Anyone believe this?

[Westwind]

@FarmerDan

Man I appreciate the comments from someone who has seen the ag business from the inside.

I think it’s really easy to “blame” farms and farming for a lot of stuff and make it seem like the farm subsidies only benefit farmers but it serves many of our interests. In this case, dominating commies!

I found it interesting too how Department of Ag studied road construction. Never would have guessed that.

We have done a lot of stuff right.

I also think sometimes the gov does stuff that sounds really stupid on its face but if someone would explain why they are doing it we might have a little more confidence in them.

 

[KY wild]

Around here farming does not dominate, really nice mix of woodland and Ag land but people always complaining that farmers are rich and get too much help from the government. I have always looked at farming differently not because of their daily jobs but because I look at food differently than other resources. Maybe I am giving the government too much credit but if it is accidental or a planned end I still agree with the outcome.
When farmers go out of business around here the land is lotted up and some lots will leave farming and will be used for new homes, once a house is setting on that land it will never be used to feed America again or at least not for the life of the house. That is fine in the short term but as the world grows and less farm land then you can see the possible problem in the future. So I think the Govt needs to subsidize farmers to keep them planting and not selling the land into development. The only thing that is more important than food is water and Oxygen. In other words if I do not have a home, I know of plenty of family or friends that could live in one house, think 20 kids sleeping on floor if necessary as long as they all had plenty to eat. Now think of the same families with nice houses with nothing to eat. Also houses can go on top each other if necessary. Food has to take priority.
Last point, is more about the world. I have stuff all over my house from China, but I could do without all of it if I needed. If push comes to shove in this world for what ever reason food will matter the most. I do not need to buy the China extension cord, wallet, clock, lamp, toys, etc but they need food or they will starve. Besides I already have all this cheap stuff that will last for years but they will need to eat tomorrow. I actually think the US is so well off not because of its democracy but because we can more than feed our people, which will matter most if times get rough.
The only thing I personally have at stake here is I like to eat. I did cut tobacco a great deal back in the day to pay for gas and college but no other connection to farming. So keep farmers farming and wealthy so we all have quality food that does not take our entire income and all of our time just to stay nourished.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I di
100%. I just think the government bailing any group out when things aren’t great is not a good model. Like I said I want a bailout when the housing market takes a crap like right now. Food, water and shelter…3 basic needs. So a farmer is no more important than someone in housing!

True enough on no one group being more important for bailouts. The fly in the soup is what happens to a family farmer, or housing contractors, etc. when the overall markets / financial / economic conditions hammer them? How do those groups survive, pay life's bills, etc. if left naked financially? No one can re-invent themselves overnight. Bank bailouts are the ones that grind me, because those banks typically manipulated the books, offered products that weren't safe or backed with hard assets, made loans to people without adequate vetting, or "invented securities" that were risky, or outright fraudulent. Those problems are/were self-inflicted. That's a big difference IMO.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Around here farming does not dominate, really nice mix of woodland and Ag land but people always complaining that farmers are rich and get too much help from the government. I have always looked at farming differently not because of their daily jobs but because I look at food differently than other resources. Maybe I am giving the government too much credit but if it is accidental or a planned end I still agree with the outcome.
When farmers go out of business around here the land is lotted up and some lots will leave farming and will be used for new homes, once a house is setting on that land it will never be used to feed America again or at least not for the life of the house. That is fine in the short term but as the world grows and less farm land then you can see the possible problem in the future. So I think the Govt needs to subsidize farmers to keep them planting and not selling the land into development. The only thing that is more important than food is water and Oxygen. In other words if I do not have a home, I know of plenty of family or friends that could live in one house, think 20 kids sleeping on floor if necessary as long as they all had plenty to eat. Now think of the same families with nice houses with nothing to eat. Also houses can go on top each other if necessary. Food has to take priority.
Last point, is more about the world. I have stuff all over my house from China, but I could do without all of it if I needed. If push comes to shove in this world for what ever reason food will matter the most. I do not need to buy the China extension cord, wallet, clock, lamp, toys, etc but they need food or they will starve. Besides I already have all this cheap stuff that will last for years but they will need to eat tomorrow. I actually think the US is so well off not because of its democracy but because we can more than feed our people, which will matter most if times get rough.
The only thing I personally have at stake here is I like to eat. I did cut tobacco a great deal back in the day to pay for gas and college but no other connection to farming. So keep farmers farming and wealthy so we all have quality food that does not take our entire income and all of our time just to stay nourished.

