Book: Small plot farming more profitable than large farms
evidenc...@yahoo.com
I just read Dr. David Suzuki's brand new book, "Good News For A
Change" which states that (surprisingly) small-plot,
non-too-mechanized farming is more profitable than large farms,
quoting study after study. He says that the beneficiaries of "modern
farming" is the Chemical Industry. Here is the text from a page of the
book that I scanned with OCR software, so the text-grab isn't perfect:
[OCR'd text starts below]
170 GOOD NEWS FOR A CHANGE
For example, Lapp6 is critical of modern livestock feeding practices.
We
feed ruminants grain, she says, not because it is a food they would
eat in
nature, but because we want to fatten them faster. They used to
convert
grasses that were inedible for us into high-grade protein; but today
one half
of the world's grain goes, not to feed people, but to fatten animals,
and it
doesn't all turn into flesh. More than half of that food is excreted
by the
livestock or used for energy. Lapp6 calls livestock animals "protein
dispos-
als" rather than "protein factories." "And now," she says, "we're
performing
the same disappearing trick with the world's fish supply, in fish
farms, feed-
ing fish to fish." Why have we adopted such inefficient agricultural
practices?
Lapp6 says it's because we produce for the market, not to feed the
hungry:
"The hundreds of millions of people who go hungry cannot create a
suffi-
cient 'market demand' for the fruits of the earth. So more and more of
it
flows into the mouths of livestock, which convert it into what the
better-off
can afford. Corn becomes filet mignon. Sardines become salmon." I I
Indian physicist Vandana Shiva, another agriculture and food activist,
is a recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, "the alternative Nobel
Prize,"
for her many publications on food production. She points to reams of
studies by universities, the UN and FAO (the UN's Food and Agriculture
Organization) showing that the most productive form of agriculture is
not our modern, tractor-serviced, big field monoculturcs, but
multiple-
crop (termed "polyculture"), manual-labor-intensive smallholdings. As
we've
seen with water and livestock and now,%vith agriculture, the natural
physics of
this planet favors variety and small, localized production. FAO charts
of
countries from countries like the Sudan, Nigeria and Uganda, Burma,
India
and Nepal all show maximum productivity on tiny farms ranging in size
from
between one and two hectares - the typical peasant smallholding. 12
When a farm gets larger, productivity drops. In Brazil, for example,
Shiva
points out, "the productivity of a farm of up to 10 hectares [25
acres] was
$85 per hectare, while the productivity of 500-hcctare farms [1235
acres]
was only $2 per hectare. In India, farms of up to 5 acres [2 hectares]
had a
productivity of 73 5 rupees per acre, while 3 5 -acre farms [ 14
hectares ] pro-
ductivity levels were about half of that.1113Green Revolution methods,
which
need machinery, expensive chemicals and monocultures, are not suitable
for
smallholdings, and the heavy subsidies and government incentives that
have
accompanied them demand big fields. This has meant that over the past
thirty
or forty years, government subsidies have gone to larger, less
efficient farms
and agribusinesses rather than to the small, more productive farmers.
[END OF OCR's text]
Gordon Couger
<evidenc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d4d2254.02022...@posting.google.com...
gets higher returns for his investment than one with more machinery. The
problem is that I can farm at most 10 acres with only my own labor and a
small investment in machinery while I can farm several thousand acres if I
make large investments in machinery and hire custom services for some of the
work. Do I make a lower return on my investment I sure do. Do I make more
money I sure do by a whole bunch and I free up a great amount of labor for
industry, technology and service. The whole basis of the growth of
civilization is increased productivity of the farmer so some of the
population is freed to do other things besides feed themselves.
Right now we are looking at putting in irrigation wells and subsurface drip
irrigation on a farm in west Texas and converting it to no till cotton
rescue the unit cost and increase the yield so we can operate profitably
with 40 to 50 cent cotton prices. It will require at lest a $1,000 per acre
investment on land worth about $600 and acre and increase the yield
potential by a factor of 4 to 5. That is so we can hopefully reduce the cost
of production by 20 to 25%. At least that's how it has to work out to be
feasible.
Now what is the right balance of the percentage of farmers to the total
population is different for every country. In the US not only are we using
almost all the non farm labor in other areas but we are importing foreign
labor at record levels at least were until the economy cycle took a down
turn. In countries like China and India that don't have the industrial base
they still need to keep the a lot people on the farm so everyone has a job
because they don't have the off farm jobs for them yet. When you get to sub
Sahara Africa there is little to do but substances agriculture.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Jerry & Kathleen Crawford
news:E_de8.62$J17....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Hi, Gordon!
Well done!
I'm worried that we ALL better learn how to farm a small holding
because, at the rate our farms are being gobbled up, that's all that's going
to be left us down the road. I can't imagine what one of those 1000 acre
farms looks like anymore. They are scarce as hens' teeth here abouts.
--
Kathleen
Straw Barry Fields Farm
Beefalo
Kentucky, USA
>
>
>
>
The Rock Garden
"Jerry & Kathleen Crawford" <sbf...@gte.net> wrote >
>I can't imagine what one of those 1000 acre
> farms looks like anymore. They are scarce as hens' teeth here abouts.
They've all been moved west of the Mississippi... :-)
Skip & Christy Hensler
THE ROCK GARDEN
Newport, WA
http://www.povn.com/rock/
Steve Dunlop
Perhaps he's made another of his bets to see
if he can get anyone riled up.
Send your complaints to:
groups...@google.com - gateway
ab...@yahoo.com - posted from email
ab...@eol.ca - posting IP
--
Steve Dunlop
Nerstrand, MN
-- Original Message --
Path:
newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlin
k.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.googl
e.com!not-for-mail
From: evidenc...@yahoo.com (evidenc...@yahoo.com)
Newsgroups: misc.rural
Subject: Book: Small plot farming more profitable than large farms
Date: 24 Feb 2002 10:09:45 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <5d4d2254.02022...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.56.226.173
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1014574186 30239 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2002 18:09:46
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Feb 2002 18:09:46 GMT
X-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:09:48 PST
(newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net)
Xref: newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net misc.rural:123961
Gordon Couger
"Jerry & Kathleen Crawford" <sbf...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:SQge8.371$bZ4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
in town and farming a few hundred acres can stay in business as long as he
doesn't let his farming operation get to big enough that it exceeds his
ability to stay alive with his job on the bad years.
About half the beef cattle in the US are raised by part time operations. The
guy that has a job in town and runs a few head on the side. One of the big
concerns of the beef industry is how to reach these small operators with
better genetics and better education. That's not to say some of these small
operations are not producing good cattle, they are. One of the best Angus
herds I ever saw was built by a school teacher that bought old Angus cows
that were being sold by top breeders because of age that had produced top
calves all their life and getting 2 or 3 more calves out of them and buying
shares in a couple of real good bulls so he could use semen from them.
The guy that got ate up in the last 40 years is the fellow that had a farm
that made a decent living in an area that there wasn't any outside work and
he didn't have what it took to compete with the guys that got bigger, made a
mistake or had some bad luck.
Gordon Couger
"B.B. Bean" <bbb...@beancotton.com> wrote in message
news:ooornaornapbggbap...@news.alt.net...
> On 24 Feb 2002 10:09:45 -0800, evidenc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I just read Dr. David Suzuki's brand new book, "Good News For A
> >Change" which states that (surprisingly) small-plot,
> >non-too-mechanized farming is more profitable than large farms,
> >quoting study after study. He says that the beneficiaries of "modern
> >farming" is the Chemical Industry.
>
> industry. Where ever would we be without armchair revolutionaries
> telling us how evil we are?
>
> If Dr. Suzuki and his so-called "green" followers think their methods
> make sense, then they simply need to buy land and prove it. It's hard
> to argue with success, right?
>
> In the meantime, however, I suspect you'll have a hard time finding
> many people eager to return to the sort of subsistence lifestyle and
> back breaking physical labor that's required to farm small plots. Find
> anyone who worked on a farm prior to the introduction of the tractor
> and ask them whether their life was better 50 years ago than it is now.
> -
I remember real damn well and Dr. Suzuki just needs to go out to Kansas and
get a quarter section and give it a try.
Gordon
Michael
B.B. Bean wrote in
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:21:35 -0600, Gordon Couger wrote:
>
> >There is still a place for the small farmer in the US. The farmer with a
job
> >in town and farming a few hundred acres can stay in business as long as
he
> >doesn't let his farming operation get to big enough that it exceeds his
> >ability to stay alive with his job on the bad years.
>
> part-time famers at the expense of full time farmers. We used to have a
> farm program that was an economic program assuring a steady domestic
> flow of affordable food and fiber, a healthy rural economy, and helped
> maintained a balance of trade. But a bizarre coalition of radical
> environmentalists and Mid-West republicans like Charles Grassley and
> Richard Lugar seem determined to convert the farm program into a social
> program, penalizing full time farmers to subsidize hobby farmers.
The farm policy has been for the commodities and against the hobby farmer
for so long I don't follow what they're giving my money away for anymore. I
just skip right past the articles about it in Farm Journal. New issue came
in today's post so I'll read those articles this time.
>
> There is absolutely a place for small farmers. Specialty crops, fresh
> produce, and niche marketing work very well for small operations. But
> the production of core commodities - rice, soybeans, corn, wheat,
> cotton, etc - is a game of scale. If you reasonably hope to net
> $25-$125 acre most years, lose $50-$100 every 3rd or 4th year
> (sometimes for 2-3 years in a row), and make $200+ an acre once every
> decade or so, it doesn't take Alan Greenspan to figure out that you're
> better off farming a few thousand acres than you are farming a few
> hundred. Throw in the cost of equipment (cotton picker = $280,000), and
> the picture becomes even clearer.
I'm now what would be called a hobby or niche farmer. Our farm was
neglected for many years because the last generation tried to compete in the
commodities farming a 200 acre piedmont NC farm. The soil in piedmont NC is
very variable except in its poorness. Our place has mud, sand, loam and
rock. OK, the rock is beautiful white quartz mixed with a little, very
little gold but it sure does tear up equipment. They gave up and let the
place lay idle for about twenty years.
The good part of that was it was very easy to be certified as organic when
we did get back into production. Now the corn we raise is multicolor that
sells for a dollar an ear as a novelity. Asparagus goes for five to six
dollars a pound (it's organic so we double the price over the guy at the
stand nest to me at the farmer's market). Organic blackberries sell for
almost any ridicilous price I want to charge. We make preserves and pickles
with pretty little bows wrapped around them to sell at the market.
Commodity and small farming are just different businesses.
mjb
Gordon Couger
>
job
> >in town and farming a few hundred acres can stay in business as long as
he
> >doesn't let his farming operation get to big enough that it exceeds his
> >ability to stay alive with his job on the bad years.
>
> part-time famers at the expense of full time farmers. We used to have a
> farm program that was an economic program assuring a steady domestic
> flow of affordable food and fiber, a healthy rural economy, and helped
> maintained a balance of trade. But a bizarre coalition of radical
> environmentalists and Mid-West republicans like Charles Grassley and
> Richard Lugar seem determined to convert the farm program into a social
> program, penalizing full time farmers to subsidize hobby farmers.
>
> produce, and niche marketing work very well for small operations. But
> the production of core commodities - rice, soybeans, corn, wheat,
> cotton, etc - is a game of scale. If you reasonably hope to net
> $25-$125 acre most years, lose $50-$100 every 3rd or 4th year
> (sometimes for 2-3 years in a row), and make $200+ an acre once every
> decade or so, it doesn't take Alan Greenspan to figure out that you're
> better off farming a few thousand acres than you are farming a few
> hundred. Throw in the cost of equipment (cotton picker = $280,000), and
> the picture becomes even clearer.
>
of sense they have more votes and you can use class warfare against the big
guys that took over all the land that poor folks who couldn't make left:(
There is a very big difference between the farmer that can farm 800 acres
and 5,000 acres. The farmer that can produce for the least cost will stay
and the only way to do that is make more with less and increase the number
of acres so the lower income is enough to live on.
The government has been real helpful with their strong dollar policy and not
giving the president the ability to negotiate trade agreements. Now they
want to screw us one more time by using the farm bill to buy votes in the
states with a lot of electoral votes.
How often do you have to rebuild that picker as I remember that about like
buying a new truck?
One of the reasons we are considering putting in drip irrigation on one
dryland place is to help keep the tenant if payment limits come into play. I
already see farmers turning down land that doesn't suit them either from a
production stand point or the landlord is to much trouble to do trouble to
do business with.
Goedjn
one. A farming enterprise is SUPPOSED to be able to make a profit
on it's own merits.
There's really only two arguments FOR subsidies, one is
strategic, where you want to keep the mechanisms in place even when
there's no real need for them, in case something goes drastically
wrong (weather wise, economically, or whatever). The other is
cultural, where you're trying to "preserve a way of life".
In both cases, preserving a bunch of medium-to-tiny operations,
which, hopefully, are all doing just slightly different things,
meets your goals a whole lot better than preserving a few large
to huge operations.
In both cases,
Gordon Couger
"Michael" <michael-nnooo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Soxe8.14234$Im1.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Doing direct marketing makes even a greater difference. When you can
identify a market and fill it you have the potential to do very well. But it
take a level of management and marketing that many of the displaced farmers
didn't have. Unfortunately in southwest Oklahoma or west Texas I don't have
those options.
Small commodity faming can be worth doing. I know guys doing it but it is
not near as good as your deal.
Gordon Couger
"Goedjn" <Goe...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3C7AA93F...@pobox.com...
