Choices farmers have to make, you chose

[seedcorn]

What isn't working? Food isn't readily available and (at least for the average American) cheap? As far as taste and other concerns, go to another country, eat their food, then you will realize how good our food is compared to the world. Can it be better, yes. Is Ag working on making it better, yes.

I get it that the average poster on this board would like food grown "little house on the praire" style. They can have it that way, it will just cost them. The average person (& several posters have indicated the same sentiment in other threads) is unwilling to pay for food grown that way. YOU the consumer have final say. It's not up to Government to tax us to force something on us. We live in a free enterprise system, want it, pay for it. If the rest don't want it, they shouldn't have to pay for it.

Most government regs are written based on what some environmentalist group desires (they have an extreme amount of capital--which pays for government official re-elections). These groups not only don't understand the solution, they don't even know the question. 90% of government $$ to farmers can be traced back to something some environmentalist lobby wants, & are these stupid regs, I could go on forever...........

 

[seedcorn]

Pat, I'm sorry, I should have realized you were Canadian. Ag in Canada is much different than USA. Canadian ag is government communist agriculture. When the American farmer was selling $.08 pork, the processors were importing Canadian government subsidized pork. The canadian pork producer was making profits while the USA farmer was going broke. All at the expense of the canadian tax payer. Good 'ol NAFTA.

Again, I'm sorry for not paying attention from where you were speaking.

 

[seedcorn]

Here is one example going on every day that is killing American Ag. Go to the grocery store, buy any fresh fruit, fresh vegetable. Where is it grown? 90% chance somewhere w/slave labor, grown w/chemicals banned in USA since the 60's, with no sanitation at all. But it's cheaper than an American can grow it so it's bought. How can an American farmer compete? You, the consumer, won't even let us in the game. You won't buy quality. This is why we have the system we have. It's not some "Big Evil Corporation" or "large Corp Ag", it's John Q Citizen.

 

[patandchickens]

Pat, I'm sorry, I should have realized you were Canadian. Ag in Canada is much different than USA. Canadian ag is government communist agriculture.

Huh????

a) I am American, I grew up in Pennsylvania the original home of government-subsidized government-price-controlled large dairy industry; although I happen to *live* in Canada at the moment. And b) I am not seeing how Canadian agriculture is "government communist agriculture" or how it is frankly much different from US agriculture. I do know a bunch of farmers around here...

They're the only real answers because they're the only QUESTIONS that Western (largely meaning, American) big agriculture has been ASKING for the past 50 or 60 years.

This is so condescending. You think farmers aren't always looking for alternatives?

No no no no no -- read what I wrote! Or perhaps I was not clear enough.

By "american big agriculture", I mean the corporations and government agencies. You, the farmer, are just the tail wagged by those two great big dogs. Big corporations and the gov'mt set research priorities and decide what roads to examine going down, and then set up the rules of the game such that those are the only roads you are helped *to* go down.

Honestly though there is an awful tight limit on how much a typical farmer these days can "look for alternatives", because of the economic situation. When a person has to take out SO much debt just to get into farming, or stay in it, there is not a lot of room for major risk-taking. An individual farmer -- not nearly as well-equipped to do research to begin with -- is not usually in a position to say "I think I will just turn 50% of my land over to interesting projects, maybe spend a few years taking next to no crop off of some of it so I can try improving the soil, maybe seeding some various crops that I really do not know whether i will get much if any harvest out of them, just in case something useful turns up"

Not that *nobody* does this, of course -- but vanishingly few, for perfectly sensible reasons like not wishing their family to end up living in a cardboard box downtown. The kind of "looking for alternatives" typical farmers CAN semi-safely do is a lot more restricted, mainly just permutations within the currently-prevailing style of agriculture.

Unfortunately the currently-prevailing style of agriculture (huge monoculture crops of varieties selected for optimum performance under optimum conditions, with ongoing input of pesticides and chemical fertilizers) is exactly the PROBLEM in my opinion -- because it is just not sustainable in the long term -- but only government and large corporations really have the power to support significant research in that direction or enable change.

$1.98 farm loan did not lower/raise corn prices as NO FARMER would grow corn for $1.98, it's so below production costs. To suggest that is beyond funny.

Again, huh??? I am sorry that I do not know the exact technical names of programs/payments, but I have known people in the farming industry when I still lived in the States, and AFAIK there is a deal where, for certain major crops like corn or wheat, the government guarantees a certain minimum price for the crop (I believe this is the thing you're referring to, making up the difference between loan price and crop price? or is that something different?) and also provides direct subsidy to the farmer over and above what the crop is sold for. Similar things exist for the milk industry; I am not sure about veg/fruit crops or the egg/meat/poultry industries.

Are you saying that subsidies are not important and don't afffect farmers or big corporate farming entities or the decisions they make?? Wow, I've never encountered a cash crop farmer in the US who did not think that subsidies were important and necessary (or at least extremely extremely desirable) and who would not have had to operate substantially differently if they didn't exist. Surely that's not what you *mean*??

In quickly checking to make sure I was not somehow under a serious lifelong misunderstanding of farm subsidies, I ran across this http://www.answers.com/topic/agricultural-subsidy as a reasonably comprehensive-seeming, coherent summary that to me not obviously biased one way or the other.

Only the elitest think that the masses should go unfed. (this is another argument for another thread).

I'm not sure many people besides you are making that argument.

Personally, the argument I'm making is that if the structure of agriculture in the Western world does not change significantly in the next century or so, we are all in extremely deep trouble and there will be MASSIVE starvation and social unrest and suchlike.

And it ain't like the masses go any more unfed in Europe, where food expenses make up a much larger fraction of peoples' income, than they do in North America.


