Cash-Strapped Farmers Say Screw Conservation

Well, I'm not a farmer, never was, nor will be. And Kman2 seems to have covered the high ground -- from his point of view. I only know the statistics I've read, that 66% of American farmers receive nothing. Maybe that is right, or wrong? What do you trust?

I've had relatives in the states that were paid not to grow. I just wonder, why did no one ever pay me not to work?

Since I came to Australia, I've seen times where the market price of a product was not 'good enough' so farmers plow the crop under. One year it was tomatos, one year grapes. Et bloody cetera. So I ask myself, how is 100% of nothing a Good Thing?

Or, even, how is 2 million more quackers a Good Thing for the consumer? 'Tis a puzzle.

Now, this old geezer (born in 1936) remembers 'in the day' when farmers overproduced, and railed against the law of supply and demand. And FDR came along with the first farm bill, a gift that has never failed to take from some and give to some others. So, yeah, I'm only human -- if someone had come along to me years ago and said, we'll pay you not to work, I probably would have signed up. Or subsidized a premium of what I did, yay!

part 3--American farmers and ranchers are being fed to the U.S. based international corporate sharks by their own public officials, commodity organizations, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. Our traditional system of independent, farmer and rancher owned food and fiber production is being destroyed and dismantled in favor of the industrialized, top down corporate owned and controlled version of the failed former Soviet model.

By JOHN HANSEN
President, Nebraska Farmers Union

As a recent New York Times article on ag subsidies clearly shows, family farm agriculture is now reaping the public perception and political backlash that the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, National Soybean Growers, National Association of Wheat Growers, and the U.S. based grain traders set us up for and created in 1996.

They transformed traditional farm programs from price supporting programs that forced the grain traders to pay up for grain commodities, which caused the cost of farm programs to be relatively low, and the majority of farm income to be realized through the cash market into income transfer programs that look, feel, and taste like welfare programs to most observers.

The fact that the actual structure is a "make up allowance" of sorts for lost market place value lost is seldom if ever recognized. The common perception becomes the reality, which is the current structure of farm programs is politically indefensible and fiscally vulnerable, just as Farmers Union said it was in the 1996 Farm Bill battle.

Part 2--When we compare the 1996 value of the national production of six crops: Corn, Wheat, Soybeans, Grain Sorghum, Rice, and Cotton for the years 1997 through 2003, farmers were paid an average of $14.6 billion less for their crops. That amounts to $102.45 billion less money the raw material processors paid farmers for their crops during the 1997-2003 period.

So, who are the primary beneficiaries of the "farm subsidies"? Not the family farmers who lost more market place value than they got in income transfers -- and produced most of their crops most years at below the USDA's Economic Research Service estimated cost of production. Not the consumers who did not pay proportionally less for the processed food products they bought. The food processors and food retailers.

They continue to steal raw material food production from farmers and ranchers for below full cost of production, with the help of our national farm and trade policy, which continues to be driven and supported by the food industry conglomerates with the political support of the very organizations that are supposed to be representing America's family farmers and ranchers.

What is worse, the very same set of big agribusiness players and their political supporters are now positioned to use the growing federal deficit and the direction of WTO negotiations to further carry out their self serving economic agenda to reduce and eliminate domestic income supports which are now called "subsidies". Congress and the White House support this agenda.

Biofuels = Starving the Poor.
Pass it on.

This story brings to mind a number of things but the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions comes to mind". Taking land out of conservation, increased top soil erosion,increased carbon footprint, increased toxicity spread on the land...and all to fuel our cars, it would seem while keeping the price of food high.
I encourage anyone who finds this ridiculous situation to be a reflection of the general level of screwed-up management when done by large organizations to consider what would happen if we were to institute large scale no-till agriculture...and bear in mind it's ability to sequester more carbon than all the smoke stacks and tailpipes can produce while enriching our topsoil.
Yeah, I know it doesn't involve a huge beaurocracy run by a group of international managers who are proposing some kind of subidized carbon trading program, but, then maybe that's why we haven't heard of it.
Pull the wool away from your own eyes and see the current scheme of things for what it is. Try not to weep.

And can this be true?

The Paterakis bakery, H&S, produces a million loaves of rye bread a week.

Yeah, another example of those small business people being screwed by the system.

So, who are these farmers? Is this about John and Jill Farmer with a couple of sections in Illinois or Iowa (about 300 acres) whose land has been in the family for 7 generations, just getting by because of the tremendous competition from the Agri-business Conglomerates?