> As a rule, you don't really want the government subsidising either
> one. A farming enterprise is SUPPOSED to be able to make a profit
> on it's own merits.
> There's really only two arguments FOR subsidies, one is
> strategic, where you want to keep the mechanisms in place even when
> there's no real need for them, in case something goes drastically
> wrong (weather wise, economically, or whatever). The other is
> cultural, where you're trying to "preserve a way of life".
>
> In both cases, preserving a bunch of medium-to-tiny operations,
> which, hopefully, are all doing just slightly different things,
> meets your goals a whole lot better than preserving a few large
> to huge operations.
>
> In both cases,
For every person that stays on the farm there is one less person that can be
employed in other aspects of building the economy. The first civilization
was only possible when agriculture allowed some of the people to do
something other than raise, find or catch food. Small farms are like bambi
they look good but that's all. And I am one of the small farmers that went
broke in the 80's
The costs of land, capital, labor and machinery in the US require that we
reduce the cost of production per unit of input drastically if we are to
compete with, India, China, Africa and others in crop production.
When the movement has tax, monetary and import policies that are directly
detrimental to all farmers they have some responsibility to clean up their
mess.
As to the size of the farm in this country why should farming be any
different than any other business. The more successful ones grow at the
expense of the ones that can't. Where were you when Wal Mart, Lows, et. al.
closed almost every mom and pop business. Almost all the big farming
operations are still family business. Even the giant grain merchants are
mostly privately owned businesses.
John Gilmer
> I'm now what would be called a hobby or niche farmer. Our farm was
> neglected for many years because the last generation tried to compete in
the
> commodities farming a 200 acre piedmont NC farm. The soil in piedmont NC
is
> very variable except in its poorness. Our place has mud, sand, loam and
> rock. OK, the rock is beautiful white quartz mixed with a little, very
> little gold but it sure does tear up equipment. They gave up and let the
> place lay idle for about twenty years.
>
> The good part of that was it was very easy to be certified as organic when
> we did get back into production. Now the corn we raise is multicolor that
> sells for a dollar an ear as a novelity. Asparagus goes for five to six
> dollars a pound (it's organic so we double the price over the guy at the
> stand nest to me at the farmer's market). Organic blackberries sell for
> almost any ridicilous price I want to charge. We make preserves and
pickles
> with pretty little bows wrapped around them to sell at the market.
Well, you certainly have a nice business going for you.
But my question is: What do those folks spending $6/lb for asparagus do
for a living?
Michael
Gordon Couger <
> If you are in a place that you can exploit a market like that it is great.
> Doing direct marketing makes even a greater difference. When you can
> identify a market and fill it you have the potential to do very well. But
it
> take a level of management and marketing that many of the displaced
farmers
> didn't have. Unfortunately in southwest Oklahoma or west Texas I don't
have
> those options.
>
> Small commodity faming can be worth doing. I know guys doing it but it is
> not near as good as your deal.
The old axiom from real estate regarding location, location, location comes
into play when dealing with direct marketing your products. Without a
readily available outlet (NC has state built and operated Farmer's Markets)
and a growing well heeled consumer base your produce has to be wholesaled
and that really cuts your margins. Charlotte has all the bankers and
insurance execs while Raleigh is close to Research Triangle Park.
One guy in the Raleigh NC area raises swine on pasture and directly markets
the product at the Farmer's Market in Raleigh. It took three years but he
now doesn't start a piglet that's not already ordered.
Your comment about management and marketing is exactly correct. My
neighbors are still raising beef cattle and taking it to the livestock
auction. They laugh about our dollar an ear corn (indian corn sold as a
novelity) but wouldn't even consider trying to grow it. They still try and
compete with farmers in Nebraska raising feed corn.
I do my research and plan three years ahead for our crops. We just put in
an orchard of heirloom apples. I don't compete with the peach farmers in SC
and GA but I do make peach preserves and sell them. I don't raise tomates
to sell but I am considering some heirloom varities for next year. I WILL
plant a stand of fancy parsley however if I see it going for a high price at
the market. I can hang an organic label on my produce and increase the
price. Organic production costs for a small guy like me are only about
twenty percent higher than the traditional route. My selling price is at
least fifty percent higher. I very rarely stay at the markets after 11:00
AM on Saturdays because I'm sold out.
Direct marketing of niche products is the only way for a small farmer to
make a good profit in the east. IMHO.
mjb
The Rock Garden
"Michael" <michael-nnooo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> Direct marketing of niche products is the only way for a small farmer to
> make a good profit in the east. IMHO.
Not only in the East. With the emphasis on "small."
John Klausner
3"pot plant market....the supermarkets all have the usual varieties
every year, but if you have the sort of customer who buys organic and
heirloom product, I'd be willing to bet there'd also be some with a
hankering for different and fairly unique vegetables and flowering
plants. Starting seeds is something I don't do well...I'd pay more for
good healthy young plants of some the neat varieties that Park seeds has
than for the usual ones available everywhere.... SueK
Michael wrote:
>
snipped
The Rock Garden
> 1) We place no payment limitations on hospitals. Hospitals receive
> gov't funds in return for treating Medicare, Medicaid, and indigent
> patients. they're paid primarily on a per-service basis. Would we ever
> tell a hospital "you've already treated X patients this month, we're
> not paying for any more?" In point of fact, you'd have to look far and
> wide to find any other gov't payments that have payment limitations.
Why don't you talk to a few hospital adminstrators and learn what it's
really like out in the real world. No, the gov doesn't put a limit on how
many patients they can treat, they only place a limit on how much they will
pay (to both the hospitals and the physicans) for the treatment (both
Medicare and Medicaid; Medicaid is the state sponstored gov reimbursement
medical program for indigent patients.) So the medical community is free to
treat as many gov-paid patients as they can afford to lose money on. OR,
inflate the rates so the private pay and private insured patients can pick
up the tab for the shortage. Exactly the same end result as gov supported
agricultural subsidies, with the exception that with agricultural all
taxpayers get to share in paying the bill...
In point of fact, you would have to look far and wide to find any gov
payment program *without* built in limitations. As a taxpayer would you
want it otherwise?
Skip
Kelly E Jones
>"B.B. Bean" <bbb...@beancotton.com> wrote
>
>> 1) We place no payment limitations on hospitals. Hospitals receive
>> gov't funds in return for treating Medicare, Medicaid, and indigent
>> patients. they're paid primarily on a per-service basis.
You've completely lost me on this analogy. You're comparing Medicare
payments to hospitals, to farming subsidies?
The payment to a hospital is a payment for services rendered. The
hospital treats a patient, and gets paid for this service.
What service or goods is a farmer providing in exchange for a
subsidy? (Don't say food/fiber: the government doesn't get this, the
market does...)
Just trying to understand your analogy...
Kelly
Richard Smith
Kelly E Jones wrote:
> What service or goods is a farmer providing in exchange for a
> subsidy? (Don't say food/fiber: the government doesn't get this, the
> market does...)
In some cases it does get it.. Like butter and cheese. In those cases
the Gov't bought quantities of both in surplus years and then distributed
them to schools and welfare.
Michael
"B.B. Bean" <bbb...@beancotton.com>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:46:42 GMT, Michael wrote:
>
> >The good part of that was it was very easy to be certified as organic
when
> >we did get back into production. Now the corn we raise is multicolor
that
> >sells for a dollar an ear as a novelity. Asparagus goes for five to six
> >dollars a pound (it's organic so we double the price over the guy at the
> >stand nest to me at the farmer's market). Organic blackberries sell for
> >almost any ridicilous price I want to charge. We make preserves and
pickles
> >with pretty little bows wrapped around them to sell at the market.
>
>
I just picked the right wife. The farm came as part of the deal. Married
nineteen years this April.
mjb
Kelly E Jones
B.B. Bean <bbb...@beancotton.com> wrote:
>On 26 Feb 2002 18:23:32 GMT, Kelly E Jones wrote:
>>What service or goods is a farmer providing in exchange for a
>>subsidy? (Don't say food/fiber: the government doesn't get this, the
>>market does...)
>
>Although the market gets the commodity, the government and society have
>a vested interest in specific commodities being produced using specific
>methods, being marketed through specific channels, and being produced
>in sufficient levels to guarantee a stable and affordable supply of
>food and fiber. They have an interest in avoiding economic boom and
>bust (which would potentially cost much more than the farm program and
>disrupt society) and in regulating the quality if commodities produced.
>The gov't is also able to use commodities as a tool for diplomacy, and
>uses tariffs and export credits to regulate the balance of foreign
>trade.
>
>>Just trying to understand your analogy...
>
>Did that help?
Yes, it helped me to understand the analogy is weak... ;)
But seriously, in the interest of conversation, let me address I'd
like to understand your argument better. I've always wanted to
understand farm subsidies, and you seem to be in a good position to
explain/defend them.
As for "avoiding economic boom or bust": I guess I see two causes for
this. A short term problem, caused mostly by weather, and a longer
term one, caused by market forces. For weather issues, why can't
private crop insurance cover this? That's how every other business
deals with this sort of thing. As for market forces, I guess the
default position is that if the market determines that it isn't
profitable for farmer X to grow crop Y in state Z, then farmer X just
ought to stop doing that, except in cases where there is some national
interest served in maintaining the infrastructure for X/Y/Z. But I
think you have to defend in which cases it serves a national interest
As for regulation: Government ought to be able to regulate quality
(if necessary!) without providing subsidies. I don't buy this
argument.
As a tool for diplomacy: Same thing. I don't see why providing
subsidies is a prerequisite to using the commodity as a tool.
Regulation of foreign trade: Well, most economists would tell you that
the imposition of subsidies or tariffs is, in general, a BAD thing,
except in very special cases. Again, I think you have to defend each
subsidy on a case-by-case basis. Maybe this has been done, I'll admit
I'm not intimately familiar with what subsidies are provided - or
requested.
Thanks for any info,
Kelly
Michael
"John Klausner" <som...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C7BAB70...@ix.netcom.com...
> I've thought that another market that hasn't been tapped is the spring
> 3"pot plant market....the supermarkets all have the usual varieties
> every year, but if you have the sort of customer who buys organic and
> heirloom product, I'd be willing to bet there'd also be some with a
> hankering for different and fairly unique vegetables and flowering
> plants. Starting seeds is something I don't do well...I'd pay more for
> good healthy young plants of some the neat varieties that Park seeds has
> than for the usual ones available everywhere.... SueK
I think you just came up with a new product for this spring.
Thanks
mjb
The Rock Garden
> Actually, with agricultural subsidies, we all benefit. In the case of
> gov't supplied medical pay, we all pay the bills, but only those who
> need it receive the benefit.
If you mean that we all benefit in the form of artificially reduced prices
for food; yes, for those of us who don't raise their own grits. However, we
*all* (assuming that everybody pays taxes in one form or another) are also
helping to pay the tab in the form of higher taxes to cover the subsidy
payments. (See "No free lunches" below.)
As for the medical costs; yes, all taxpayers are chipping in to cover the
Medicare and Medicaid payments. However, (don't ya just *love* that word?)
only those who are paying their own medical bills and those covered by
private medical insurance plans are being over-charged to make up for the
inadequate gov reimbursements.
Don't misunderstand me here, I'm not claiming that either the agriculture
subsidies or Medicare/Medicaid programs are inherently either good or bad,
I'm merely suggesting that you are looking at each of them with blinders on.
There are perfectly valid arguments to be made for some, maybe even most,
agricultural subsidy payments; IMHO this isn't one of them. And no, I
don't have any easy, feel-good answers to either situation - and we earn our
living from the land, without subsidies, not the medical profession...
I wrote previously:
> >In point of fact, you would have to look far and wide to find any gov
> >payment program *without* built in limitations.
You asked:
> Name one besides the farm program.
I am of the impression that we are using different interpretations for the
word "limitations." You seem to be of the opinion that the only limitation
that matters is how the gov limits their payments to you by placing a cap on
how much you can raise and still receive a subsidy. I am merely saying
that a limitation is a limitation no matter what form it may be in, and that
the end result will be the same. Try sitting in on a few county
commissioner meetings (or, better yet, run for the office) and see how your
local governmental budget is allocated. It may be old fashioned and
somewhat trite but the adage "There aren't any free lunches" is still true,
no matter how you want to interpret it.
It would appear to me that the only US gov program without any spending
limitations at the current time would be the military budget. Even then I'm
sure there are still a few congressmen somewhere who would try to convince
us they actually do have some control over that outlay too...
> FWIW, Subsidies and the loan program also pay less than the cost of
> production. They are strictly a stop gap measure.
Yeah, well, it would appear that this "stop gap measure" has been unable to
adequately plug the gap ever since the '40s, eh? Have you ever thought to
question, if the subsidies aren't sufficient to cover the costs of
production, how you manage to stay in business? Sort of reminds me of the
old used car dealer joke about how he lost money on each deal but he made it
up with increased volume. :-)
charles krin
<bbb...@beancotton.com> wrote:
>Done. In the real world, there is a payment per treatment. If the
>hospital gives that treatment to 100 patients, they receive 100
>payments. If they treat 10,000 patients, they receive 10,000 payments.
>There is no point at which the gov't comes in and declares that the
>hospital is "too big" and quits paying them.
follow ups trimmed...no, but the government has more than once come
back and said, "yes, we know that we approved these payments when you
were treating these patients, but now we've decided that we've over
paid you after all, and now you owe us $xxxxxxxx back in the next 30
days.
ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
Michael
John Gilmer <> wrote in message >
> Well, you certainly have a nice business going for you.
>
> But my question is: What do those folks spending $6/lb for asparagus do
> for a living?
