Ben & Jery's and Farm Subsidies

[GTAVercetti 0]

I was watching TV and saw a Ben & Jerry's commercial which threw out this tidbit:

"70% of farm subsidies go to the top 10% of producers."

I had no idea, so I looked it up and found these:

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/favour.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM96.cfm

Looks like it is true. I never liked the idea of the subsidy, but now I REALLY don't. The ones who make the most to begin with get MORE from the government to NOT produce. Jeeez.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SpeedRacer 1]

hmmm, well that would make sense. The purpose of the subsidy is to 1) allow soil to regenerate nutrients by allowing a portion of the farmer's land to lay fallow for a year and 2) control surplus to prevent the price of the crop from dropping too low.

it might make sense that the more a farm produces, the more land it is using, and the more money it would take to offset the cost of allowing that land to lay fallow.

I don't know, but I would like to hear arguments from both sides as to why the subsidies are the way they are. And yes, perhaps some of the $ should be used to encourage smaller & organic farming practices.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,426]

>The ones who make the most to begin with get MORE from the government to NOT produce.

Of course. Trickle-down economics has been a staple of conservative fiscal policy since the Reagan years. Give tax breaks/subsidies to the top companies, they do better, they hire more people and contribute millions to the candidates who supported them. Everybody wins, in theory.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

1) allow soil to regenerate nutrients by allowing a portion of the farmer's land to lay fallow for a year

Two words: Crop Rotation

Quote

2) control surplus to prevent the price of the crop from dropping too low

One word: Biofuel

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

hmmm, well that would make sense. The purpose of the subsidy is to 1) allow soil to regenerate nutrients by allowing a portion of the farmer's land to lay fallow for a year and 2) control surplus to prevent the price of the crop from dropping too low.

I would be more inclined to think it was solely the second choice. We have plenty of stores of food that farmers could let fields go fallow for a year. In fact, for any farm worth its salt, this and crop rotation, are SOP.
Once again tso-d chris beats me to it.

And I don't think that smaller farms should get help. I think getting rid of the subsidies will help to level the playing field. The bigger commercial farms won't get extra money for doing nothing (and using said money to then put smaller farms out of business and buy their land) and the smaller farmers can keep producing what they do.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SpeedRacer 1]

well, there's not a question about surplus stores of food. The question is: how does that individual farmer get $ for perhaps rotating in a crop that is less valuable than the one he normally grows?

I don't know, y'all may be right. I would like to hear details from all sides first before I could decide.

(btw, does jumping_farmer ever come in here? )

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

well, there's not a question about surplus stores of food. The question is: how does that individual farmer get $ for perhaps rotating in a crop that is less valuable than the one he normally grows?

I don't know, y'all may be right. I would like to hear details from all sides first before I could decide.

(btw, does jumping_farmer ever come in here? )

Crop rotation and letting a field go fallow is a NORMAL part of farming. I never had a farm myself, but I grew up surrounded by them. If a farmer wants to be able to sustain his crop growth, he will have to let a field go fallow or rotate the crop at some point....subsidy or not.

So my point is, why should we (the tax payers) pay the commercial farms (who already make the most money) to do something they should do to have a proper farm anyway?

But I agree. I would like to hear from a farmer. go find jumping_farmer!

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

And I don't think that smaller farms should get help. I think getting rid of the subsidies will help to level the playing field. The bigger commercial farms won't get extra money for doing nothing (and using said money to then put smaller farms out of business and buy their land) and the smaller farmers can keep producing what they do.

I think instead of subsidizing farmers, we need the government to spend that money on biofuel refineries. Not only would such measures level the playing field, as you point out, but it also invests in farmers for energy needs, and helps shift some wealth from the petroleum industry.

For Great Deals on Gear

[FallRate 0]

Quote

"70% of farm subsidies go to the top 10% of producers."

Do the top 10% of producers generate 70% of the total crops? If this is the case then it is to be expected that 70% of the subsidies go to the top 10%.

Even if we had a tax system that takes 10% from every person, we would be able to make statements such as "10% of the population pays more than 50% of total taxes." While 10% for every person seems fair, the consequences can be troubling if presented only in statistical terms.

FallRate

[jumpinfarmer 0]

Here we go let the shit storm begin.

