Discussion:
"The Myth of the Small Farmer"
(too old to reply)
Ann
2006-12-21 20:18:37 UTC
Permalink
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.

The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.

"It's embarrassing," Phipps said. "My government is basically saying I am
incompetent and need help."..."





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001591.html?nav=rss_email/components
http://tinyurl.com/t3ry8
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-21 21:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
"It's embarrassing," Phipps said. "My government is basically saying I am
incompetent and need help."..."
But I doubt he sent the check back.
J.C.
2006-12-21 21:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct. That's what Smithfield, Tyson and
others of that ilk want you to believe. There are hardly any true family
farms left in this country. There are a lot of farms of which the family
sold out to the big agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to them, working
for 2% or less of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to say my Dad was one
of the first in Texas to fall for that. He took the Purina deal for caged
layers in 1948. He walked away after two years. Left the farm to Purina and
never looked back.

Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name is on
the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family farms" are
owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and others needing to
shelter some income.

I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston corporation that
runs the rice business in Texas.

The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over the
citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now trying to do to
the cattle industry what they did to the pork and poultry business. And they
are just about to succeed. And then, the vegetable farmers are next and that
will be the completion of the corporate takeover of the entire food supply
in America and then you'll eat what they say you will eat.
--
Want to see your future? http://www.spp.gov/

I don't pay any attention to what politicians say.
IT'S WHAT THEY DO THAT MOVES ME TO VOTE!

JC
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-21 21:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.

Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader
to imagine there's a division of farming into "'Family'
= small; agribusiness = enormous", but I didn't fall
for it.
Post by J.C.
That's what Smithfield, Tyson and
others of that ilk want you to believe. There are hardly any true family
farms left in this country. There are a lot of farms of which the family
sold out to the big agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to them, working
for 2% or less of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to say my Dad was one
of the first in Texas to fall for that. He took the Purina deal for caged
layers in 1948. He walked away after two years. Left the farm to Purina and
never looked back.
Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name is on
the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family farms" are
owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and others needing to
shelter some income.
I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston corporation that
runs the rice business in Texas.
The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over the
citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now trying to do to
the cattle industry what they did to the pork and poultry business. And they
are just about to succeed. And then, the vegetable farmers are next and that
will be the completion of the corporate takeover of the entire food supply
in America and then you'll eat what they say you will eat.
Ann
2006-12-21 22:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader
to imagine there's a division of farming into "'Family'
= small; agribusiness = enormous", but I didn't fall
for it.
Wrong. It's one of a series of Washington Post articles and this
one counters the "conventional wisdom" that family farm - small.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
That's what Smithfield, Tyson and
others of that ilk want you to believe. There are hardly any true
family farms left in this country. There are a lot of farms of which
the family sold out to the big agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to
them, working for 2% or less of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to
say my Dad was one of the first in Texas to fall for that. He took the
Purina deal for caged layers in 1948. He walked away after two years.
Left the farm to Purina and never looked back.
Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name
is on the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family
farms" are owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and
others needing to shelter some income.
I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston corporation
that runs the rice business in Texas.
The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over
the citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now trying
to do to the cattle industry what they did to the pork and poultry
business. And they are just about to succeed. And then, the vegetable
farmers are next and that will be the completion of the corporate
takeover of the entire food supply in America and then you'll eat what
they say you will eat.
Elmo
2006-12-22 13:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader
to imagine there's a division of farming into "'Family'
= small; agribusiness = enormous", but I didn't fall
for it.
Wrong. It's one of a series of Washington Post articles and this
one counters the "conventional wisdom" that family farm - small.
Calling a pig a cow doesn't actually make the pig into a cow.

This is the same logic that thought the school lunch program
could be improved if they just added ketchup to the list of
things defined as vegetables.
Ann
2006-12-22 13:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader
to imagine there's a division of farming into "'Family'
= small; agribusiness = enormous", but I didn't fall
for it.
Wrong. It's one of a series of Washington Post articles and this
one counters the "conventional wisdom" that family farm - small.
Calling a pig a cow doesn't actually make the pig into a cow.
This is the same logic that thought the school lunch program
could be improved if they just added ketchup to the list of
things defined as vegetables.
Don't understand.
Elmo
2006-12-22 14:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader
to imagine there's a division of farming into "'Family'
= small; agribusiness = enormous", but I didn't fall
for it.
Wrong. It's one of a series of Washington Post articles and this
one counters the "conventional wisdom" that family farm - small.
Calling a pig a cow doesn't actually make the pig into a cow.
This is the same logic that thought the school lunch program
could be improved if they just added ketchup to the list of
things defined as vegetables.
Don't understand.
Calling a large farm a family farm just because its run by a family
is deceptive.
Ann
2006-12-22 16:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader
to imagine there's a division of farming into "'Family'
= small; agribusiness = enormous", but I didn't fall
for it.
Wrong. It's one of a series of Washington Post articles and this
one counters the "conventional wisdom" that family farm - small.
Calling a pig a cow doesn't actually make the pig into a cow.
This is the same logic that thought the school lunch program
could be improved if they just added ketchup to the list of
things defined as vegetables.
Don't understand.
Calling a large farm a family farm just because its run by a family
is deceptive.
It's not what I think of first as a "family farm:, but that doesn't make
it "deceptive".