Bankers-Bank of America-#2 bank in USA is based in Charlotte
-Wachovia #4 bank is also based here
Insurance-Royal Insurance is based here
NASCAR is based near here
Lance crackers are based here
Arnold Palmer has a house here and owns the Caddie dealership in town.
United Dominion is based here
And having President G. Washington call it a "a piddling little place"
hasn't stopped some old money from staying here.
mjb
Richard Smith
I figured that it was time to stir up the dust some with comments of my own.
Kelly E Jones wrote:
> Yes, it helped me to understand the analogy is weak... ;)
I think that what was important here was that you understand, not to
"prove".
The analogy was to illustrate.
> But seriously, in the interest of conversation, let me address I'd
> like to understand your argument better. I've always wanted to
> understand farm subsidies, and you seem to be in a good position to
> explain/defend them.
I think that one of the problems is that the current farm subsidy program is
far from perfect. In response, many folks want to throw the baby out with
the bath water. Over the years our government has followed a "cheap food"
policy.
Now you may or may not agree with this policy, but it is a fact and in some
ways it has been successful. There have been no food riots (rock concerts
excepted :-) ) nor uprisings by starving peasants in this country.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the present system is perfect. As I
see it, the real problem is how to move from this system to a better system
without causing serious damage. Are we as a country willing to accept of
the consequences of any new system that we adopt??
> As for "avoiding economic boom or bust": I guess I see two causes for
> this. A short term problem, caused mostly by weather, and a longer
> term one, caused by market forces. For weather issues, why can't
> private crop insurance cover this? That's how every other business
> deals with this sort of thing.
Depending on how you define "short term" and "long term" , both weather and
market conditions can be both.
Perhaps private crop insurance would work, but that assumes that: 1) it is
available, and 2) the cost is economically feasible. Presently, crop
insurance isn't available on many crops from private sources. Much of it is
provided by the Government, or is subsidized by the Government. Another
problem with current crop insurance, where it exists, is that it barely
covers the cost of production ( as has been mentioned) and it doesn't cover
market fluctuations.
> As for market forces, I guess the
> default position is that if the market determines that it isn't
> profitable for farmer X to grow crop Y in state Z, then farmer X just
> ought to stop doing that, except in cases where there is some national
> interest served in maintaining the infrastructure for X/Y/Z. But I
> think you have to defend in which cases it serves a national interest
In this county alone, there are less than half the farms today than 25 years
ago. I suspect that that trend is much the same across the country. I
guess the real question here is whether we, as a country, want to maintain
the ability to provide our own food or not. If the answer is "yes", then
what is the best way to do so?
> As a tool for diplomacy: Same thing. I don't see why providing
> subsidies is a prerequisite to using the commodity as a tool.
The problem here is that when our Government sells a commodity to another
Government at a price other than the market price, it effects the market.
Selling on credit also effects the market. If I am a wheat farmer and I am
selling wheat at a market price of $5 to Russia I am effected when the US
sells Russia wheat at $2.50
> Regulation of foreign trade: Well, most economists would tell you that
> the imposition of subsidies or tariffs is, in general, a BAD thing,
> except in very special cases.
Which economists have taken this stance? I guess this depends on how you
define "bad" .
I've never seen such an unanimous agreement among economists.
Richard Smith
Kelly E Jones wrote:
> I>>What service or goods is a farmer providing in exchange for a
> >>subsidy? (Don't say food/fiber: the government doesn't get this, the
> >>market does...)
Many subsidies are provided by the government without direct exchange.
The airline industry gets money and services
Businesses get low interest loans, tax abatements, training funds, etc.
Goedjn
> Grassley's payment limitations, for example, would limit cotton and
> rice farmers to 881 acres, leaving everything else unprotected by the
> farm program. On the other hand, wheat farmers can raise up to 3876
> acres under Grassley.
>
> This causes a problem, because the vast majority of cotton and rice
> farms are 1500-5000 acres, and larger operations are not at all
> uncommon. It is simply difficult to raise under a thousand acres of
> cotton economically or efficiently.
I'm confused, even after looking at the website, does this bill
say that if you're farming more than X acres, you can't get ANY
money? Or just that they would make payments on the excess over
the limit? The latter seems (at first glance, anyway) to make sense,
the former really doesn't.
Oz
>The key concept is that it is in everyone's interest to have healthy
>trade and a healthy economy.
Indeed. However there is an intrinsic problem with primary food supply
which is the extreme inelasticity in the supply-demand curve.
This tends to naturally produce boom and bust cycles which are extremely
disruptive of the rest of the economy.
For example look at the price changes (factors of two to four) when
world supplies become short. Note that this is in response NOT to an
actual shortage, but just the threat of shortage.
Some fairly minor blockading of fuel depots in the UK last year resulted
in supermarkets being stripped of produce, even though there was in fact
no actual shortage.
In 1976, when there was a europe-wide drought, sugar and flour was
rationed by supermarkets and potatoes rose to (adjusted for inflation) a
price of $US16/lb.
Governments since the time of the pharoes have tried to smooth over
these short term oversupplies and deficits so food prices were
relatively stable. To do this you require at least a 10% oversupply of
food at the farmgate) and probably 20% would be safer.
Now there is an intrinsic problem with doing this. Due to the
inelasticity of the supply curve this means that farmgate prices will
fall well below the cost of production. You have four choices as far as
I can see:
1) Try and dump the surplus, which as already observed will trash world
market prices making it even more expensive for both subsidising the
exports AND subsidising the home market.
2) Destroy the surpluses. Burn them in power stations or whatever. This
is again quite expensive and may have pollution problems. It's also
politically tricky.
3) Control the supply, so that there is some system that allows the
state (or even a grouping of countries) to modulate supply with demand,
probably most conveniently by basing it on closing food stocks. Trade
outside the grouping MUST also be controlled.
4) Withdraw and allow the market to have it's way, but expect years when
vast numbers of farmers go bust, and other years where the population
spends 25%+ of it's earnings on food.
It strikes me that (3) is easy to operate, rather transparent and quite
straightforward. I am somewhat at a loss why it's never seriously been
properly attempted.
--
Oz
This post is worth precisely what you paid for it.
Kelly E Jones
Richard Smith <ras...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>Perhaps private crop insurance would work, but that assumes that: 1) it is
>available, and 2) the cost is economically feasible. Presently, crop
>insurance isn't available on many crops from private sources.
Hmm... Things always seem to be available, if buyers are willing to
pay what it's worth. If crop insurance isn't available, it's probably
because no one is willing to pay the real cost of it. It's easier to
rely on government bailouts.
Much of it is
>provided by the Government, or is subsidized by the Government. Another
>problem with current crop insurance, where it exists, is that it barely
>covers the cost of production ( as has been mentioned) and it doesn't cover
>market fluctuations.
I don't think it SHOULD cover market fluctuations. Is there any
other industry that can buy insurance to cover a loss caused by
falling prices? I doubt it.
>In this county alone, there are less than half the farms today than 25 years
>ago.
Half the farms, or half the farmed acreage? The former simply
indicates consolidation, which occurs in every industry , the latter
is a real drop in farming. ALthough, like most, I prefer all the
things that go along with small farms, I wonder if maintaining
'smallness' through subsidies is a nostalgic luxury we can't afford.
Should we also setup goverment programs to discourage consolidation
in, say, the footwear industry, so that we can still buy our shoes
from the cobbler down the street?
>I suspect that that trend is much the same across the country. I
>guess the real question here is whether we, as a country, want to maintain
>the ability to provide our own food or not.
Yes, this is obviously a desirable goal.
> If I am a wheat farmer and I am
>selling wheat at a market price of $5 to Russia I am effected when the US
>sells Russia wheat at $2.50
Yes, affected for the better: Didn't the government have to buy it
from YOU for $5 so that it could sell it to Russia? To me, this
sounds like a $2.50 subsidy... Maybe I don't understand something here?
>
>> Regulation of foreign trade: Well, most economists would tell you that
>> the imposition of subsidies or tariffs is, in general, a BAD thing,
>> except in very special cases.
>
>Which economists have taken this stance? I guess this depends on how you
>define "bad" .
Economics 101 states that consumers benefit most when the market is
allowed to be 'free': Whoever is able to produce a product for the
least money will triumph in the market place. Imposing
tariffs/subsidies distorts the market by subsidizing less-efficient
producers. That doesn't mean it's always bad - subsidies/tariffs may
be necessary to get an industry started, or to maintain a vital
national interest, for example. Maybe the latter applies here, in
some cases.
Kelly
Oz
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:26:59 +0000, Oz wrote:
>
>>3) Control the supply, so that there is some system that allows the
>>state (or even a grouping of countries) to modulate supply with demand,
>>probably most conveniently by basing it on closing food stocks. Trade
>>outside the grouping MUST also be controlled.
>>
>>4) Withdraw and allow the market to have it's way, but expect years when
>>vast numbers of farmers go bust, and other years where the population
>>spends 25%+ of it's earnings on food.
>>
>>It strikes me that (3) is easy to operate, rather transparent and quite
>>straightforward. I am somewhat at a loss why it's never seriously been
>>properly attempted.
>
>will grant you that the result has been less than desireable under the
>current bill.
How is it controlling the supply? This can really only be done by
sensible laws restricting the acreage planted and I don't see any
transparent attempt to match following year's crop with end season stock
levels.
>It seems to me that most non-farmers would opt for #4, but that they
>haven't read past the comma.
Actually farmers tend to do quite well where there is a true market
working. The profit you make in the good years (one in three) covers the
bad years (two in three) with bonanza time about once every decade or
so. This is when you get a poor crop (like everyone else) but it sells
at five times (++) the normal price. People really will pay anything if
they are hungry.
It's a real bitch for politicians and rulers though.
Oz
>Half the farms, or half the farmed acreage? The former simply
>indicates consolidation, which occurs in every industry , the latter
>is a real drop in farming. ALthough, like most, I prefer all the
>things that go along with small farms, I wonder if maintaining
>'smallness' through subsidies is a nostalgic luxury we can't afford.
Long term, in fact medium term, farms must have prices that allow them
to make a profit enough to pay a decent wage and re-equip.
If levels are below that then effectively the farmer is subsidising the
consumer unless the farmers are very inefficient. The US and EU farmers
are certainly not that, local on-costs allowed for.
Currently the manipulation of farm production by both the US and EU
generates overproduction and thus prices below the cost of production.
This is in itself artificial, although consumers (or more accurately
supermarkets) are happy to go along with it. They bemoaning the subsidy
that is in effect a *consumer* subsidy that allows farmgate prices to be
below the cost of production.
--
Maren Purves
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:26:59 +0000, Oz wrote:
>
> >state (or even a grouping of countries) to modulate supply with demand,
> >probably most conveniently by basing it on closing food stocks. Trade
> >outside the grouping MUST also be controlled.
> >
> >4) Withdraw and allow the market to have it's way, but expect years when
> >vast numbers of farmers go bust, and other years where the population
> >spends 25%+ of it's earnings on food.
> >
> >It strikes me that (3) is easy to operate, rather transparent and quite
> >straightforward. I am somewhat at a loss why it's never seriously been
> >properly attempted.
>
> will grant you that the result has been less than desireable under the
> current bill.
>
> haven't read past the comma.
which is, of course, because they (most people) never read past
the comma (or look beyond the tip of their noses).
:-)
Maren
Goedjn
It does seem as if, if the objective is to smooth over wide
market/supply variances, then one ought to be able to arrange
things so that the long-term net outflow is small. If you're
ALWAYS paying money out, then the effect is not merely to
stabalize prices, but to stabilize them at an artificially
low level. Isn't it?
Kelly E Jones
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Currently the manipulation of farm production by both the US and EU
>generates overproduction and thus prices below the cost of production.
>This is in itself artificial, although consumers (or more accurately
>supermarkets) are happy to go along with it. They bemoaning the subsidy
>that is in effect a *consumer* subsidy that allows farmgate prices to be
>below the cost of production.
So if overproduction is reducing prices to below cost, isn't the most
natural thing to do to allow a few of the producers (the least
efficient ones) to go out of business, thus reducing supply and
raising prices? This seems a more logical - and laissez-faire - approach
than providing subsidies to keep production artificially high and
prices artificially low.
A year or so ago, there were so many players in the 'dotcom' sector
that most companies were giving things away for free, or nearly so.
The end result was that most of these businesses went belly up, and
the only ones remaining are the ones that have a viable business
model. Thankfully the government didn't step in to subsidize the
companies losing money, so that they could stay in business and
continue to provide below-cost services/goods to the consumer...
Sure, I miss getting books, toys, electronics, etc. at below cost, but
I wouldn't want to pay the taxes associated with a government subsidy
of this sector...
Kelly
Oz
>In article <Yoh7zVAH...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>,
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Currently the manipulation of farm production by both the US and EU
>>generates overproduction and thus prices below the cost of production.
>>This is in itself artificial, although consumers (or more accurately
>>supermarkets) are happy to go along with it. They bemoaning the subsidy
>>that is in effect a *consumer* subsidy that allows farmgate prices to be
>>below the cost of production.
>
>So if overproduction is reducing prices to below cost, isn't the most
>natural thing to do to allow a few of the producers (the least
>efficient ones) to go out of business, thus reducing supply and
>raising prices? This seems a more logical - and laissez-faire - approach
>than providing subsidies to keep production artificially high and
>prices artificially low.
Brilliant idea. Trouble is their land is immediately taken over by more
efficient and larger farmers whereupon it produces more than it did
before.
OR
Supply falls below demand due to lack of farmland farmed, and prices go
ballistic.