Pat

 

[patandchickens]

Here is one example going on every day that is killing American Ag. Go to the grocery store, buy any fresh fruit, fresh vegetable. Where is it grown? 90% chance somewhere w/slave labor, grown w/chemicals banned in USA since the 60's, with no sanitation at all. But it's cheaper than an American can grow it so it's bought. How can an American farmer compete?

Uh, well, remember that America does the exact same thing to other countries. Various things that are grown in the US at artificially low costs relative to price (due to gov't subsidies and price supports and such) are exported for sale at prices that locally-grown (in THOSE countries) products cannot possibly compete with. So, what goes around comes around

You, the consumer, won't even let us in the game. You won't buy quality. This is why we have the system we have. It's not some "Big Evil Corporation" or "large Corp Ag", it's John Q Citizen.

Yes indeed, the consumer is as complicit in the problem as anyone else. As various posts above have agreed, mine included.

It is sounding like you feel personally (as a farmer) and solely blamed?

I am not sure who if anyone is actually saying that, but I would like to encourage you to listen to what MOST people are saying with maybe a different set of ears for a minute:

Please realize that when people criticize how FARMING is conducted these days, they are not generally criticizing farmERS or saying that it is merely some random whim of farmERS that things have got to be this way; they are having a problem with the whole entire system and the whole entire situation, which involves pretty much everyone.

Pat

 

[wifezilla]

You, the consumer, won't even let us in the game. You won't buy quality.

The farmer's markets in my area are always packed. The one I primarily go to is on Saturdays and you need to get there practically at dawn unless you want to battle the crowd. There are farmers there we know by name. Many even have festivals or u-pick operations at their farm and advertise these events while they are selling you squash, peppers, fresh basil, etc...

This stuff is much higher in quality than you get at the grocery store and the prices are very close. Often times the farmer's market is less expensive. The flavor is always superior.

So how are these farms able to sell a variety of produce year after year and succeed while others seem to be telling us their model wont work? Obviously it does work for these people.

There is more than one way to do things. Monoculture, ever growing crop size, gvmnt subsidies, loans, etc... is one way. Is it sustainable? I think not.

 

[journey11]

Cheap food requires mass production so........

Do you want.....

--10# of insecticide/acre or RW technology?
--insecticide apply over the top of crops or Bt to stop corn borer? organic producers stopped farmers from using dry Bt
--RR technology where you use 1pt/acre or conventional crops where you will use gallons of herbicides------or let weeds go unchecked and have about 1/3 of a crop?
--use oil ran equipment or go back to horses?

Farmers are the healthiest people in world but because of the chemicals used, they have the highest cancer rates in the world. They prefer to NOT use chemicals.

OR, would you be happy to pay 3X more for your food and Ag goes back to 1950 type farming--used chems in 60's.

Seedcorn, I think most of the replies you are getting are actually well within the scope of your original question--with the general answer here being NEITHER.

The sampling of people you are conversing with here, I would categorize as ANTS...as in the story of the ants and the grasshopper. Your question is posed more toward the GRASSHOPPERS, who primarily don't know or care where their food comes from, couldn't raise a vegetable to save their life, consume more than they need (demand) and don't get enough physical exertion from their daily work--those are the masses. I think if you'd ask them, they'd tell you they were happy enough to eat pre-packaged, partially hydrogenized, pesticide drenched food and hopefully pay less for it all in one smooth trip to Wally-World.

"The only way to win the game is not to play at all." That goes for individuals and farmers. My question would be, why would farmers play along if they have any problem with the way things work and see no hope for changing them and aren't making a decent living anyway?

 

[seedcorn]

Seedcorn, I think most of the replies you are getting are actually well within the scope of your original question--with the general answer here being NEITHER.

On this, I understand.

So if you use NO corporation products or products from farmers that do, pay the extra for crops grown the way you want them, I'm happy for you & will support your right to do so. Just don't buy corp. products and complain about them. Don't support them.

I do the same thing w/shoes.....refuse to buy high priced shoes made overseas w/slave labor & no labor laws.

What you want is out there, if you are willing to pay for it.

 

[seedcorn]

So how are these farms able to sell a variety of produce year after year and succeed while others seem to be telling us their model wont work? Obviously it does work for these people.

Yes several farm markets do work. We've had successful ones in Indiana and also some go out of business--all w/quality products. Obviously it does work because people will pay more for quality in some areas. What do you think would happen if every farmer tried to run a market in the same area? Think they would survive?

I'm curious do they sell hybrid sweet corn? How do they keep it clean of weeds? Do they use manure as their only source of fertilizer? What about newer cultivars of vegetables? Do they use fungicides on their fruit while growing? These are honest questions as I'd like to know. All of the farmer markets run in Indiana use hybrid sweet corn, use pesticides on their crops and use commercial fertilizers.

 

[seedcorn]

America does the exact same thing to other countries.

Huge differences.

--Ag products imported by other countries are done by their government to feed their people. Their farmers are PROTECTED financially so it does not lower their prices as they are protected on inputs and outputs.
--American farmers have environmental laws, labor laws (most are very good) to abide by while central/southern America, Africa, Russia, China do not. Slavery, child labor, environmentally unsafe chemicals, unsafe working conditions abound there. By buying their products, we are supporting this. Next time you buy grapes, pineapples, banana's, etc. know you are supporting these practices.
--American subsidies are not even close in nature to what Canada/Europe have. We're talking oranges and cows.
--American companies import non-USA products to drive American farmers to lower prices.

FYI, dairy industry was NEVER supported by Government, that was dairy farmer controlled through coops. Now several DUTCH dairies operating in USA and Canada are supported financially by European governments thus making it impossible for American farmers to compete.