and conserve water and soil to ensure we continue to have the cheapest food in the world. That doesn't really include subsidies for organic foods.

You can have the first or the second two, you can't have both.

Sure you can.

I suppose its possible. Not with the commodity crops grown in the U.S. but I suppose it's possible.

Compare an irrigated corn field in 1960 to an irrigated field in 2012 and you will find that the 2012 field has double the production using less water, with less soil erosion.

That's great, except that a bunch of corn/soybeans is grown on marginal land that need much more groundwater than could ever be replenished. Guess what, that describes almost all of the states west of the Mississippi, and every state in the Colorado River watershed.

Corn is subsidized at so many steps farmers will spend a shitload on water and fertilizer to grow it. There's no incentive to conserve water/soil with a natural ground cover/area appropriate crop.

And it also comes at the loss of native habitat for wildlife like upland game birds that decimates hunting tourism.

The value of hunting ground is dwarfed by the value of irrigated ag, and unless somebody comes up with a better use for that aquifer water, I suggest we keep using it to make America the strongest nation in the world until it runs out.

[06wildcat]

So you admit you don't give a crap about conservation, only ag money.

[Rage Against the McKee]

So you admit you don't give a crap about conservation, only ag money.

If your idea of conservation is only using renewable water in the west, then yes, I don't give a crap about your type of conservation. I care about conservation through efficiency. I personally enjoy not using a quarter of my paycheck to buy groceries.

[06wildcat]

So you admit you don't give a crap about conservation, only ag money.

If your idea of conservation is only using renewable water in the west, then yes, I don't give a crap about your type of conservation. I care about conservation through efficiency. I personally enjoy not using a quarter of my paycheck to buy groceries.

Future generations be damned. The resources are they to be used immediately.

[Rage Against the McKee]

So you admit you don't give a crap about conservation, only ag money.

If your idea of conservation is only using renewable water in the west, then yes, I don't give a crap about your type of conservation. I care about conservation through efficiency. I personally enjoy not using a quarter of my paycheck to buy groceries.

Future generations be damned. The resources are they to be used immediately.

They will be in the same place that the current generation would be if we stopped using those resources now. The renewable water in the west (LOL) will still be there for the future generations to use.

Actually future generations will be far better off than our current generation would be if we stopped using nonrenewable water today. They will have the benefit of the wealth that is currently being grown based upon our ag policies.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

So you admit you don't give a crap about conservation, only ag money.

If your idea of conservation is only using renewable water in the west, then yes, I don't give a crap about your type of conservation. I care about conservation through efficiency. I personally enjoy not using a quarter of my paycheck to buy groceries.

Future generations be damned. The resources are they to be used immediately.

LOL, that's rich coming from you Mr "federal debt doesn't matter"

[06wildcat]

So you admit you don't give a crap about conservation, only ag money.

If your idea of conservation is only using renewable water in the west, then yes, I don't give a crap about your type of conservation. I care about conservation through efficiency. I personally enjoy not using a quarter of my paycheck to buy groceries.

Future generations be damned. The resources are they to be used immediately.

LOL, that's rich coming from you Mr "federal debt doesn't matter"

It doesn't in the context you think it does.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

So you admit you don't give a crap about conservation, only ag money.

If your idea of conservation is only using renewable water in the west, then yes, I don't give a crap about your type of conservation. I care about conservation through efficiency. I personally enjoy not using a quarter of my paycheck to buy groceries.

Future generations be damned. The resources are they to be used immediately.

LOL, that's rich coming from you Mr "federal debt doesn't matter"

It doesn't in the context you think it does.

  Interest rates are going to increase once the economy is allowed to grow, and we could be looking at $1 trillion dollar interest payments by the time Obama is finished. More than 40% of that will go to overseas investors.

[ednksu]

So you admit you don't give a crap about conservation, only ag money.

If your idea of conservation is only using renewable water in the west, then yes, I don't give a crap about your type of conservation. I care about conservation through efficiency. I personally enjoy not using a quarter of my paycheck to buy groceries.

Future generations be damned. The resources are they to be used immediately.

LOL, that's rich coming from you Mr "federal debt doesn't matter"

It doesn't in the context you think it does.

  Interest rates are going to increase once the economy is allowed to grow, and we could be looking at $1 trillion dollar interest payments by the time Obama is finished. More than 40% of that will go to overseas investors.

you have no idea what is going on.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

So you admit you don't give a crap about conservation, only ag money.

If your idea of conservation is only using renewable water in the west, then yes, I don't give a crap about your type of conservation. I care about conservation through efficiency. I personally enjoy not using a quarter of my paycheck to buy groceries.

Future generations be damned. The resources are they to be used immediately.

LOL, that's rich coming from you Mr "federal debt doesn't matter"

It doesn't in the context you think it does.

  Interest rates are going to increase once the economy is allowed to grow, and we could be looking at $1 trillion dollar interest payments by the time Obama is finished. More than 40% of that will go to overseas investors.

you have no idea what is going on.

 

[ChiComCat]

I like to get my fruits and veggies from Farmer's markets.  I am a much bigger believer in buying locally than organic.