Agriculture isn't quite as simple as people think.
That said, it's not difficult either.
But you do need to pause for thought.
Kelly E Jones
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Kelly E Jones writes
>>So if overproduction is reducing prices to below cost, isn't the most
>>natural thing to do to allow a few of the producers (the least
>>efficient ones) to go out of business, thus reducing supply and
>>raising prices? This seems a more logical - and laissez-faire - approach
>>than providing subsidies to keep production artificially high and
>>prices artificially low.
>
>Brilliant idea. Trouble is their land is immediately taken over by more
>efficient and larger farmers whereupon it produces more than it did
>before.
So, if previously unprofitable land is being taken over and refarmed,
it is either because
1) The new owners know they can make a profit. No problem.
2) The new owners are clueless, and will also soon go out of
business. No problem.
3) The new owners know they can get enough subsidies to make the farm
profitable. Problem. We're now subsidizing something we've said was bad,
overproduction.
So again, I don't see the problem, except when subsidies are provided...
>Agriculture isn't quite as simple as people think.
>That said, it's not difficult either.
>But you do need to pause for thought.
Agreed. I'm here to be educated, not to argue...
Kelly
Gordon Couger
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j1QlkJAD...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
the rules, are able to implement the rules and enforce the rules. I don't
believe that any of the three are possible among all the players. The EU
might be able to do it. I am pretty sure that it could never make it though
the US system and if it did it would be very difficult to make it
constitutional. South America obviously can't enforce their rules and if you
think China will play by the rules I have several large bridges I will be
glad to sell you.
I first started playing this game in 1958 and by the time I got out of
college in the middle 60's it seemed that it was obvious to any one with
good sense that Oz's #3 was with out a doubt the way to go. Then I slowly
began to learn the ways of politics.
First I ran a ranch for the Terex dealer for the state of Texas. He was a
grand old man that was raised in the same part of Texas my folks ranch in.
He made his money starting from nothing to damn rich and was still just as
plain as any cattleman I ever met and he told and showed me how Texas
politics worked. A really interesting subject at the time much more colorful
than today.
Then when I started programming computers in the late 70's I got some inside
looks into things that I am glad have past the statue of limitations that
involved banks, politicians and oil.
Then I discovered the a grand political game, the university.
It all comes down to politics is all there is and the politician's long
range plans are the next election and who rents him. Anyone can figure out
how to get politicians to make good long range plans will get a Nobel prize
for economics in short order.
As a landlord I don't like cheap prices and farming government programs any
better than I did when I was a farmer but I can't see another system that
has any chance of working because not all of the player can be relied on to
play by the rules. So none want to enter the game.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Oz
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:24:58 +0000, Oz wrote:
>
>>>I would argue that the US Farm Program IS trying to accomplish #3, but
>>>will grant you that the result has been less than desireable under the
>>>current bill.
>>
>>How is it controlling the supply?
>
OK, I don't know about these.
Are they enforceable to ALL farmers?
Can the levels be adjusted annually to maintain some agreed fixed
closing stock level?
>>Actually farmers tend to do quite well where there is a true market
>>working.
>
>In the world market there is no true free market. State economies like
>China aggressively subsidize exports and manipulate markets to their
>advantage. And once one does it, we're all committed to play the game
>for survival
That is reality, which is why this one *won't* happen.
Oz
>You're not always paying money out. The Farm Program operates on
>economic triggers, and payments generally approach a set target price.
>When that target price is met through market conditions alone, gov't
>payments are small or zero.
The EU TAXES exports to keep EU prices down when the world price is
high. We thus get the worst of both worlds.
Oz
>Number 3 and to some degree all the rest requires that all players agree on
>the rules, are able to implement the rules and enforce the rules. I don't
>believe that any of the three are possible among all the players. The EU
>might be able to do it.
The EU can do it (northern europe IS doing it).
>I am pretty sure that it could never make it though
>the US system and if it did it would be very difficult to make it
>constitutional.
Maybe. That's your problem though.
>South America obviously can't enforce their rules and if you
>think China will play by the rules I have several large bridges I will be
>glad to sell you.
I would put tarifs or import controls on their produce.
>As a landlord I don't like cheap prices and farming government programs any
>better than I did when I was a farmer but I can't see another system that
>has any chance of working because not all of the player can be relied on to
>play by the rules. So none want to enter the game.
That's up to government.
The alternative is the cockup we have now, which doesn't benefit anyone.
Oz
>In article <fPfKa6A9...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>,
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Kelly E Jones writes
>
>>>So if overproduction is reducing prices to below cost, isn't the most
>>>natural thing to do to allow a few of the producers (the least
>>>efficient ones) to go out of business, thus reducing supply and
>>>raising prices? This seems a more logical - and laissez-faire - approach
>>>than providing subsidies to keep production artificially high and
>>>prices artificially low.
>>
>>Brilliant idea. Trouble is their land is immediately taken over by more
>>efficient and larger farmers whereupon it produces more than it did
>>before.
>
>So, if previously unprofitable land is being taken over and refarmed,
>it is either because
>
>1) The new owners know they can make a profit. No problem.
>2) The new owners are clueless, and will also soon go out of
>business. No problem.
>3) The new owners know they can get enough subsidies to make the farm
>profitable. Problem. We're now subsidizing something we've said was bad,
>overproduction.
>
>So again, I don't see the problem, except when subsidies are provided...
Trouble is almost every country subsidises it's agriculture for the same
reason. So unless you want *JUST* US farmers to go bust to balance world
supply and demand, then you have to subsidise them too.
I'm very happy if that's what you want, you just gotta persuade the US
govt.
Failing that you must control supply, there is no other sensible option.
Gordon Couger
> Gordon Couger writes
>
> >Number 3 and to some degree all the rest requires that all players agree
on
> >the rules, are able to implement the rules and enforce the rules. I don't
> >believe that any of the three are possible among all the players. The EU
> >might be able to do it.
>
> The EU can do it (northern europe IS doing it).
>
> >I am pretty sure that it could never make it though
> >the US system and if it did it would be very difficult to make it
> >constitutional.
>
> Maybe. That's your problem though.
>
> >South America obviously can't enforce their rules and if you
> >think China will play by the rules I have several large bridges I will be
> >glad to sell you.
>
> I would put tarifs or import controls on their produce.
Trade wars aren't pretty things everyone looses. The EU won't abide by the
WTO rulings now on beef inports from the US now. They have had at least 40
years to come up with some sceintific basis for their claims that the
harmones we use on beef pose some danger to humans and don't have any and
continue to refuse to import our beef. Just the last few days the French
refused a load of live sheep from Irland because the papers were not in
perfect order. The corrections were immedatly faxed to them and they still
are shipping the sheep back to Irland.
China is driving down the soybean market with vague rules on GM crops while
they have more GM crops in the ground that all the rest of the world
togeater. My guess is they will make a lot of deals for beans just before
they lift the bans and make a killing in the market.
My daughter in law is main land Chinese and we are very happy with her be
she tells us that we are years from understanding how to do business wiht
China and they are a long way fom knowing how to deal with us. It is so
forgien she can't realy tranlate it into English. It come out that it is a
game to them as well as business. They not olny have to make a profit they
have to get the upper hand in some way. It is more than the concept of face.
Do you think that we can build a workable world policy with people acting
like that? There are no world courts with any real athourity and their never
will be. No one will give up enough sovenrenty.
>
> >As a landlord I don't like cheap prices and farming government programs
any
> >better than I did when I was a farmer but I can't see another system that
> >has any chance of working because not all of the player can be relied on
to
> >play by the rules. So none want to enter the game.
>
> That's up to government.
> The alternative is the cockup we have now, which doesn't benefit anyone.
==========
It benifits everyone that buys food to have a continued inexpensive and
plentiflul supply of food. You pointed out that he threat of shortage can
drive the price of food through the roof. Managing the supplies so there is
just enough opens the market up being gamed like it was by the way the
Russias bought wheat in the 70's. They got bids from all the big mercants
and the sellers assumed that they were shopping for price. Then they took it
all one day and wheat here went to $7.00 per Bu.
I don;t like it but we are as small part of society. Due to the way our
Senate is made up we get a better shake by the goverment that you do with
your goverments made up of multiple parties where one samll party can
blackmail the rest to get their stuff through.
But in the end neither your govement or mine is going to come up with a
policy that really gives a damn about our own farmers and the rest of the
world doesn't exist for them because they don't vote and can no longer rent
them.
If we could use the laws of physics and rigidly enforce them we could have a
good program in 6 months. If we us politics the sun will be a red giant
before we have a workalble plan unless someone unfies the world under one
govemnent.
Richard Smith
In article <3C7CDFE3...@twcny.rr.com>,
Richard Smith <ras...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:>Perhaps private crop insurance would work, but that assumes that: 1) it is
>available, and 2) the cost is economically feasible. Presently, crop
>insurance isn't available on many crops from private sources.Hmm... Things always seem to be available, if buyers are willing to
pay what it's worth. If crop insurance isn't available, it's probably
because no one is willing to pay the real cost of it. It's easier to
rely on government bailouts.
Willingness and economic feasibility may be two different things.
We also need to keep in mind that many of these decisions are not just
economic ones but are political ones too. If crop insurance costs
more than your profit, I don't see that it is very beneficial.
Much of it is
>provided by the Government, or is subsidized by the Government. Another
>problem with current crop insurance, where it exists, is that it barely
>covers the cost of production ( as has been mentioned) and it doesn't cover
>market fluctuations.I don't think it SHOULD cover market fluctuations. Is there any
other industry that can buy insurance to cover a loss caused by
falling prices? I doubt it.
For farmers, market fluctuations are one of the more substantial risks. One of the problems is that the farmer has to plant the crop not knowing what the sale price will be. While this may not be unique, there are many industries where this is not the case.
Insurance may not cover this, but market conditions did result in airline bailouts and Chrysler Corp bailout.
>In this county alone, there are less than half the farms today than 25 years
>ago.Half the farms, or half the farmed acreage? The former simply
indicates consolidation, which occurs in every industry , the latter
is a real drop in farming. ALthough, like most, I prefer all the
things that go along with small farms, I wonder if maintaining
'smallness' through subsidies is a nostalgic luxury we can't afford.
Should we also setup goverment programs to discourage consolidation
in, say, the footwear industry, so that we can still buy our shoes
from the cobbler down the street?
I guess it would depend on how important we as a society think it is to keep him in business.
I think one of the real problems here is that we are trying to come up with a solution and we really have no idea as to what we want to accomplish. I think that this is the problem with much of our past farm policy. Probably the problem with much of our national domestic and foreign policies as well! How can we realistically determine a course of action without first establishing the goal??
If you don't think that small farms should be preserved, I can accept that. I might not agree, but I can accept that as your opinion. But then, perhaps we shouldn't provide any assistance to small businesses. Personally, I don't like the use of "afford" . We often claim that we can't afford things when we simply choose to spend our money on other things. This is especially true when it comes to raising taxes.
>I suspect that that trend is much the same across the country. I
>guess the real question here is whether we, as a country, want to maintain
>the ability to provide our own food or not.Yes, this is obviously a desirable goal.
Then the real task will be reaching that goal.
> If I am a wheat farmer and I am
>selling wheat at a market price of $5 to Russia I am effected when the US
>sells Russia wheat at $2.50Yes, affected for the better: Didn't the government have to buy it
from YOU for $5 so that it could sell it to Russia? To me, this
sounds like a $2.50 subsidy... Maybe I don't understand something here?
If I get market price, it doesn't matter who buys the crop. If crop loans can't be repaid, the Gov't often takes the crop as payment. This is held in storage and "sold" at a later time. This time shift can be a problem. Remember that it isn't all economics, there is a lot of politics here too.
>> Regulation of foreign trade: Well, most economists would tell you that
>> the imposition of subsidies or tariffs is, in general, a BAD thing,
>> except in very special cases.
>
>Which economists have taken this stance? I guess this depends on how you
>define "bad" .Economics 101 states that consumers benefit most when the market is
allowed to be 'free': Whoever is able to produce a product for the
least money will triumph in the market place.
A "free" market might be best for the consumer ( in the short run), but
the "market" is composed of both a consumer and a producer. If the
consumer benefits most; at whose expense is this benefit? If all
the producers are gone how has the consumer benefited. If enough
producers are gone such that prices rise significantly, has the consumer
benefited??
Imposing tariffs/subsidies distorts the market by subsidizing less-efficient
producers.
This is just one way it effects the market. And they don't even do
a good job of this!
That doesn't mean it's always bad - subsidies/tariffs may
be necessary to get an industry started, or to maintain a vital
national interest, for example. Maybe the latter applies here, in
some cases.
As you noted, tariffs/subsidies may be the answer to some of the problems.
But all are not economically motivated. Many are political.
Torsten Brinch
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:38:59 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>Trade wars aren't pretty things everyone looses. The EU won't abide by the
>WTO rulings now on beef inports from the US now. They have had at least 40
>years to come up with some sceintific basis for their claims that the
>harmones we use on beef pose some danger to humans and don't have any and
>continue to refuse to import our beef.
Which, according to international trade laws it is the EU's
right to do :-) (just as it is it the right of US to retaliate,
as it has done, by imposing measured out tariffs on imports from
the EU.)
>China is driving down the soybean market with vague rules on GM crops while
>they have more GM crops in the ground that all the rest of the world
>togeater. <snip>
According to ISAAA estimates, the total GM crop area was ~50 million
hectares in 2001, of which only 1.5 million (cotton) was grown in
China. And, in April 2001, the Chinese government banned the growing
of GM rice, wheat, corn and soyabean, to protect China's export
opportunities. So, how on earyh do you get to the conclusion that
China has more GM crops in the ground than the rest of the world
together???