I agree with you on land - once "developed" - won't feed Americans into the future. All of us need to eat, and preserving AG land here - in the U.S. - will be critical going forward. With global power-struggles / wars / isolationism rearing its head in many places - do we really want to depend on global sources for our food?? We need farms & farmers ..... period.

I also agree with your point about not needing China-made stuff in the big picture. People need 3 things to survive if things get really tough - food, shelter, and safe drinking water. The latest version of a "smart phone", or tablet, or glasses / headset? that make me think I'm jetting off to Jupiter aren't necessary to survival. Come dinner time, we can't eat those things.

 

[Skeeter]

I too found this interesting. Although I have studied and participated in everything that we seem to think is wrong with ag today this is the first time I heard the "supermarket angle." Because my life has revolved around the outside of ag and participated inside both as a producer and something of a renowned (LOL!) local policy "expert" - I have drunk from the poison well.

I tend to believe ever changing farm policy has served society adequately. It's not perfect and we need to debate, intelligently debate, the future of it. In its current form there is both good and bad. Which-is-which requires some value judgement and my values will as I have expressed above be different than yours. I heard a journalist once describe all government as legalized corruption with the party (and I don't care which ones) in power deep into our pockets. I have come to understand the statement.

But, I am left to wonder - because there are no answers - what we would look like if there was no farm policy. Would we still have more than half of the population subsistence farming, struggling to feed only themselves and perhaps a few others? Without the industrialization of agriculture would we have been free to grow the economy as it has? I wonder what kind of picture forms in the minds of people not involved in agriculture that people form when they hear the words "corporate farming" and "industrialization."

The science and technology driving industrialization has freed innovative and entrepreneurial people to leave farming and engage in more productive endeavors.
Last time I looked farm production was about 5.5% of our massive gross national product compared to 23% before the great depression. In other words we were still very much a rural and agrarian economy. And if you idolize that you are very much delusional. As it was practiced in the past was hard for most people and failure was frequent.

While I suspect most of you have never experienced food insecurity it wasn't that long ago that many households had bare cupboards. My mother and father were depression area children. I honestly believe my mother married my father because, farming in the style of the time, he did not know a hungry day. My father's motives were, ummm, well - understandable?

If you are of the opinion that our food choices today are unhealthy and/or that how we produce food today leaves us short of nutrition think about that time not all that long ago when the food choices were much shorter than they are now. Think about having no choice and how that might affect one's health - physical and mental.

That we can have this discussion and be so far removed from the subject is, I think, possible because of how we have done what we have done. And you might not be able to do what you do without having done what we have done.

Going forward we can do better. I am not encourage by the current political climate...but I have never been this old before!

Now it is time to eat, drink and enjoy our bounty! Merry Christmas!

I fail to see how the lack of subsidies would preclude farming from innovation and modernization in order to produce an income. Seems to be a lot of assumptions in those statements. It's certainly the argument politicians love to make because it serves their interests.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I fail to see how the lack of subsidies would preclude farming from innovation and modernization in order to produce an income. Seems to be a lot of assumptions in those statements. It's certainly the argument politicians love to make because it serves their interests.

Not to mention wait till developers start throwing out big money. 100 acres around my house would be 4-5 mil or more. Who is gonna say nah my subsidies are so good you can shove it. You want to give farmers our money…how bout they have to put the land in some kind of protective deed restriction that never allows it to be developed.

 

[Mortenson]

Not to mention wait till developers start throwing out big money. 100 acres around my house would be 4-5 mil or more. Who is gonna say nah my subsidies are so good you can shove it. You want to give farmers our money…how bout they have to put the land in some kind of protective deed restriction that never allows it to be developed.

Actually one of those farms just sold here last week. Over 200 acres of hunting ground in an average area went for something around 1.5k/ac. A forever conservation easement with zero payments or income.