Or are we talking about Joe Corporation, who own thousands upon thousands of acres all over the nation, and has been suckling at the government teat for 50 years? Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, General Mills, and Cargill often farm or ranch Public Lands, those that belong to you and me, for pennies of rent per year to the BLM, and the same is true for forested lands and mineral exploration. Not only do they get the deal of the century on using our property, but they collect the subsidies as well. The main offenders being in corn, wheat, cotton and soy, most of which if now GMO, by the way. So your tax dollars not only subsidize huge international combines, but their use of genetically engineered seeds and the higher applications of poisons that they allow.

So, as usual, you've got to ask yourself, "who do you think is really driving this movement?" Mom and Pop farmers, or Giant Agribusiness, that spends more on lobbying in Washington than anyone but defense?

Wouldn't fit below.

Years ago I was talking to a farmer from the Red River Valley in North Dakota. He complained about losing money. I asked him about sunflower seeds, the latest hot commodity. He said a lot of farmers made a lot of money but then they flooded the market.

He said the farmers in his valley alone could gut the market. I asked: "What crops?"

He said "Any crop!"

There is a lot of misunderstanding about govt programs to take land out of production.

Agriculture is economics 101.

The price for the commodity is beyond the influence of the producer. The only way for an individual farmer to make more money is to produce more product. The more product he produces the more product is on the market. The more product on the market the lower the price.

And then the only way to make more money is to produce more product. And since all his fellow farmers are doing the same thing it produces a vicious downward cycle.

Prices are high at the moment but history tells us that can't last. When supply exceeds demand the price will collapse leaving the family farmers holding the bag. The Corporate farms are likely to be a tax dodge so they won't be hurt.

Government programs that take land out of production are necessary since the only way to keep the agricultural economy stable is by reducing production. And we NEED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION!

Free Trade and Globalization will destroy small farms all over the world and leave us with massive inefficient Corporate farms.

And while this current price increase is a God send for farmers, I predict it will end up being the further destruction of many of the remaining family farms.

If farmers are doing so well, why do they receive huge subsidies from the American taxpayers.
Answer: Idiots in the US Congress. A similar situation is the $18 BILLION of government subsidies for the oil giants, who made about $123 BILLION last year. Same answer: Idiots in the US Congress.

This mentality of "I'm gonna get mine now, and screw anyone who gets in the way", is exactly why so much of the rainforest in Brazil went up in flames irretrievably. The wildlife does not have a voice advocating their protection or rescue. It is up to us to shepherd and maintain their fragile environment responsibly. Just because wheat is up this year, doesn't mean it will be next. We'll just import more from China. Corn is up because of ethanol- so are soybeans. We'll just import more from Brazil. But what happens to the wildlife that will be displaced by frenzied farming will be irretrievable.
I have supported farmers in the past against takeovers from corporate buyouts and stupid legislation, like when we threw away a bunch of wheat earmarked for the USSR, instead of selling it or donating it elsewhere. But now, I'm sorry- the consequences are too big. This has to stop- before it's too late.

HuffPost's Pick

This is an example of how brainwashed farmers have become in the 60+ years that chemical agriculture began. They have no idea of the damage they are doing to their soils as chemical fertilizers leach nutrients and kill the microorganisms that have the potential to restore them. Every piece of heavy machinery that goes over a piece of land compacts the soil, making it harder for earthworms to survive and provide crucial aeration. When the Europeans first came here, they wrote about how astounded they were at the wealth of the land. That's because the Indians had been practicing a forest subsistence based on encouraging plant symbiosis, planting their game animals' favorite foods, and annual burns to promote fertility by keeping the canopy open and allowing sunlight into the forest. At that time, the land was really, really, really alive. We seem to be making sure it will be really, really, really dead.

Hmmm is this the beginning of this:
Taking down moutains and filling oceans killing off all other animal species just to benefit humans?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Inside

Not often you see hunters and conservationists on the same side of an issue, but regardless, they're correct...

"For years, the problem with cropland was that there was too much of it, which kept food prices low to the benefit of consumers and the detriment of farmers." -- Thus, farmers were paid subsidies to set aside land for conservation, bringing food prices back up. But if they reclaim the land they set aside for conservation, ultimately the same problem will arise. Food prices will drop, forcing farmers to once again set aside land for conservation. This is particularly problematic as people in our weak economy cut back on eating at restaurants, causing the demand for food to decline. Essentially, they'll be increasing supply at a time when demand will decline. Not good for them. The other problem is, once you cultivate land for crops, it's hard to revert it back to a natural state. Reclaiming conservation land for crops is a short-term solution with long-term consequences. A better solution is needed.

A good time to ditch the subsidies, no?