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Torsten Brinch
<bbb...@beancotton.com> wrote:
>On 28 Feb 2002 00:05:53 GMT, Kelly E Jones wrote:
>
>>So, if previously unprofitable land is being taken over and refarmed,
>>it is either because
>>
>>1) The new owners know they can make a profit. No problem.
>>2) The new owners are clueless, and will also soon go out of
>>business. No problem.
>>3) The new owners know they can get enough subsidies to make the farm
>>profitable. Problem. We're now subsidizing something we've said was bad,
>>overproduction.
>
>Most farmers crop or cash rent their land. When a farmer goes out of
>business the landlord doesn't change. And cropland not producing income
>is a liability, so landlords are under the gun to have someone farm the
>land, profitably or otherwise..
>
>BTW - those "clueless" landlords are very often elderly farmers'
>widows. As they paid very little (if any) social security during their
>lives, they are dependent on the income from the farm. When they go
>bust, the state picks up a new dependent, and local banks and creditors
>end up holding the bag. It is to the state's advantage to have the land
>producing income and stimulating the economy.
I am not sure that this adresses Mr Kelly Jones argument.
Mr Kelly Jones's initial argument (against subsidies) was that
"if overproduction is reducing prices to below cost, isn't the most
natural thing to do to allow a few of the producers (the least
efficient ones) to go out of business, thus reducing supply and
raising prices?"
Someone else then countered, that this would not have that
effect, because the previously unprofitable land would just be
taken over by "more efficient and larger farmers whereupon it
produces more than it did before". IOW then supply would
not be reduced.
To which Mr Kelly Jones commented, that if the new owners
could make the land profitable (without a subsidy) this
would not be a problem for the country. And if the new owners
could not, they would go bust, which also would be a problem
for the country. There would only be a problem if the origin
of the new owners profitability were the ability to cash in
subsidies, now on a larger area/production base. This would
be a problem, because that would mean that the country would
be subsidising what it had determined not worth subsidising,
namely overproduction.
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
Oz
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:41:13 +0000, Oz wrote:
>
>>>>How is it controlling the supply?
>>>
>>>Acreage bases, AMTA payments based on previous production, CRP, etc.
>>
>>OK, I don't know about these.
>>
>>Are they enforceable to ALL farmers?
>
>economically feasible to farm outside the program (unless you're
>farming non-program, specialty, or niche market crops), that would
>apply to nearly all producers.
That's the problem. If you control supply so the price returns to a
reasonable level (ie at the effective long-term cost of production) then
it *doesn't* pay any individual to control his production jointly with
everyone else. You really do need something like an improved EU system
for this.
>>Can the levels be adjusted annually to maintain some agreed fixed
>>closing stock level?
>
>We currently work in 5-7 years increments. The old farm bill required a
>set-aside, and adjusted this acreage annually. the current farm bill
>doesn't. The proposed farm bill doesn't.
It must fail then.
Oz
>
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:38:59 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
><gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>
>>Trade wars aren't pretty things everyone looses. The EU won't abide by the
>>WTO rulings now on beef inports from the US now. They have had at least 40
>>years to come up with some sceintific basis for their claims that the
>>harmones we use on beef pose some danger to humans and don't have any and
>>continue to refuse to import our beef.
>
>Which, according to international trade laws it is the EU's
>right to do :-) (just as it is it the right of US to retaliate,
>as it has done, by imposing measured out tariffs on imports from
>the EU.)
That's precisely the problem. Whilst they both try and fight each other
over this they BOTH lose. If they worked together then they could both
have sensible schemes.
They could work together you know, they both do see both sides of the
problem it's just that they both (and particularly the US) want to
'win'.
Stupid.
Oz
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:47:43 +0000, Oz wrote:
>
>
>>>>Are they enforceable to ALL farmers?
>>>
>>>All farmers who participate in the farm program. Given that it's not
>>>economically feasible to farm outside the program (unless you're
>>>farming non-program, specialty, or niche market crops), that would
>>>apply to nearly all producers.
>>
>>That's the problem. If you control supply
>
You can internally if you impose some restrictions on imports.
>If we don't plant for a
>year, the Brazilians and the Chinese (among others) are ready, willing,
>and able to plant more of what we were growing and capture both our
>domestic and foreign markets.
If they can do so unsubsidised at current world prices, which I doubt,
then do you really want to be in this world market? It's one thing to
maintain home production for security reasons, to prevent rural
depopulation and to reduce the cost of imports but do you really want to
maintain a presence in the export market where you lose bucks for every
ton you sell?
I appreciate this might be heresy to some, particularly in the US.
The Rock Garden
> But you can't unilaterally control supply. If we don't plant for a
> year, the Brazilians and the Chinese (among others) are ready, willing,
> and able to plant more of what we were growing and capture both our
> domestic and foreign markets.
Getting a bunch of agricultural producers to agree/cooperate on anything is
like
trying to push a rope, so don't blame all the supply/demand problems on
foreign influences alone. Take milk as an example; it's all produced
domestically and is subject to supply and demand in an open marketplace.
Yet dairy farmers periodically over-produce and the numbers of cattle have
to be reduced, by attrition of the poor managers and/or a gov buy out,
until a profit can be realized again.
Beef cattle is a good example of a supply/demand market in the US, and while
there are some imports, most production is domestic. Beef growers around
here usually figure if they can turn a profit three out of every seven years
they can do OK. And somehow they manage to do it without the gov having to
cover their losses those other four years.
An earlier subsidy comparison was made in reference to the Chrysler and
airline bailouts. I'm not familiar with the airline deal but didn't
Chrysler repaid the gov loan in full once they were back in the black? Now
*there's* a concept...
Skip
Skip & Christy Hensler
THE ROCK GARDEN
Newport, WA
http://www.povn.com/rock/
Oz
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:01:42 +0000, Oz wrote:
>
>>>If we don't plant for a
>>>year, the Brazilians and the Chinese (among others) are ready, willing,
>>>and able to plant more of what we were growing and capture both our
>>>domestic and foreign markets.
>>
>>If they can do so unsubsidised at current world prices, which I doubt,
>>then do you really want to be in this world market?
>
>advantageous for a country to heavily subsidize its exports (with the
>weak local currency) to bring in profits in stronger currencies (i.e.
>the US dollar).
Ok so your subsidies are not allowed and theirs are?
I don't think so.
>>do you really want to
>>maintain a presence in the export market where you lose bucks for every
>>ton you sell?
>
>If that were the long term situation, no. But nations often use
>commodities as a sort of "loss leader", and use them to gain leverage
>on other, more profitable trades.
Sounds like an excuse.
Kelly E Jones
The Rock Garden <hen...@povn.com> wrote:
>Beef cattle is a good example of a supply/demand market in the US, and while
>there are some imports, most production is domestic. Beef growers around
>here usually figure if they can turn a profit three out of every seven years
>they can do OK. And somehow they manage to do it without the gov having to
>cover their losses those other four years.
Although, some would claim, the gov is subsidizing their operation by
providing below-cost use of public lands for grazing...
Kelly
Oz
>"B.B. Bean" <bbb...@beancotton.com> wrote
>
>> But you can't unilaterally control supply. If we don't plant for a
>> year, the Brazilians and the Chinese (among others) are ready, willing,
>> and able to plant more of what we were growing and capture both our
>> domestic and foreign markets.
>
>
>
>Getting a bunch of agricultural producers to agree/cooperate on anything is
>like
>trying to push a rope, so don't blame all the supply/demand problems on
>foreign influences alone. Take milk as an example; it's all produced
>domestically and is subject to supply and demand in an open marketplace.
>Yet dairy farmers periodically over-produce and the numbers of cattle have
>to be reduced, by attrition of the poor managers and/or a gov buy out,
>until a profit can be realized again.
That's all been explained up the thread, go back and read it.
>Beef cattle is a good example of a supply/demand market in the US, and while
>there are some imports, most production is domestic. Beef growers around
>here usually figure if they can turn a profit three out of every seven years
>they can do OK. And somehow they manage to do it without the gov having to
>cover their losses those other four years.
Indeed. Lot of capital required for beef production?
Gordon Couger
"B.B. Bean" <bbb...@beancotton.com> wrote in message
news:ooornaornapbggbap...@news.alt.net...
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:41:13 +0000, Oz wrote:
>
> >>
> >>Acreage bases, AMTA payments based on previous production, CRP, etc.
> >
> >OK, I don't know about these.
> >
> >Are they enforceable to ALL farmers?
>
> economically feasible to farm outside the program (unless you're
> farming non-program, specialty, or niche market crops), that would
> apply to nearly all producers.
>
> >closing stock level?
>
> set-aside, and adjusted this acreage annually. the current farm bill
> doesn't. The proposed farm bill doesn't.
I recall that some large farmers did not play ball in the last program that
required set aside or was it the one before that one.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
you can take the cattle all the way from cow to the feed lot and have a
inexpensive way to carry the calves from weaning to 750- 800 pounds. But it
takes a lot of money to play the game.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
>
> >it is either because
> >
> >1) The new owners know they can make a profit. No problem.
> >2) The new owners are clueless, and will also soon go out of
> >business. No problem.
> >3) The new owners know they can get enough subsidies to make the farm
> >profitable. Problem. We're now subsidizing something we've said was bad,
> >overproduction.
>
> business the landlord doesn't change. And cropland not producing income
> is a liability, so landlords are under the gun to have someone farm the
> land, profitably or otherwise..
>
> BTW - those "clueless" landlords are very often elderly farmers'
> widows. As they paid very little (if any) social security during their
> lives, they are dependent on the income from the farm. When they go
> bust, the state picks up a new dependent, and local banks and creditors
> end up holding the bag. It is to the state's advantage to have the land
> producing income and stimulating the economy.
Most of them I rented from were far form clueless and as a landlord I pay
close attention to my income and the income of my tenant. Good ones are hard
to find.
Gordon
The Rock Garden
> >Beef cattle is a good example of a supply/demand market in the US, and
while
> >there are some imports, most production is domestic. Beef growers around
> >here usually figure if they can turn a profit three out of every seven
years
> >they can do OK. And somehow they manage to do it without the gov having
to
> >cover their losses those other four years.
To which "Kelly E Jones" <kej...@ptdcs2.intel.com> replied:
> Although, some would claim, the gov is subsidizing their operation by
> providing below-cost use of public lands for grazing...
Yes, some would, and do, make that claim. What the cattle ranchers who
graze public land would then counter-claim is that all improvements such
as fencing, corrals, cattle guards, water tanks, road establishment &
maintenance, etc. is all the renter's responsibility, even though those
improvements are left on the land with no reimbursement at the end of the
lease. In many cases the improvements can vastly exceed the cost of the
lease itself and is the purported reasoning behind the low lease rates. Of
course I sort of imagine that politics might also have just a wee bit to do
with it too... :-)
Keep in mind that only a very small percentage of US cattle producers
are able to utilize public lease lands, even in much of the West. Around
here there are some BLM leases still available, but on a much lower cow/calf
unit per acre basis than in the *good old days." Public grazing leases are
virtually a thing of the past on National Forest Service, state and Indian
tribal lands (to non-tribal members,) in this area at least.
Here most of our more successful farming/ranching set-ups are dual
wheat/cattle operations, on the assumption the good cattle price years
will even out the bad wheat price years, and vice versa. Also there is much
more experimentation these days with non-traditional crops such as rape,
sunflowers, alfalfa and bluegrass seed and hay, dry peas, lentils, etc.
Gordon Couger
Franken food scares are just smoke screens to keep lower priced products out
of the EU and fund raisers for the greens. I am sure that they see things
differently and none of really sees the true picture.
If we start counting actual cases of adultered foods I think we will find
more coming out of Europe than the US. I don't know of any products from the
US that have had toxic products added to them like the ethylene glycol added
to some European wines. Nor any reports of sewage in feed or PCBs in feed.
Our beef in particular has at least 40 years of research showing it to be
safe and the EU has not been able to come up with a single credible report
to the contrary. I can't afford to give up 30 bucks a head to suit the
customer when it put me in the red a good part of the time. I believe the
UK allowed growth hormones in cattle until the EU forced you to quit using
them. At least you had the good sense to keep the Pound.
The UK and EU had agreed to GM crops until they caved in to political
pressure when the greens got in a feeding frenzy.
These are precisely the reasons that a global ag policy can't work. What you
and I consider fair are not the same and we can work together much better
than we can with the Chinese or South Americas.
The way your movement responded to the GM crop problem and the way mine is
cobbling together a farm bill that at best will be poor and encourage more
over production so the harsh political realities that getting a single
program in one country that works is unlikely let alone the world.
It would be a great thing if it were possible to get your plan to work but
short of a one world government I don't see how it can happen.
Gordon
Jim Webster
Kelly E Jones <kej...@ptdcs2.intel.com> wrote in message
news:a5m6i3$o...@news.or.intel.com...
how do you work out the lands are below cost if those grazing are not making
money. Unless someone else is coming along and offering better money than
the grazers then the grazers are paying what the market will bear
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
> Kelly
Gordon Couger
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:a5napg$v28$3...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Kelly E Jones <kej...@ptdcs2.intel.com> wrote in message
> news:a5m6i3$o...@news.or.intel.com...