 

[Skeeter]

Around here farming does not dominate, really nice mix of woodland and Ag land but people always complaining that farmers are rich and get too much help from the government. I have always looked at farming differently not because of their daily jobs but because I look at food differently than other resources. Maybe I am giving the government too much credit but if it is accidental or a planned end I still agree with the outcome.
When farmers go out of business around here the land is lotted up and some lots will leave farming and will be used for new homes, once a house is setting on that land it will never be used to feed America again or at least not for the life of the house. That is fine in the short term but as the world grows and less farm land then you can see the possible problem in the future. So I think the Govt needs to subsidize farmers to keep them planting and not selling the land into development. The only thing that is more important than food is water and Oxygen. In other words if I do not have a home, I know of plenty of family or friends that could live in one house, think 20 kids sleeping on floor if necessary as long as they all had plenty to eat. Now think of the same families with nice houses with nothing to eat. Also houses can go on top each other if necessary. Food has to take priority.
Last point, is more about the world. I have stuff all over my house from China, but I could do without all of it if I needed. If push comes to shove in this world for what ever reason food will matter the most. I do not need to buy the China extension cord, wallet, clock, lamp, toys, etc but they need food or they will starve. Besides I already have all this cheap stuff that will last for years but they will need to eat tomorrow. I actually think the US is so well off not because of its democracy but because we can more than feed our people, which will matter most if times get rough.
The only thing I personally have at stake here is I like to eat. I did cut tobacco a great deal back in the day to pay for gas and college but no other connection to farming. So keep farmers farming and wealthy so we all have quality food that does not take our entire income and all of our time just to stay nourished.

Humans innovate and adapt to changing conditions, whether that be land constraints, labor, environment, climate, etc. To say that land mass is the critical element in farming ignores some current attempts at innovation. For example, Foggy recently posted an article on vertical farming. While I may have poo-poo'd on the idea a little bit, I do believe that there could be a place for such farms in the future. With many office buildings reporting high levels of vacancy there is definitely an opportunity to use those spaces for other purposes if companies continue under a remote work model. Could solve a couple of problems. Farms and housing for the laborers all in one building. Certainly there are challenges to figure out, but that's just the nature of innovation. Propping up a failing system with subsidies only delays innovation and advancement.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Actually one of those farms just sold here last week. Over 200 acres of hunting ground in an average area went for something around 1.5k/ac. A forever conservation easement with zero payments or income.

Yeah I’m torn on the idea of conservation easements. But I think it’s not my worst idea (I’ve had some interesting ones, like offer every male $3000 on their 18th bday to have a vasectomy as a way to curtail early pregnancies. It’s easily reversible once someone is financially and responsibly able to think about kids)
I think if you could tailor the easement to only disallow development AND fragmentation in return for subsidies that would be a win all the way around.

 

[hillrunner]

I fail to see how the lack of subsidies would preclude farming from innovation and modernization in order to produce an income. Seems to be a lot of assumptions in those statements. It's certainly the argument politicians love to make because it serves their interests.

It wouldn't, the subsidies are mostly about propping up corn and soybean production for the big ag suppliers, not helping farmers.

I live smack dab in the middle of big ag country iowa. Every farmer I've ever heard discuss subsidy payments would like to see them go away as long as it's even across the board. They cannot, however, afford to forego those payments as long as the neighbor down the road is getting them.

 

[Tree Spud]

Not to mention wait till developers start throwing out big money. 100 acres around my house would be 4-5 mil or more. Who is gonna say nah my subsidies are so good you can shove it. You want to give farmers our money…how bout they have to put the land in some kind of protective deed restriction that never allows it to be developed.

I have often wondered about this. Wetland, prairies, forests, etc. are all able to be shielded with easements (WRP, CRP, MFL, etc.) or have property taxes significantly reduced because the land is in a certain program.

If you want to ensure cropland stays crop land, simply require that the seller of registered crop land have to pay past 10 years of difference between ag taxes and developed land taxes. Or make some of the subsidies have to be paid back if land is sole in a certain time period. They do this with MFL.

 

[Tree Spud]

If you want to see a leveling off and readjustment of ag land values, get rid of the ethanol mandate. It is a terrible fuel source and costs more in energy to produce it that it returns, yet 100% of all gas sold must contain 10% ethanol.

 

[Telemark]

I'm generally in favor of farming subsidies. Keeping the supply of food stable and food prices low is good for the country.

 

[Tree Spud]

For all of you who think Gov't subsidiaries supporting farms is to protect the food supply consider this ...