To start off, yes I get money from Uncle Sam. This year it quite a bit more than last year. I am not a large farmer but I am above average for land worked and gross sales. As someone stated the reason 10% get 70% of the money is because that is about how the production is 10% grow around 70% of the subsidised crops. Many groups including the government consider a farm anyone who grosses $1000 in sales, not a hard thing to do. However most of these very small farms don't produce the main subsidised crops. They are grain corn, wheat, oats, soybeans, barley, cotton, rice, sorgum and milk. The reasons for small farms not producing many of these crops is they just can't justify the cost of todays machinery. Also the proffit per acre from these crops is reletivly small so you need to have a large acreage to make a decent living.

As for how the programs work, well it makes my head hurt trying to think how to explane that. I can say for myself that our main crop and the one that nationaly gets the biggest subsity is corn. This year the government will pay out more than other years because of the low price and large crop. If the price was high we would get very little from Uncle Sam. The same goes for wheat, oats, soybeans, and many other comodity crops.

The government is for the most part out of the land idleing programs of the past, with the exception of some conservation programs. This means nearly all the cropland is planted every year. The government also is out of the grain storage buisness, wich means that any surpluss of grain is held mostly by the farmers.

As far as eliminating subsities in my opinion it would probably bring most farmers to there knees or even put them out of buisness. This is because we don't compete on a totaly level playing field with the rest of the world, and since almost half of our production is exported we need to compete. Agriculture is one of the only industries that has a positive trade ballance in this country.

I could go on but I'll let you toss this around first.

( turnning to run and hide)

[GTAVercetti 0]

No need to hide. We wanted to hear from a farmer.
But I still don't see how it would bring all farming down to get rid of it (or at least lessen it). If that top portion is getting most of the cash subsidy, how does getting rid of or lessening it affect the other 90%?

And what do small farmers do? They produce enough to bother to export?

These are genuine questions. I am actually interested, not trying to be clever.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

As far as eliminating subsities in my opinion it would probably bring most farmers to there knees or even put them out of buisness. This is because we don't compete on a totaly level playing field with the rest of the world, and since almost half of our production is exported we need to compete. Agriculture is one of the only industries that has a positive trade ballance in this country.

What do you think would happen if subsidies were eliminated while, simultaneously, domestic demand increased? If a new domestic market were introduced, wouldn't that be beneficial, at least in the long term? Just curious, and would appreciate your opinion.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

Most small farmers are doing it for a hobbie, and not there sole source of income. Actually I'm probably in the top 15% to 20% of farms and I can't totaly make it without some off farm income.

This year is a good example. Fuel cost has almost trippled in the last three years.Fertilizer, steel, and many other inputs have also seen a drastic increase in price. However most crops have seen a price decline for a number of reasons. Over production realy isn't one of them. Without the subsity kicking in most farms would be in trouble, myself included.

It should also be noted that most of the 10% are still family farms, they just have several people that live off the same farm insted of all having seperate operatios.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

Quote

Quote

As far as eliminating subsities in my opinion it would probably bring most farmers to there knees or even put them out of buisness. This is because we don't compete on a totaly level playing field with the rest of the world, and since almost half of our production is exported we need to compete. Agriculture is one of the only industries that has a positive trade ballance in this country.

What do you think would happen if subsidies were eliminated while, simultaneously, domestic demand increased? If a new domestic market were introduced, wouldn't that be beneficial, at least in the long term? Just curious, and would appreciate your opinion.

The way the current program is set up if a great demand was created and prices went through the roof then we would get very little from the government.

And yes it is a real benifit the bio fuel industry.

[GTAVercetti 0]

How is the demand for more organic produce? I seem to see alot more about it in the news, but that means little to me in real terms.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

There is a demand, but when you take the cut in production and the increase in labour you realy don't make out any better.

Just for your info. organic program crops are eligable for subsities as well.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

Quote

I was watching TV and saw a Ben & Jerry's commercial which threw out this tidbit:

"70% of farm subsidies go to the top 10% of producers."

I had no idea, so I looked it up and found these:

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/favour.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM96.cfm

Looks like it is true. I never liked the idea of the subsidy, but now I REALLY don't. The ones who make the most to begin with get MORE from the government to NOT produce. Jeeez.

I just read that blurb from The Heritage Society and if I had time could shoot that all to hell. What a bunch of slanted bullshit.

[billvon 2,426]

>Without the subsity kicking in most farms would be in trouble, myself included.