> > In article <Xiwf8.232335$d34.17...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
> > The Rock Garden <hen...@povn.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Beef cattle is a good example of a supply/demand market in the US, and
> while
> > >there are some imports, most production is domestic. Beef growers
around
> > >here usually figure if they can turn a profit three out of every seven
> years
> > >they can do OK. And somehow they manage to do it without the gov
having
> to
> > >cover their losses those other four years.
> >
> > Although, some would claim, the gov is subsidizing their operation by
> > providing below-cost use of public lands for grazing...
>
> how do you work out the lands are below cost if those grazing are not
making
> money. Unless someone else is coming along and offering better money than
> the grazers then the grazers are paying what the market will bear
>
same land would rent for if it was privately owned. Here is a link to the
act http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/taylorgr.html
Gordon
Torsten Brinch
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>Our beef in particular has at least 40 years of research showing it to be
>safe and the EU has not been able to come up with a single credible report
>to the contrary.
Bullshit, Gordon.
"For 17 oestradiol in particular, the SCVPH concluded that
there is a substantial body of recent and reliable scientific
evidence suggesting that this substance has to be considered
as a complete carcinogen (i.e. both tumour initiating and tumour
promoting), but it was not possible to quantify this risk. For the
hormone MGA, there was no available risk assessment and the SCVPH
concluded that the publicly available information is inadequate to
carry out a complete assessment, but the available data allowed a
non-quantifiable risk for the consumers to be identified. For
the other 4 hormones (testosterone, progesterone, trenbolone acetate
and zeranol), it was found that the available information is also
inadequate to allow a quantitative estimate of the risk but that a
risk to the consumers has been identified in qualitative
terms. Of particular relevance to the SCVPH's opinion was the finding
that, because no safe threshold could be established for any of these
hormones, exposure to even small traces in meat carries a risk, and
that "of the various susceptible risk groups, pre-pubertal children is
the group of greatest concern” because of the extremely low
level of endogenous production of hormones by pre-pubertal children."
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/press/press57_en.pdf
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Oz
>What you call winning I call fair play. I feel that the hormone beef and
>Franken food scares are just smoke screens to keep lower priced products out
>of the EU and fund raisers for the greens. I am sure that they see things
>differently and none of really sees the true picture.
Look, the 'true picture' is very simple.
No country wants to bankrupt all it's farmers and let the countryside
return to wasteland. It's that simple.
Firstly this results in an excessive balance of payments cost, secondly
it depopulates rural areas, thirdly there is no-one to maintain the
countryside and fourthly it is politically dangerous to completely lose
control of your food supply.
So all countries want some basal level of agricultural production.
The trouble is at the moment this is leading to world overproduction and
world prices below pretty well everyone's long-term cost of production.
So somehow, instead of beating a big drum and threatening each other,
the more with-it countries ought to get together and decide how they
should handle the problem. This will NOT mean complete free trade, any
more than armaments have complete free trade, but it should mean freer
trade and a much better modus vivandi.
Richard Smith
The Rock Garden wrote:
> An earlier subsidy comparison was made in reference to the Chrysler and
> airline bailouts. I'm not familiar with the airline deal but didn't
> Chrysler repaid the gov loan in full once they were back in the black? Now
> *there's* a concept...
If Chrysler did repay, I must have missed it. What was the interest rate??
What was Prime at the time??
Can't you see that this Gov't intervention is a form of subsidy?
My point (which you must have missed completely) was that there are other
groups which get subsidies wherein the Gov't gets nothing in return
Richard Smith
Oz wrote:
> The Rock Garden writes
>
> >Beef cattle is a good example of a supply/demand market in the US, and while
> >there are some imports, most production is domestic. Beef growers around
> >here usually figure if they can turn a profit three out of every seven years
> >they can do OK. And somehow they manage to do it without the gov having to
> >cover their losses those other four years.
>
> Indeed. Lot of capital required for beef production?
Too bad I don't know more about the beef industry. But I do know enough to see
that the beef folks are not operating totally without subsidies.
Low cost grazing on Gov't land certainly is a subsidy.
Kelly E Jones
The Rock Garden <hen...@povn.com> wrote:
>Yes, some would, and do, make that claim. What the cattle ranchers who
>graze public land would then counter-claim is that all improvements such
>as fencing, corrals, cattle guards, water tanks, road establishment &
>maintenance, etc. is all the renter's responsibility, even though those
>improvements are left on the land with no reimbursement at the end of the
>lease.
Ummm... But those 'improvements' benefit only the cattle rancher. Why
should he be reimbursed?
Kelly
Kelly E Jones
Jim Webster <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>> Although, some would claim, the gov is subsidizing their operation by
>> providing below-cost use of public lands for grazing...
>
>how do you work out the lands are below cost if those grazing are not making
>money. Unless someone else is coming along and offering better money than
>the grazers then the grazers are paying what the market will bear
Hey, I said 'some' would claim that, I didn't say I was claiming that!
:)
But really, the fact that grazers are losing money is immaterial to
the 'subsidy' argument. If the money brought in as leasing fees is
less than the cost of managing the lease program, then it's a
goverment subsidy, regardless of whether the price charged is fair
market value or not.
Kelly
The Rock Garden
> >Yes, some would, and do, make that claim. What the cattle ranchers who
> >graze public land would then counter-claim is that all improvements such
> >as fencing, corrals, cattle guards, water tanks, road establishment &
> >maintenance, etc. is all the renter's responsibility, even though those
> >improvements are left on the land with no reimbursement at the end of the
> >lease.
To which "Kelly E Jones" <kej...@ptdcs2.intel.com> replied:
> Ummm... But those 'improvements' benefit only the cattle rancher. Why
> should he be reimbursed?
I don't believe I mentioned anywhere where either I, or the cattlemen I was
paraphrasing, stated they should be reimbursed. What I was attempting to do
was point out that there are two sides to every story and this was the
cattlemen's.
From there you can put whatever slant on it you desire...
Oz
>If the money brought in as leasing fees is
>less than the cost of managing the lease program, then it's a
>goverment subsidy, regardless of whether the price charged is fair
>market value or not.
Ah, so if produce is sold at below the cost of production then the
farmers are subsidising the consumer by the same logic, right?
So should be reimbursed.
Jerry & Kathleen Crawford
>
> >> Grassley's payment limitations, for example, would limit cotton and
>
> >I'm confused, even after looking at the website, does this bill
> >say that if you're farming more than X acres, you can't get ANY
> >money? Or just that they would make payments on the excess over
> >the limit? The latter seems (at first glance, anyway) to make sense,
> >the former really doesn't.
>
> A producer would meet his payment limitations at that point and further
> production would be outside the program. So he could certainly continue
> to produce cotton over that acreage, but only at the risk of operating
> at a 30 cents + per lb deficit.
> -
> B.B. Bean bbb...@beancotton.com
> Bean & Bean Cotton Co/Bean Farms http://www.beancotton.com
> Peach Orchard, MO
>
Hi, All!
Been skimming through all this very serious discussion, and one thing
keeps coming to mind : Things are not what they seem.
Looking globally at what the "global community" really wants to achieve,
it makes a lot of sense to let the U.S. farms go by the wayside. When we no
longer have cocntrol over our own food, whoever does will control us.
Our govenment has had some real interesting conversations with other
nations, in and out of official circles. Some of the goals, as I
understand, are to disarm the people, cut our consumption of fuels, lower
the population, and generally equal the playing field. Then we are just one
part of the whole (equal) global community.
I have a problem with being led astray. I don't like it. Maybe there
are still some unspoiled politicians who really want to improve things for
the U.S., farmers incuded, but there is still an aura of doubt about the
general direction we're headed.
I don't consider myself a "gloom and doom" advocate. I just like to
keep my eyes open. It will be interesting to see where we are in twenty
years.
And if anyone wants me to site exact references, I don't have the time.
YOU go back and read the news releases and political bio's from the past
"X" years.
I'll get off the soapbox now.
--
Kathleen
Straw Barry Fields Farm
Beefalo
Kentucky, USA
The Rock Garden
> If Chrysler did repay, I must have missed it. What was the interest
rate??
> What was Prime at the time??
> Can't you see that this Gov't intervention is a form of subsidy?
A short quote from: http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirl2_20011002.htm
"In the end, the government didn't have to reimburse Chrysler's lenders and
the automaker repaid its loans before they were due. The government even
profited by $250 million when it exercised warrants it demanded from
Chrysler in return for its guarantees."
Can *you* see that there wasn't even a loan involved, that it was a loan
guarantee by the gov which was never exercised?
> My point (which you must have missed completely) was that there are other
> groups which get subsidies wherein the Gov't gets nothing in return
No, I didn't miss your point. There are very few, if any, segments of US
society that doesn't receive subsidies in one form or another, but just
because everyone else has their hand in the cookie jar doesn't make it
right. Nor, IMHO, does "reverse Darwinism," or the "survival of the
unfittest" make *any* business stronger in the long run. Gov doesn't create
anything, it merely collects from the taxpayers and doles out to those who
it
deems need it the most, (or can deliver the most votes.) Maybe I'm missing
something but it would appear to me that up to this point we agree?
I guess what I really find the most incomprehensible is that our (US)
economic system is supposedly based on capitalism and, as a group, the
agricultural community generally prides itself as being a bulwark of the
free enterprise system. Spend an afternoon at the feed store and you will
learn that the chit-chat invariably centers around all those freeloaders on
welfare and how (fill in any name) is always getting unearned perks from the
gov. The one point that is generally ignored is that a goodly portion of
the agricultural community in the US would not be able to survive in its
current form in a pure capitalistic, non-welfare system. Whether or not
this is desirable is a separate subject.
Also IMO the gov *always* gets something in return. Votes...
Now, do you get *my* point?
Kelly E Jones
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Kelly E Jones writes
>
>>If the money brought in as leasing fees is
>>less than the cost of managing the lease program, then it's a
>>goverment subsidy, regardless of whether the price charged is fair
>>market value or not.
>
>Ah, so if produce is sold at below the cost of production then the
>farmers are subsidising the consumer by the same logic, right?
Yes.
>So should be reimbursed.
Now you're being silly. Government subsidies of farming exist because
they're mandated by law. There are no laws which force a farmer to
produce or sell anything.
Kelly
Gordon Couger
"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:b4mu7u0fvsgspounq...@4ax.com...
Protectionist bull shit. The paper is a we think there might be a problem
and is 2 years 9 months over due without a single leak of a suspected
problem.
If oestradiol is a concern you best quit eating heifers or spay them they
put a great deal more of it in the meat supply than implants do. In fact
most of your surface water has serious amount of oestradiol in it. If you
are concerned about estrogen like products soybeans are another thing very
high in these products.
Any problems in pre-pubertal children should show up in studies between
children in the US and any country not using hormones. I don't follow these
studies but I have seen enough of them to know a lot have been done all over
the world because there is some concern that puberty is happening earlier.
Most often better health and nutrition are given as reasons. I don't know
about human physiology but it sure is a determining factor in live stock.
Gordon
Torsten Brinch
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>
>"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
>news:b4mu7u0fvsgspounq...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:52:15 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
>> <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Our beef in particular has at least 40 years of research
>> >showing it to be safe <snip>
"It should also be noted that the European Commission
requested several times in the course of 1998 and the
beginning of 1999 in writing from the US and Canada to
provide it with copies of all relevant scientific
information and data they had in their possession on
these hormones and on which they based their risk
assessments and marketing authorisations. The same
scientific information and data was requested also from
Australia and New Zealand. But to date no information
has been received from any of these countries."
So, where is it, Gordon, those 40 years of
research. Not much showing, eh?
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Michael Sallee
If I can jump thru the hoops lying all the way I can gain subsidies from
the
Government. Only those who tore the land up to raise grain are getting
subsidies. either direct payment from years of raising grain, LDP
payments
or from CRP (et. al.). The land the family aquired which had been in
grain production, if I want to go CRP or like; I may get aid but only if
I
stand in the back of the line from those who really do not care for the
land.
Yes, there is some aid in reestablising acreage to grass....but just as
soon
as I mention that I do not want CRP and am wanting to get it into
grazing
soon as possible. "Oh, I am sorry but there is not any left. We have to
finish the projects on the book first." "It is not time to sign up for
the next
round of approvals, come back later." "Oh I forgot to tell you because
you
did not come in earlier in the week you have to wait till those ahead of
you are approved (actually BS for I do not care for you and told those
whom
I wanted on the list to come in before I let it out that it was time to
apply)"
With all that getting aid from the government to help in grazing cattle
is
for the birds. Most of private non-corporate grazing is done without
subsidies from the Government.
--
-----
"The law may permit what honor does not."
-Deacon
-----
Sincerely
Michael Sallee
President Green Hills Farm Project
Brought to you by the letters O and S and the number 2
Gordon Couger
"Michael Sallee" <bs...@freenet.toronto.on.ca> wrote in message
news:3C7FD597...@freenet.toronto.on.ca...
subsidy there wouldn't be an unending supply of two dollar corn. The
cattleman benefits some from cheap feed in his winter feed program but even
at today's low prices cheaper options for winter supplemental feed are
available in the majority of the area that cattle are raised.
Cheap feed for the feed lot indirectly benefits every phase of the cattle
market. Ultimately the price of cattle has to work out everybody in the
chain makes enough money to stay in business and in the long run that has to
come from what the customer pays for beef and the higher the price of beef
the less the retail customer will buy so the increased prices of any element
in the process can't all be passed on to the customer but must be reflected
in price of cattle. It doesn't work smoothly but it has to work out that
way in the end.
So while there is very little direct subsidy in the beef industry the whole
industry benefits from cheap feed. The beef industry is not as tightly tied
to the price of feed as the hog industry becase we can leave the cattle on
pasture longer and on feed for less time to take out some of the sting of
the cost of feed.