~30-40% of all U.S. corn production is used for ethanol production.
~30-40% of all US corn production is used for animal feed production
~20% of U.S. corn production is exported and those import countries are using this corn for ethanol production to support their green mandates and animal feed.
~5% is used for high fructose corn syrup

If you think subsidies are so important to protect food production & supply, how important are the above?

 

[hillrunner]

I'm generally in favor of farming subsidies. Keeping the supply of food stable and food prices low is good for the country.

I understand the concept, but I don't think that's how it plays out. How many acres in this country are growing corn and soybeans only because of subsidies that are making that economically viable. How many acres would be converted to something more suitable and better for human or animal consumption if those acres could be purchased or rented at their actual cash flow value? The subsidies are driving the entire market to corn and soybeans anywhere they are remotely possible to grow because that's the only way to afford the rent or purchase price.

 

[Telemark]

I understand the concept, but I don't think that's how it plays out. How many acres in this country are growing corn and soybeans only because of subsidies that are making that economically viable. How many acres would be converted to something more suitable and better for human or animal consumption if those acres could be purchased or rented at their actual cash flow value? The subsidies are driving the entire market to corn and soybeans anywhere they are remotely possible to grow because that's the only way to afford the rent or purchase price.

I don't think it's as simple as just converting soy and corn acreages into something else. There are global market forces that have a strong influence over what is grown where. You can't grow just anything anywhere you want. Land that's suitable for grain might not be suitable for farming fruit or vegetables, and the global market might not have demand for more fruit and vegetables. Corn and soy are useful as more than just food, and their versatility leads to their massive production.

Could we fix the farm subsidy system? Probably. But I would hate to see this country experience instability in food supply or food prices. It would crash the markets and the economy. Violence and political instability would probably increase massively. Stability, and confidence in that stability, is probably the most important thing a country could have, especially in this era of de-globalization.

 

[Jerry-B-WI]

I have often wondered about this. Wetland, prairies, forests, etc. are all able to be shielded with easements (WRP, CRP, MFL, etc.) or have property taxes significantly reduced because the land is in a certain program.

If you want to ensure cropland stays crop land, simply require that the seller of registered crop land have to pay past 10 years of difference between ag taxes and developed land taxes. Or make some of the subsidies have to be paid back if land is sole in a certain time period. They do this with MFL.

I believe Wisconsin does have a program like this. Farmers get a break on property taxes because it takes property to make a living and in return if the farmland is sold for development some or all of the tax break has to be paid back.

It used to be common practice when a farmer was ready to retire they would sell land to developers, especially if you bordered a metro area, and retire on that money, you don't see that happening so much anymore.

 

[Jerry-B-WI]

For all of you who think Gov't subsidiaries supporting farms is to protect the food supply consider this ...

~30-40% of all U.S. corn production is used for ethanol production.
~30-40% of all US corn production is used for animal feed production
~20% of U.S. corn production is exported and those import countries are using this corn for ethanol production to support their green mandates and animal feed.
~5% is used for high fructose corn syrup

Doesn't leave much for corn flakes.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I believe Wisconsin does have a program like this. Farmers get a break on property taxes because it takes property to make a living and in return if the farmland is sold for development some or all of the tax break has to be paid back.

It used to be common practice when a farmer was ready to retire they would sell land to developers, especially if you bordered a metro area, and retire on that money, you don't see that happening so much anymore.

You don’t see that much anymore? Why is that?

Here’s the common practice where I live…be nice to have those subsidies back that were turned into billions of dollars of profit

Tennessee has lost more than 1 million acres of farmland in the last 20 years:
1997–2017: 1.1 million acres lost
2017–2022: Nearly half a million acres lost
Total: 1 million acres lost
The state is on track to lose 2 million acres of farmland by 2027.

 

[Tree Spud]

I believe Wisconsin does have a program like this. Farmers get a break on property taxes because it takes property to make a living and in return if the farmland is sold for development some or all of the tax break has to be paid back.

It used to be common practice when a farmer was ready to retire they would sell land to developers, especially if you bordered a metro area, and retire on that money, you don't see that happening so much anymore.

Farmland property taxes in Wisconsin is taxed about 25% of what recreational land (non ag classified land) is taxed at. I see it as I own both. Even non-buildable rec land (marsh, swamp, wet forest, etc.) are higher in property taxes than ag.