"This farm classification focuses on the "family farm," any farm
organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or family corporation.
Family farms exclude farms organized as nonfamily corporations or
cooperatives, as well as farms with hired managers."
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB12/EIB12a.pdf

"Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: 2005 Family Farm Report"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB12/
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-22 16:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader
to imagine there's a division of farming into "'Family'
= small; agribusiness = enormous", but I didn't fall
for it.
Wrong. It's one of a series of Washington Post articles and this
one counters the "conventional wisdom" that family farm - small.
Calling a pig a cow doesn't actually make the pig into a cow.
This is the same logic that thought the school lunch program
could be improved if they just added ketchup to the list of
things defined as vegetables.
Don't understand.
Calling a large farm a family farm just because its run by a family
is deceptive.
It's not what I think of first as a "family farm:, but that doesn't make
it "deceptive".
Sure it is. It's an emotionally and culturally loaded
term. "Family farm" connotes American Gothic or
Dorothy in Kansas. It connotes the 1984 films "The
River" and "Country". Use of the term is deliberately
intended to connote the image of struggling, pure,
hard-workin', god-fearin' Americans caught in an
"unfair" bind between eeeeeeevil bankers, big bad
"agri-business", and jaded city-slicker consumers.
That filthy swine jimmie-fat-fuck ledford revels in his
self-serving imagination of himself in this role. He,
too, gladly deposits those subsidy checks.
Ann
2006-12-22 17:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ann
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader
to imagine there's a division of farming into "'Family'
= small; agribusiness = enormous", but I didn't fall
for it.
Wrong. It's one of a series of Washington Post articles and this
one counters the "conventional wisdom" that family farm - small.
Calling a pig a cow doesn't actually make the pig into a cow.
This is the same logic that thought the school lunch program
could be improved if they just added ketchup to the list of
things defined as vegetables.
Don't understand.
Calling a large farm a family farm just because its run by a family
is deceptive.
It's not what I think of first as a "family farm:, but that doesn't make
it "deceptive".
Sure it is. It's an emotionally and culturally loaded
term. "Family farm" connotes American Gothic or
Dorothy in Kansas. It connotes the 1984 films "The
River" and "Country". Use of the term is deliberately
intended to connote the image of struggling, pure,
hard-workin', god-fearin' Americans caught in an
"unfair" bind between eeeeeeevil bankers, big bad
"agri-business", and jaded city-slicker consumers.
That filthy swine jimmie-fat-fuck ledford revels in his
self-serving imagination of himself in this role. He,
too, gladly deposits those subsidy checks.
The article is not deceptive. It's made clear that it is based on the
USDA definition, which is easily looked up (and you've snipped the urls
for). <g>
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-22 18:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ann
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader
to imagine there's a division of farming into "'Family'
= small; agribusiness = enormous", but I didn't fall
for it.
Wrong. It's one of a series of Washington Post articles and this
one counters the "conventional wisdom" that family farm - small.
Calling a pig a cow doesn't actually make the pig into a cow.
This is the same logic that thought the school lunch program
could be improved if they just added ketchup to the list of
things defined as vegetables.
Don't understand.
Calling a large farm a family farm just because its run by a family
is deceptive.
It's not what I think of first as a "family farm:, but that doesn't make
it "deceptive".
Sure it is. It's an emotionally and culturally loaded
term. "Family farm" connotes American Gothic or
Dorothy in Kansas. It connotes the 1984 films "The
River" and "Country". Use of the term is deliberately
intended to connote the image of struggling, pure,
hard-workin', god-fearin' Americans caught in an
"unfair" bind between eeeeeeevil bankers, big bad
"agri-business", and jaded city-slicker consumers.
That filthy swine jimmie-fat-fuck ledford revels in his
self-serving imagination of himself in this role. He,
too, gladly deposits those subsidy checks.
The article is not deceptive. It's made clear that it is based on the
USDA definition,
That's fine that the article is not deceptive. The
USDA definition is deceptive.
NapalmHeart
2006-12-24 13:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Ann
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Elmo
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader to imagine
there's a division of farming into "'Family' = small; agribusiness
= enormous", but I didn't fall for it.
Wrong. It's one of a series of Washington Post articles and this
one counters the "conventional wisdom" that family farm - small.
Calling a pig a cow doesn't actually make the pig into a cow.
This is the same logic that thought the school lunch program
could be improved if they just added ketchup to the list of
things defined as vegetables.
Don't understand.
Calling a large farm a family farm just because its run by a family
is deceptive.
It's not what I think of first as a "family farm:, but that doesn't make
it "deceptive".
Sure it is. It's an emotionally and culturally loaded term. "Family
farm" connotes American Gothic or Dorothy in Kansas. It connotes the
1984 films "The River" and "Country". Use of the term is deliberately
intended to connote the image of struggling, pure, hard-workin',
god-fearin' Americans caught in an "unfair" bind between eeeeeeevil
bankers, big bad "agri-business", and jaded city-slicker consumers. That
filthy swine jimmie-fat-fuck ledford revels in his self-serving
imagination of himself in this role. He, too, gladly deposits those
subsidy checks.
The article is not deceptive. It's made clear that it is based on the
USDA definition,
That's fine that the article is not deceptive. The USDA definition is
deceptive.
Rudy,