Gordon
Jim Webster
in a free market, if your costs are higher than the amount of money that
your customers are willing to pay you, then you are grossly inefficient and
ought to get your costs down. Sounds like the costs of managing the grazing
programme are too high and a lot of pen pushers need firing.
Gordon Couger
Gordon
Gordon Couger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk>
Newsgroups: misc.rural,sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Small plot farming more attractive to non-farmers
: On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:28:30 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
My last answer was a little short.
I am not sure how the process works but at one point the EU accepted hormone
treated beef and we see you as essentially changing the rules and we won't
play the game.
All the data is available it is just we won't collect it for you. If you
want you have to come get it.
And it still comes down to politics. If the dealings among nations made good
sense there wouldn't be any wars.
Gordon
Torsten Brinch
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
: >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:52:15 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
: >> <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
: >>
: >> >Our beef in particular has at least 40 years of research
: >> >showing it to be safe <snip>
:
: "It should also be noted that the European Commission
: requested several times in the course of 1998 and the
: beginning of 1999 in writing from the US and Canada to
: provide it with copies of all relevant scientific
: information and data they had in their possession on
: these hormones and on which they based their risk
: assessments and marketing authorisations. The same
: scientific information and data was requested also from
: Australia and New Zealand. But to date no information
: has been received from any of these countries."
:
: So, where is it, Gordon, those 40 years of
: research. Not much showing, eh?
>My last answer was a little short.
It certainly was. It consisted of the single word
'politics' followed by an exclamation point.
A most curious response on a sci. newsgroup.
>I am not sure how the process works but at one point the EU accepted hormone
>treated beef and we see you as essentially changing the rules and we won't
>play the game.
The EU beef hormone ban originates back in the late 1970s, when
it was found that Italian babies developed breasts and
enlarged genitals after eating canned baby food made
from French veal that contained traces of a synthetic hormone,
which had been banned in veal production in Italy about 10 years
earlier.
Italy reacted promptly by restricting veal imports from
other EU states, and consumer groups all over Europe began
demanding an immediate ban on the use of all hormones in
livestock production. So, in 1981, the EU Council of Ministers
banned the hormone involved (DES) from use in all member states
and further called for a study of five other hormones in use
in Europe.
The ball, that had thusly been set rolling in the late 1970s,
ended up in a total ban on the use of hormones in beef
production in the EU effective from 1989, and applying
to domestic production, as well as imported produce.
>All the data is available it is just we won't collect it for
>you. If you want you have to come get it.
That is not a credible response. You yourself made reference to
40 years of research showing your beef to be safe. It can't be
your breast cancer statistics you are thinking of, which shows
one of the highest breast cancer incidencences in the world, and
rising over that period, can it? Nor can it be your prostate
cancer statistics which show the same. Nor can it be data on
your ongoing epidemic of premature development of secondary sex
charactheristics in premenarchial girls. So, what is it?
Also your response has not been credible, going the other
way. What happened when I posted a summary of the conclusions
of the EU scientific committee? You immediately decried it as
"Protectionist bull shit.", quite obviously without considering
for a second what evidence the scientific committee had collected
and on which evidence they based their conclusions. You did not
even ask for it.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Gordon Couger
When we found DES was bad stuff we quit using it. We didn't blindly discard
all harmones. The rules for using DES in the US resulted in very very little
being in the meat at slaughter. I was using it in the 60's. The second
generation of hormones were more effective with one exeption. If I bought a
pregnate heifer and gave her DES she would immidatle start to fill her udder
as if getting ready to give birth and I could take her back to the sale
insted of putting her in the feed lot.
>
> The ball, that had thusly been set rolling in the late 1970s,
> ended up in a total ban on the use of hormones in beef
> production in the EU effective from 1989, and applying
> to domestic production, as well as imported produce.
>
> >All the data is available it is just we won't collect it for
> >you. If you want you have to come get it.
>
> That is not a credible response. You yourself made reference to
> 40 years of research showing your beef to be safe. It can't be
> your breast cancer statistics you are thinking of, which shows
> one of the highest breast cancer incidencences in the world, and
> rising over that period, can it? Nor can it be your prostate
> cancer statistics which show the same. Nor can it be data on
> your ongoing epidemic of premature development of secondary sex
> charactheristics in premenarchial girls. So, what is it?
=============
Other countries that don't use hormones in meat animals have the same
problems. Breast cancer has been increasing in the US at 1% a year since
1940. http://www.komen.org/abc/chap_02e.asp Women living longer, haveing
less children, less breast feeding and more women living near industral
areas are the reasons given by conservitive sources. If you want to look at
alramist soruces soybeans, BHT, hormone in meat aimals, plastics and
hormones in drinking water from recycled pee are all good suspects.
An internet search for premature development of secondary sex brings up
lots of theroies add AMA to it and almost nothing that relates to it comes
up. A serach on medline brings up nothing indicating diet has any effect.
The conventional thinking is http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000915/tips/8.html.
If you are a man and live long enough you are very likely to get prostrate
cancer. Also the diagnosis of prostrate cancer jumped greatly when blood
test became avalible. My doctor tells me every year when I get my anual
finger wave and blood test that a lot of men die wiht prostrate cancer but
very few die form prostrate cancer. Two doctors that are personal freinds
have considerble resevations that we are over treating prostrate cancer.
Almost all increses in the rate of cancer can be accounted for by the fact
that we live longer and we have more time to develop cancer. There are
envionmental clusters of cancer but in spite of considerble effort none can
be connected to feeding animals hormones.
>
> Also your response has not been credible, going the other
> way. What happened when I posted a summary of the conclusions
> of the EU scientific committee? You immediately decried it as
> "Protectionist bull shit.", quite obviously without considering
> for a second what evidence the scientific committee had collected
> and on which evidence they based their conclusions. You did not
> even ask for it.
>
We see it as protectionist. After thinking about it the fact that the EU has
nothing like the USDA with a long history of work. After all rebuilding
after WWII took considerable resources for a long time and you had higher
priorities. Most of the EU have parliamentary governments that are more
subject to influence from small political groups becase your multi party
system nearly always ends up with a government made of several factions all
looking to make the best deal for their interests. Your governments come
closer to being true democracies than ours and have react to public opinion
of smaller groups more than our movement does. And then the EU being a super
set of this has a very difficult problem crafting policy that has a chance
of working in all the member states. It is easy for science to get lost in
the process.
I am not being overly critical of your political process because ours has
problems equal or worse than yours. It is so entrenched that they can afford
to ignore large sectors of the population and come up with a lot poorer
social programs than the EU. Reelection is almost guaranteed in the house
and senate where the real power is.
Politics! still is a good answer.
Gordon
Jim Webster
> 40 years of research showing your beef to be safe. It can't be
> your breast cancer statistics you are thinking of, which shows
> one of the highest breast cancer incidencences in the world, and
> rising over that period, can it? Nor can it be your prostate
> cancer statistics which show the same. Nor can it be data on
> your ongoing epidemic of premature development of secondary sex
> charactheristics in premenarchial girls. So, what is it?
>
Neither agreeing nor disagreeing, however in the UK we had the following
report published in Autumn 1999 and it has been forgotten since. This was
the Report of the Sub-group of the Veterinary Products Committee.
This sub-group was formed to look into the potential risks to human health
from hormone residues in meat. It reported in October and it's report was
lost in the flurry of interest in the French beef ban and their feeding
sewage to cattle. It is a pity because it is an interesting report.
The use of Hormone Growth Promoters was banned in the EU in
1988. Any non-EU country sending meat into the EU had to guarantee that this
produce was free of administered hormones. However in 1998 the WTO ruled
that the EU had no real evidence for this ban and the EU Commission ordered
a number of new risk assessments to be done.
The report looks first at the quantity of hormones involved.
Three occur naturally, 17Beta Oestradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone. All
three have ADI or Acceptable Daily Intakes which are intake levels
permitted in the USA. As an example, if you ate 100kg of butter in a day you
would exceed your ADI for Oestradiol. However only 6 kilos a day of butter
would take you over your ADI for Progesterone and a mere 2400kg of butter a
day would take you over your ADI for Testosterone. These figures are in no
way exceptional and show the low level of these naturally occurring hormones
which occur in our foods.
We also produce these hormones ourselves. This is called
Endogenous exposure. A man would produce something like 140,000 nanograms of
Oestradiol and oestrone per day while a woman will produce about 630,000
nanograms. They will receive a further 100 nanograms per day in their normal
diet.
Currently in the UK the various BSE prevention measures are
actually reducing the amount of hormones we receive normally in our diet.
Because cows over the age of 30 months are incinerated they do not enter the
food chain and these cows like all mature female mammals do have high levels
of naturally produced hormones. Hence the sub-group took a worst case option
where not only were these older cattle back in the food chain, but that
simultaneously the use of hormone growth promoter became the norm. This
would lead to a twelve percent increase (about 8.25nanograms per day) in
Oestradiol. As lowest level of natural production of Oestradiol is 54,000
nanograms per day in the prepubertal girl. As the sub group say, "This would
not materially shift the balance between dietary and endogenous Oestradiol.
The sub-group did look at the dangers involved in eating a
fresh implant by mistake. In the case of Oestradiol this would lead you
to getting 36 years worth of maximum dose in one day. This they felt was an
area of genuine risk and felt that it should be estimated and the
toxicological effects of such a high one off dose should be investigated.
Finally the Sub group looked at the possible carcinogenic effects of eating
food containing these hormones. They felt that when the papers discussing
work in this field were carefully assessed there was very little evidence to
show increased risk.
The political significance of this work has yet to be seen.
Much of the paper does seem to support the WTO line, while those against the
use of hormone growth promoters will doubtless find comfort in the risks of
eating an implant by mistake. Certainly this risk could well be used by an
imaginative EU to ensure that while the implants could be used, (so
pacifying the WTO and Americans) they had to be administered by a Veterinary
Surgeon which would probably render them economically unviable.
CD
If the money brought in as leasing fees is
> less than the cost of managing the lease program, then it's a
> goverment subsidy, regardless of whether the price charged is fair
> market value or not.
I don't know much about this specific example. I have observed that
generally speaking governments are piss poor managers of manpower and
money. Over time, fair market value must include enough profit to pay
the freight. In other words, a government leasing program that runs at
a loss while charging fair market value may very well be a subsidy, a
subsidy for the government employees who run programs with litle or no
thought to the profit motive of either themselves or thier customers.
Of course my daddy used to say "We're lucky we don't get the government
we pay for." :)
Charlie
Torsten Brinch
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>
>"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
>news:rq718ucsp7nvukekj...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 02:48:05 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
>> <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>> "Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
>> : >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:52:15 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
>> : >> <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>> : >>
>> : >> >Our beef in particular has at least 40 years of research
>> : >> >showing it to be safe <snip>
>> >I am not sure how the process works but at one point
>> >the EU accepted hormone treated beef and we see you
>> >as essentially changing the rules and we won't
>> >play the game.
>>
>> The EU beef hormone ban originates back in the late 1970s, when
>> it was found that Italian babies developed breasts and
>> enlarged genitals after eating canned baby food made
>> from French veal that contained traces of a synthetic hormone,
>> which had been banned in veal production in Italy about 10 years
>> earlier.
>>
>> Italy reacted promptly by restricting veal imports from
>> other EU states, and consumer groups all over Europe began
>> demanding an immediate ban on the use of all hormones in
>> livestock production. So, in 1981, the EU Council of Ministers
>> banned the hormone involved (DES) from use in all member states
>> and further called for a study of five other hormones in use
>> in Europe.
>============
>When we found DES was bad stuff we quit using it. <snip>
What is the scientific evidence that DES has such unique
qualities, distinquishing it from other substances with
hormone effect, that an increment of DES exposure
is bad, and an increment exposure to the rest is not?
Try reading what I write, for a change. You say you have 40 years
of research showing it to be safe. What research are you referring
to?
>> Also your response has not been credible, going the other
>> way. What happened when I posted a summary of the conclusions
>> of the EU scientific committee? You immediately decried it as
>> "Protectionist bull shit.", quite obviously without considering
>> for a second what evidence the scientific committee had collected
>> and on which evidence they based their conclusions. You did not
>> even ask for it.
>We see it as protectionist. <snip>
Because of the way you see things, you do not
need to look at the scientific evidence? Is that it?
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Gordon Couger
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
economical enough I just don't like to stress the cattle by loading them up
and taking them to the vet and expose them to disease.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
The clearance by the regulatory agencies and lack of any credible reports of
harm cause by them in the literature and lack of lawsuits meets the standard
as far as I am concerned.
See Jim's post on the British report if you need more.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:a5qjem$9nl$4...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
Heifers will be cycling long before they are 30 months old. So unless you
spay them they are putting a substantial amount of hormones in your meat
supply.
Gordon
Torsten Brinch
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
Is irrelevant to the question of scientific evidence.
Clearance or non-clearance by regulatory agencies
reflect political decisions -based- on scientific
evidence. Try to get your categories straight.
>and lack of any credible reports of harm cause
>by them in the literature and lack of lawsuits
>meets the standard as far as I am
>concerned.
More misconceptions, Gordon. A scientific commission
which has assessed risks of a product, basing
its assessment solely on failure to find reports of
concrete harm in the literature, and failure to find
lawsuits in connection with use of the product,
has simply not done its job.
>See Jim's post on the British report if you need more.
Cheesh. As if I needed a maroon like Jim Webster to
tell me anything about the science in this. As if I
had not already posted a summary of the conclusions
of the report Jim Webster is misleading you about.