Well, normally, if most farms have trouble making ends meet, and the price increase is common to all of them (i.e. they all lose their subsidies) then they all raise prices to compensate; that's how prices are normally set in a free market. Is there some reason that wouldn't work here? Are some farms immune to the price increases somehow? Would people switch to foreign corn sources or something?

The money has to come from somewhere, of course. But it would seem to make more sense to have the money come from consumers rather than the consumer -> government -> subsidy -> farmer route.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

It would be nice to think it was that simple but it is not. To begin with farmers for the most part are price takers and not price setters. Meaning that we don't have much if any controle over the price we recieve for what we sell. the exception is for people who can direct market to the consumer as with a road side stand. It is hard to say how it would effect the prices of comodities if there were no more government checks. My thought is it wouldn't change much if at all. Comodity prices are mostly set by the Chicago Board of Trade and some other futures markets. You may not know it but you probably own corn or wheat as part of your retirment plan/ 401k or what ever. These funds can make big swings, both good and bad, in the prices we recieve and have little to do with weather or crop production.

Another thing is foreign compition. China and South America compete on the world market with us which has an effect on prices recieved at home. It is hard to compete with a farmer from a third world country that works for pennies a day and has almost no life but his crops and family. In this country that would not be a very attractive way to live.

In all this conversation you should all remember that in the USA you have the safest most abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber in the world. It only takes about 40 to 45 days for the average American to earn enough to buy all the food they will consume in a whole year. In many other countries it takes more than twice that long. This is part of the reason why we have the largest economy in the world. We have extra money to spend on things other than food.

(I wish a couple of the other farmers that are on here would help me out here.)

[MarkF 0]

Quote

(I wish a couple of the other farmers that are on here would help me out here.)

Well I have a largish interest in 14,500 hectares ( a bit under 36,000 acres ) of cereal (wheat and barley) and lamb but I can't help you out.

I have to compete with SUBSIDISED lamb and wheat from the USA. Thanks to US farm subsidies I've lost a wheat contract because my prices are too high. Apparently US farmers can get wheat to the middle east cheaper than I can produce it for. I haven't had ANY subsidy for more than 20 years.


Ooroo
Mark F...

[jumpinfarmer 0]

I don't see how our subsities in the US make our wheat cheaper on the world market. As far as I know there is no export subsity.

And trust me I aint getting rich raising wheat even with the help of Uncle Sam. Oh and by the way there was no payment on wheat this year. Market price is to high.

36,000 acres man and I have trouble enough with my 900.

[MarkF 0]

Quote

I don't see how our subsities in the US make our wheat cheaper on the world market. As far as I know there is no export subsity.

Good - I was wrong in assuming an export subs. I'm still a bit puzzled as to how US , and to a lesser degree, European wheat can be got to the middle east chaper than I can grow it for. Oh well, like farmers everywhere, we'll just suck it up and try and get more for the crop than it cost to grow. As I say - like farmers everywhere....

Quote

And trust me I aint getting rich raising wheat even with the help of Uncle Sam.

With or without anyones help - cereal croppers don't make much over cost.

Quote

Oh and by the way there was no payment on wheat this year. Market price is to high.

Was there any payment on lamb this year ? We compete with the subsidies ONLY if we export to the US which we don't - we export to, if you can believe it, an even more heavily subsidised Europe...

Quote

36,000 acres man and I have trouble enough with my 900.

Think of all the super and diesel I have to account for and keep under lock and key. Think of the BANGS I could make if I wanted to when I have truckloads of fertilizer and diesel all over the place...
Our BIGGEST expense over the last 5 years was lasering[1] the place. have you got any idea how much fuel that can get through ? Hint - SHITLOADS.

Our 36,000 acres is only pretty small compared to surrounding properties. My "next door" neighbour is almost 3 times the size of us and goes in for what's called around here "half 'n half". Barley and wheat. No canola - the uncertainties and problems we have here with GM material "getting away" are too huge to be involved with. Pity really - Canola pays better with less input cost. How do you guys deal with the "GM at any cost" crowd ?

[1] For the uninitiated, "lasering" is the craft of getting your whole property as flat and level as possible so that there is NO water runoff - it all stays where it falls and hopefully becomes subsoil moisture and not rain for someone else via evaporation.

Ooroo
Mark F...

[SpeedRacer 1]

Hey, don't subsidies allow y'all to grow "weeds"??

So grow some weed & then you'll make some profits.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------