|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Oct 20, 2013 22:45:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by richardw on Oct 21, 2013 12:47:36 GMT -5
Wow,thats a lot paid out.
Up to the 1980's NZ farmers were paid subsidy's to produce more,like for an example a sheep farmer was paid so much x amount for every animal he/she had,so they would run as many animals as they could get away with,the results were the sheep were smallier,they grew less wool and as a blade sheep shearer myself they were the best of times,man we made some money.A change of Government brought to a end the subsidies and the poor preforming farmers went out of business,they all said that that was the end of farming in this country but here we are 30 years on and it was only the best farmers that survived that transition to stand along farming
|
|
|
Post by 12540dumont on Oct 21, 2013 18:16:27 GMT -5
I am not the best farmer. But, I will say that I am an conscientious farmer. That said, I have no subsidies. I have had many losses over the years: 1. weather 2. varmints 3. stupidity 4. cheating employees (see number 3) 5. theft (see number 3) 6. broken equipment (see number 3) 7. poor plant selection, poor timing of planting or harvesting. (again see number 3) No one has paid me for any of these. And it's been a long learning experience. It's a sorry business for sure. Subsidies are expensive to Governments directing resources away from other legitimate priorities. WE have all seen subsidies that cause environmental degradation - exploitation of resources, pollution, loss of landscape, misuse and overuse of supplies - which, as well as its fundamental damage, acts as a further brake on economies. Subsidies tend to benefit the few at the expense of the many, and the rich at the expense of the poor and undermine the pressure on businesses to become more efficient. And then some folks think they are "entitled to them". Joseph, I haven't made any money either But I eat well!
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on Oct 22, 2013 8:16:40 GMT -5
I checked out my own county of NY state, $456,518 dollars in 2012, almost 90% of that in dairy and corn subsidies. Add in CRP and soybeans and you hit 100%. I imagine it's pretty much the same across the country, subsidies for commodity/industrial crops and the remainder in CRP. Vegetable farmers don't even participate in the crop insurance system, even in California as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on Oct 27, 2013 12:25:58 GMT -5
$3,586,429 for my zip code alone, and I know a few of these folks. We aren't really farmers, so small wonder we haven't taken subsidies. But I don't think I would if I were. Course, I might change my tune if I were a "bigger" entity. I hope not.
|
|
|
Post by steev on Oct 29, 2013 20:34:22 GMT -5
Looking in my farm's zipcode, I found three people I know, two of whom are neighbors. No big recipients and all around the '08 meltdown. The biggies are all out in the Central Valley: Big Ag; many are multi-dippers (different corporations, different family members). This is a game for those that have accountants/lawyers, not Holly or Joseph.
|
|
|
Post by 12540dumont on Oct 30, 2013 12:19:58 GMT -5
And here's something else:
What follows is the Local Harvest Newsletter:
After the shenanigans of the last month it feels almost in poor taste to bring up yet another example of the folly in Washington. I would happily write about something more pleasant if there wasn't so much potential for damage here. The Food and Drug Administration has proposed another set of regulations that, if implemented as written, will negatively affect many LocalHarvest farmers and could very well put some of them out of business. (Careful readers will recall a similar theme in last month's LH newsletter concerning outdoor access for chickens; believe it or not, this is a separate issue.)
These proposed regulations fall under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the first overhaul to food safety rules in 75 years. For several years before its 2010 passage, farm and food activists worked hard to make sure that the law would address the known threats to food safety from industrialized agriculture, and differentiate between those activities and ones that are non-threatening. Thanks to their hard work, Congress passed an amendment exempting small-scale farmers, thus protecting them from overly burdensome regulations that shouldn't apply to them. But that didn't entirely work.
Sometimes 'fair' means that the same rules apply to everyone, but sometimes what is fair is to ask the people who engage in the riskiest activities to meet a higher standard than others. In the food system, the riskiest activities are those with a documented history of contamination leading to human illness. In the U.S., those products are bagged salads, sprouts, and much of what is grown downstream from confined animal feedlot operations (CAFOs — aka feedlots). Bagged salads are risky because when the salad leaves are cut they become vulnerable to pathogens; putting these vulnerable greens in a sealed container and removing the oxygen creates an excellent environment for bacterial growth over time. Sprouts are risky because of a history of contaminated seeds and the lack of sufficient post-harvest safety checks. Irrigation water tainted by runoff from CAFOs may contaminate produce. Instead of focusing the regulations on these few problem areas, though, the FDA produced a set of rules strict enough to keep the high-risk products safe and applied it to all produce. According to The Cornucopia Institute, over 90% of the farmers to whom the regulations will apply do not produce these high-risk foods. Requiring them to abide by the same strict rules just isn't fair.
Nor is it smart. Despite being so expensive to implement that the FDA itself predicts the new rules will put some small- and medium-scale produce farmers out of business, asking them to follow these rules is unlikely to make the food system any safer at all because these farmers are not the bad actors. Society will lose an unknowable number of good farmers for nothing, and good food will become harder to find. We think the government has a role in keeping the food system safe, but rules that put good farmers out of business and leave gaping holes in known problem areas is not wise governance.
Several organizations have developed excellent materials through which you can learn more about these proposed regulations and their impact. One good source is The Cornucopia Institute. If you really want to dig in, read their whitepaper on the food safety rules. Another good source is the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. They offer step by step instructions on how to submit a public comment and what to say. Finally, the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance offers an in-depth analysis, sample comments, and a downloadable PDF flyer that can be printed and distributed at farmers markets.
I hope that many of you will help protect LocalHarvest's produce farmers by contacting the FDA before the November 15 deadline. Let them know that you want the FDA to create rules that don't unfairly burden the small- and mid-scale farmers from whom you like to get your food. Good food — and good farmers — are worth protecting.
Until next time, take good care and eat well. Erin
Erin Barnett Director LocalHarvest
|
|
|
Post by steev on Oct 31, 2013 20:00:36 GMT -5
Applying the same rule to all is rarely "fair", but always "arbitrary", allowing those applying the rule to evade responsibility for judgement. One might reference the "I'm just following orders" excuse, if one wanted to be "fair"ly judgemental.
|
|