Here are the conclusions again, this time verbatim
from the report:
Major conclusions of "ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL RISKS
TO HUMAN HEALTH FROM HORMONE RESIDUES IN BOVINE MEAT
AND MEAT PRODUCTS", from the EU SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
ON VETERINARY MEASURES RELATING TO PUBLIC HEALTH:
***quote****
- As concerns excess intake of hormone residues and
their metabolites, and in view of the intrinsic
properties of hormones and epidemiological findings,
a risk to the consumer has been identified with
different levels of conclusive evidence for the 6
hormones in question.
- In the case of 17 b oestradiol there is a substantial
body of recent evidence suggesting that it has to be
considered as a complete carcinogen, as it exerts both
tumour initiating and tumour promoting effects. The data
available does not allow a quantitative estimate of the risk.
- For the other 5 hormones, in spite of the individual
toxicological and epidemiological data described in the
report, the current state of knowledge does not allow a
quantitative estimate of the risk.
- For all six hormones endocrine, developmental, immunological,
neurobiological, immunotoxic, genotoxic and carcinogenic
effects could be envisaged. Of the various susceptible
risk groups, prepubertal children is the group of greatest
concern. Again the available data do not enable a quantitative
estimate of the risk.
- In view of the intrinsic properties of the hormones and
in consideration of epidemiological findings, no threshold
levels can be defined for any of the 6 substances.
***unquote*****
The last scientifically based conclusion is crucial:
Our scientists concludes that no threshold levels of
zero risk can be defined for these products.
So, aptly, here is another quote for you,
"The SPS Agreement [..] explicitly affirms the right
of each government to choose its levels of protection,
including a "zero risk" level if it so chooses. A
government may establish its levels of protection by
any means available under its law, including by referendum.
In the end, the choice of the appropriate level of protection
is a societal value judgement. The Agreement imposes no
requirement to establish a scientific basis for the chosen
level of protection because the choice is not a scientific
judgement" (quote from USA's "Statement of Administrative Action"
regarding the WTO SPS agreement)
So, Gordon, as you incessantly want -not- to deal with
science, will you at least be so kind as to realize
-where- the politics in the EU beef hormone ban is:
THE EU HAS CHOSEN A LEVEL OF PROTECTION AIMING AT
ZERO RISK TO CONSUMERS FROM THE USE OF HORMONAL
GROWTH PROMOTERS IN MEAT PRODUCTION.
Got it?
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Oz
>Heifers will be cycling long before they are 30 months old. So unless you
>spay them they are putting a substantial amount of hormones in your meat
>supply.
You have forgotten our previous discussions. Due largely to subsidy only
going to bull calves few heifers are reared in the EC and many of them
go as single suckling cows.
Many heifers are culled soon after birth. :-(
The large amount of 'old cow' meat that went into processed food (ie
hamburgers) is incinerated in the UK, but not, I admit, in the rest of
the EU.
Larry Caldwell
gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net writes:
> While the cattleman is not subsidized to any degree the feeder is. Without
> subsidy there wouldn't be an unending supply of two dollar corn.
This is the case for the entire meat industry. Poultry and hog producers
also benefit from below-cost feed. The existence of alternate meats also
provides a buffer from the extreme price fluctuations that Oz mentioned.
If there is a shortage of beef, a large segment of the market will just
switch to eating chicken.
As for the idea of restricting imports, that would cause huge disruptions
in segments of the food supply. Without imports there would be no fresh
fruits or vegetables available during the winter. In my refrigerator
right now are Peruvian grapes, New Zealand Kiwi and Mexican asparagus.
Larry Caldwell
writes:
> Although, some would claim, the gov is subsidizing their operation by
> providing below-cost use of public lands for grazing...
What does the grazing land cost the government?
Larry Caldwell
writes:
> Ummm... But those 'improvements' benefit only the cattle rancher. Why
> should he be reimbursed?
1. The cattle rancher is not reimbursed. He develops a natural resource
and generates value from it with no subsidy or reimbursement.
2. The rancher is not the only beneficiary of the improvements.
Wildlife benefits greatly from cattle ranching. The rancher clears sage
and juniper, and establishes productive forage plants, controls
predators, and provides recreational roads. Cattle get a bad rap, like
the Hart Mountain antelope refuge, where the antelope were almost wiped
out by cancelling grazing leases. With no cattle to eat the grass, the
mouse and rabbit population exploded. Abundant small prey led to an
explosion in the coyote population. The coyotes just surrounded the
female pronghorns when they went into labor, and ate the fawn before it
could run fast enough to escape. The last I heard the antelope
population was dropping 50% a year, though a coyote eradication program
was in place.
Without grazing leases, much of that land would be worthless to wildlife
as well as humans. It would revert to the unproductive scrub desert that
it was before humans arrived.
Larry Caldwell
> in a free market, if your costs are higher than the amount of money that
> your customers are willing to pay you, then you are grossly inefficient and
> ought to get your costs down. Sounds like the costs of managing the grazing
> programme are too high and a lot of pen pushers need firing.
Exactly. The cost of selling a grazing lease should be nearly zero.
Larry Caldwell
> The Rock Garden wrote:
> > An earlier subsidy comparison was made in reference to the Chrysler and
> > airline bailouts. I'm not familiar with the airline deal but didn't
> > Chrysler repaid the gov loan in full once they were back in the black? Now
> > *there's* a concept...
> If Chrysler did repay, I must have missed it. What was the interest rate??
> What was Prime at the time??
> Can't you see that this Gov't intervention is a form of subsidy?
Yes, Chrysler paid off the loan ahead of schedule. Remember Lee Iacoca
(sp?) being Time Magazine's Man of the Year? That was for turning
Chrysler around, and paying off the loan among other things.
> My point (which you must have missed completely) was that there are other
> groups which get subsidies wherein the Gov't gets nothing in return
The Savings and Loan bailout would be a better example. It cost us the
same as the entire federal budget for one year, and all we did was keep
the industry from collapsing. The government never recouped a nickel.
The collapse of American agriculture would have worldwide repercussions.
If we started importing large quantities of grain, the poor people of the
world would starve. We can pay more for food than they can. It would be
the Irish potato famine all over again. You will recall that Ireland was
exporting large quantities of food to England while Irish were starving
to death in the streets.
Fran Higham
> As for the idea of restricting imports, that would cause huge disruptions
> in segments of the food supply. Without imports there would be no fresh
> fruits or vegetables available during the winter
But the US does restrict imports of meat. It restricts imports to the US by
using quotas. That serves as a very effective restriction tool and has, in
the past, been used to block out meat from other countries which can not
only produce it without subsidies but which also produce it without the use
of hormones.
Gordon Couger
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GOGcKkAm...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
I knew your dairy heifers were culled but I didn't realize that beef heifers
were as well. So you have about 1.6 cows or more to raise one calf for beef
compared to what I have to have? I suppose you cull your cows at an earlier
age than I did when heifers are worthless as beef and that and the fact that
cows have no salvage value would makes cows cheaper than they are over here
and help you cost some. But I would think it would drive up the cow numbers
as well leading to over supplies.
Out of curiosity what do each of these beef animals sell for a heifer ready
to breed, a young cow, a young cow and calf pair, a weaned calf (450-550
pounds), a calf ready to go in the feed lot(750-850) and fat calf. Or do
your cattlemen retain ownership all the way to slaughter? If your weights
are different correct mine. Also what does it cost for pasture to keep a cow
for a year?
From the feed cost that Jim showed they are pretty stiff as well. I have
real good feel for the profit and loss of every step in the US beef industry
and the numbers I see from the UK look pretty tough even with the subsidy.
I suppose that the BSE panic reduced the market for beef enough that there
enough bulls to fill the market and heifers would be a further drag on the
market.
As a cattleman it makes me sick to see any other cattleman with the problems
that are going on in the UK and EU. It is particularly perplexing that BSE
has generated so much hysteria when so many other zoonotic diseases cause so
much more death than BSE in both humans and live stock. I understand the
uncertainty and particular horror of vCJD is chilling but the dramatic over
reaction anywhere that a cow with BSE appears is appalling that people and
leaders panic over something that has such low risk compared to other much
greater risks from other animals and food that they face every day.
For example simply owning a cat while pregnant is a greater risk to the life
of the child than contracting BSE is to anyone. According to the Merck
Manual http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual_home/sec23/253.htm
between 1 and 8 babies per 1,000 are born with toxoplsmosis of these 9%
result in death and 30% have severe lifelong problems including varying
degrees of mental retardation.
http://martin.parasitology.mcgill.ca/jimspage/biol/toxoplas.htm So being
around a cat or sheep when one is pregnant is far more dangerous to life
that possibility of contracting BSE.
Here are some pages on zoonotic diseases
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasiticpathways/animals.htm
http://www.who.int/emc/diseases/zoo/
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/pets/
Oz
>As for the idea of restricting imports, that would cause huge disruptions
>in segments of the food supply. Without imports there would be no fresh
>fruits or vegetables available during the winter. In my refrigerator
>right now are Peruvian grapes, New Zealand Kiwi and Mexican asparagus.
Restricting imports is not the same as banning ALL imports.
It's not so hard to work out a fairly simple means of maintaining
reasonable home prices whilst still allowing in imports. For example the
UK imported american wheat for many decades despite a high tariff.
Oz
>Out of curiosity what do each of these beef animals sell for a heifer ready
>to breed, a young cow, a young cow and calf pair, a weaned calf (450-550
>pounds), a calf ready to go in the feed lot(750-850) and fat calf. Or do
>your cattlemen retain ownership all the way to slaughter? If your weights
>are different correct mine. Also what does it cost for pasture to keep a cow
>for a year?
Jim would be able to answer this better than I.
Oz
Really? Then the us is already some way down the line to the system I am
proposing. They just need to control home production and they are there.
Jim Webster
> Gordon Couger writes
> >Out of curiosity what do each of these beef animals sell for a heifer
ready
> >to breed, a young cow, a young cow and calf pair, a weaned calf (450-550
> >pounds), a calf ready to go in the feed lot(750-850) and fat calf. Or do
> >your cattlemen retain ownership all the way to slaughter? If your weights
> >are different correct mine. Also what does it cost for pasture to keep a
cow
> >for a year?
>
> Jim would be able to answer this better than I.
for some reason my news reader is not picking up Gordons posts (yes and I
have cleared out my kilfile so you haven't been kilfiled by accident.
I am about to sell a number of beef cows tomorrow so I can give you a better
picture then. With fmd and the closure of the livestock markets we have had
trouble getting prices for breeding stock.
For the weaned calf at 450-550lb/200-250kg animal we don't normally sell
them at that size.
The 750-850lb/340- 380kg animal is the common size sold on to finishers.
Assuming them to be 12 to 14 months old, Currently I would expect about £350
to £390 ($500-$550) for steers. Obviously heifers at that age would be
lighter and for the same age I would hope for £280-£300 ($420). Because most
of our cattle are out of dairy mothers heifers are a more doubtful commodity
and I have had 20 month old heifers which still only fetched $400 store.
The normal route for beef cattle is to be born on a dairy farm and to be
sold at about 3weeks old. Janet and John figures would be approximately £100
for a nice continental cross bull calf, no more than £30 for the equivilent
heifer.
People like me rear them and either take them through to fat or sell them to
professional finishers. (Hence the figures I have you before.) Over here the
people I am selling cattle to now will run them out at grass over summer,
and depending on the animals age, might finish it inside over winter (we
don't have grass in winter, just mud) or might finish of grass in the
following summer.
Currently a nice Continental steer or heifer seems to fetch about 106pence
per kilo liveweight which by my reckoning is somewhere near $68 per 100lb.
Plainer Holstein types are perhaps 85ppk or $55 per 100lb while I have seen
really nice belgian blue heifers fetch 119ppk or $77 per 100lb.
weaned calves from suckler herds tend to be weaned at 9 or 10 months. I was
getting £350 ($500) for the best steers last winter but they had eaten creep
feed as well as suckled.
I'll get back to you on the cow prices
For pasture, round here £75/$106 per acre for one years grazing/mowing
tenancy is not uncommon. We rent in some land at that price.
That land will happily support 1 livestock units per acre. A cow is 1 lsu.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Gordon Couger
technically possible I don't think it is politically possible and I think
the US might be the biggest problem because of the large amount of farmland
we have. If we got some Chinese over to show us how we could probably feed
our population on 20% of our farm land or less. We wouldn't eat so well and
obesity wouldn't be a major health problem but there would be plenty of
food.
We use food as forgiven aid, a weapon, bribes and export income. We won't
give it up easily.
Then there are the Chinese. They are making investments in agriculture as
fast as they can. They claim to have more GM crops in the ground than the
rest of the world put together. The are building the biggest irrigation
project in the world and they are close to a net exporter now. In fifteen
years they will be a major force in agriculture. They have the will, the
cheap labor and GM crops and irrigation could increases there yields of some
crops by a factor of 5 not counting new land irrigation makes possible.
We are looking at putting in drip irrigation on a dry land cotton farm that
will increase the yield from 400 pounds per acre to 1440 pounds per acre.
And take it no till at the same time. It doesn't sound like the thing to do
when cotton price are at an all time low but if the numbers are right the
cost of producing a pound of cotton goes from 70 cents to 50 cents or a
little less.
If you want to have farmers in your country you have to find some way to
keep them in business. Over supply and subsidy works and there are almost no
shortages. Cheap food is an easy sell for the politician. He just has to
toss a few alms to the farmer. I don't like it but I have learned to accept
it.
Gordon