Thanks for putting a face on it. The reality is to cut the teat, like all the tea partyers are in favor of, no farm subsidies, If your profitable great, if your not sell out or go broke. Trust me the vast population of farmers will be happy to vote to take "social benefit" programs from you. We take our chances on food prices and availabilty. I'll take my chances. I suspect that increased demand for agriculture products will turn up producers who will fill the bill. Isn't that capitalism? Land becomes what it will produce on it. I am looking at marginal farmland in NW Missouri, right now the realtors want to sell, based on a $200.00 per acre cash rent. Despite the fact in a 10 year average the cash rent is closer to $75.00. But wth a 4% return, it creates a value of around $3000.00 per acre. Some of the land investors, and farmers, might have spent more time in school, to fall for this. despite the rules, they will strip all the corners, apply countless chemicals, to get every dime out of the soil, might literally endanger you, or at least create a cost to the rest of us to solve to live here.
boom to bust
- Thread starter feasantfever
- Start date
Thanks for putting a face on it. The reality is to cut the teat, like all the tea partyers are in favor of, no farm subsidies, If your profitable great, if your not sell out or go broke. Trust me the vast population of farmers will be happy to vote to take "social benefit" programs from you. We take our chances on food prices and availabilty. I'll take my chances. I suspect that increased demand for agriculture products will turn up producers who will fill the bill. Isn't that capitalism? Land becomes what it will produce on it. I am looking at marginal farmland in NW Missouri, right now the realtors want to sell, based on a $200.00 per acre cash rent. Despite the fact in a 10 year average the cash rent is closer to $75.00. But wth a 4% return, it creates a value of around $3000.00 per acre. Some of the land investors, and farmers, might have spent more time in school, to fall for this. despite the rules, they will strip all the corners, apply countless chemicals, to get every dime out of the soil, might literally endanger you, or at least create a cost to the rest of us to solve to live here.
moellermd
Super Moderator
Those are a lot of numbers but do you know what they mean? The direct payments for the last 4 years in our area were about $10 an acre. In return for that money you have to comply with the farm bill. which means getting authorization to ditch and tile along with a bunch of other hoops to run through. There was no direct commodity payment the last 4 years. Those numbers also include conservation programs like CRP, WRP, ect.
So back to your original point, how do subsidies steer producers to produce one crop over another?
So back to your original point, how do subsidies steer producers to produce one crop over another?
My objective wasn't to get in a pissing match with you or anyone else. I never mentioned anything about steering producers to one particular crop either, with the exception of an aside regarding corn and junk food. The theme of my post was general conservation and wise use of our land, which is why my initial statement referenced a great book written by Aldo Leopold. There is just more to think about than profits today at the expense of who knows what tomorrow.
USDA includes some commodity pricing to which props up the sales price of farm products. So we pay them to buy crop insurance, and we pay them 10.00 an acre to do the right thing. Why not just make the law of the ground you need authorization to modify your agriculture plan or your out, and the ground is out of the USDA programs for 10 years, and you make a plan to get back in? Buy the way we will NOT pay you to be a good land steward, you personal responsibility buffs should do that anyway. As the politician Cemenceau said, in WWI, "war is to important to be left to generals", Land conservation is to important to be left to farmers. We tried that before.
moellermd
Super Moderator
Obviously you have a good grasp of how the program works. That's great and we can have a meaningful conversation about how it affects farmers decision making process. I would agree that the whole prevent plant thing is out of control, the reason why crop insurance in SD and ND will go up this year. That program needs to be addressed because it does encourage farming of marginal and best ground. Ground that would be much better in pasture. I would not agree with the premise that farmers are not out for the long term stewardship of there land.
Most people throw around the whole crop subsidies argument and do not have a good understanding of how the process works. Or how it actually determines what decision producers make.
marshrat I am not trying to get into a pissing contest either but trying to come to an understanding of what aspect of the farm program you feel is detrimental.
I don't think I have to convince you! We are not an island, we rise or fall especially in agriculture by our neighbors, and what their philosophy is, how it effects us all. Some of these guys are not the neighbors you grew up around, may be distant parties who are ambielent toward the land itself, some who have not ever seen it. Whatever we say, doesn't sound to bad over the visor of your sunvisor on the Riviera, or over the balance sheets on Wall Street. We need the initative like the Dust bowl, where elected county commisioners, enforce conservation measures to preserve us all. I don't care if all the ground is tillable on a certain parcel. As long as we make sure we are sound on water, wind erosion, chemical leaching, air pollution. I realize it's not a vision Muir would like nor wildlife. But it is nuetral use, if it makes a profit on it's own, we should be happy, with it's use and it's owner. I see that as a parable to the mining industries, some who are still doing horrendous harm today, and the huge manufacturing firms, steel, etc. who left behind a legacy of waste and destruction we are just beginning to deal with. We get flack from the power companies, because they don't want safe guard against toxins in the air, because is to costly. If you make money, of an enterprise, it falls to you to do it responsibilty. I wish also that the mine owners need to live on the property, they and there families, stockholders, and guests, can drink the leach water of the tailings for 20 years. We see luekemia at an impossible rate of occurence in SC Nebraska, evidence believes it is herbacide/pesticide related. We have suspected this for 20 years, but if you don't have luekemia, it's a shame for the others, but not enough to do anything about it, flush that stuff into the ground water.
Last edited:
My thoughts are that if government subsidies (i.e. government programs) did not exist, farmers wouldn't have to live by government rules and artificial pricing structures. They could then set their own prices based on market dynamics like most other businesses. I am not slamming farmers, although I think that is how you took my comments. I think most farmers do care for the land, and I do come from a family of some farmers. I also think that government programs force farmers to either take the money for things like set aside programs (CRP...) or, because of artificially low prices caused by 'the rules', they are forced to farm every available inch of ground to make a living.
I think most of the time the government gets involved in things they get worse, not better. But I also think that we are farming, grazing, etc...the life out of the land, and I think that will have long-term consequences like perhaps another "dust bowl".
I think most of the time the government gets involved in things they get worse, not better. But I also think that we are farming, grazing, etc...the life out of the land, and I think that will have long-term consequences like perhaps another "dust bowl".
UGUIDE
Active member
That subsidies report show a lot of carrots out there the government is dangling. the reason for dangling a carrot is the get the carrot consumer to move in a certain direction. Change their behaviors per-say.
Crop insurance helped me make decision to move from cash rent to farming ground myself this year.
Would have to yield below 35 BU/AC to collect anything though.
I would say the market price of crop determines more what goes in ground than insurance.
Sure is a ton of money going out in CRP and EQIP dollars.
Crop insurance helped me make decision to move from cash rent to farming ground myself this year.
Would have to yield below 35 BU/AC to collect anything though.
I would say the market price of crop determines more what goes in ground than insurance.
Sure is a ton of money going out in CRP and EQIP dollars.
moellermd
Super Moderator
I would agree that market price is fueling the move to plant more stuff. Some of that EQIP money is going to plant cover crops.
onpoint
Active member
Even the ground that was suppose to be left for habitat, is fair game the last few years. WPA, WMA, even some CRP is being aloud to be grazed or cut for hay. Now they are burning, plowing and tiling the slews. Nobody can tell me they don't know the difference between right and wrong.
This pic shows just how greedy they have become. The person that took the photo said that corn was actually growing on the edge of the road.
UGUIDE
Active member
Yes, I am hoping to follow my wheat with a cover crop as part of the rotation. I am also meeting with NRCS DC this spring to see what else lines up with EQIP as far as the sustainable practices I am putting into play.