Did you grow up in the city or in a rural area?

Ken
BR
2006-12-22 02:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader to imagine
there's a division of farming into "'Family' = small; agribusiness =
enormous", but I didn't fall for it.
Post by J.C.
That's what Smithfield, Tyson and others of that ilk want you to
believe. There are hardly any true family farms left in this country.
There are a lot of farms of which the family sold out to the big
agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to them, working for 2% or less
of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to say my Dad was one of the
first in Texas to fall for that. He took the Purina deal for caged
layers in 1948. He walked away after two years. Left the farm to
Purina and never looked back.
Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name
is on the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family
farms" are owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and
others needing to shelter some income.
I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston
corporation that runs the rice business in Texas.
The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over
the citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now
trying to do to the cattle industry what they did to the pork and
poultry business. And they are just about to succeed. And then, the
vegetable farmers are next and that will be the completion of the
corporate takeover of the entire food supply in America and then
you'll eat what they say you will eat.
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we fight
now to stop this boondoggle.
--
Remove the TOS star ship captain to reply.
Ann
2006-12-22 03:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader to imagine
there's a division of farming into "'Family' = small; agribusiness =
enormous", but I didn't fall for it.
Post by J.C.
That's what Smithfield, Tyson and others of that ilk want you to
believe. There are hardly any true family farms left in this country.
There are a lot of farms of which the family sold out to the big
agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to them, working for 2% or less
of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to say my Dad was one of the
first in Texas to fall for that. He took the Purina deal for caged
layers in 1948. He walked away after two years. Left the farm to
Purina and never looked back.
Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name
is on the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family
farms" are owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and
others needing to shelter some income.
I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston
corporation that runs the rice business in Texas.
The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over
the citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now
trying to do to the cattle industry what they did to the pork and
poultry business. And they are just about to succeed. And then, the
vegetable farmers are next and that will be the completion of the
corporate takeover of the entire food supply in America and then
you'll eat what they say you will eat.
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we fight
now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS going
to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
BR
2006-12-22 09:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by BR
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader to imagine
there's a division of farming into "'Family' = small; agribusiness =
enormous", but I didn't fall for it.
Post by J.C.
That's what Smithfield, Tyson and others of that ilk want you to
believe. There are hardly any true family farms left in this country.
There are a lot of farms of which the family sold out to the big
agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to them, working for 2% or less
of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to say my Dad was one of the
first in Texas to fall for that. He took the Purina deal for caged
layers in 1948. He walked away after two years. Left the farm to
Purina and never looked back.
Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name
is on the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family
farms" are owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and
others needing to shelter some income.
I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston
corporation that runs the rice business in Texas.
The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over
the citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now
trying to do to the cattle industry what they did to the pork and
poultry business. And they are just about to succeed. And then, the
vegetable farmers are next and that will be the completion of the
corporate takeover of the entire food supply in America and then
you'll eat what they say you will eat.
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we fight
now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS going
to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Some states may make it mandatory.
--
Remove the TOS star ship captain to reply.
Ann
2006-12-22 11:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Ann
Post by BR
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader to imagine
there's a division of farming into "'Family' = small; agribusiness =
enormous", but I didn't fall for it.
Post by J.C.
That's what Smithfield, Tyson and others of that ilk want you to
believe. There are hardly any true family farms left in this country.
There are a lot of farms of which the family sold out to the big
agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to them, working for 2% or less
of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to say my Dad was one of the
first in Texas to fall for that. He took the Purina deal for caged
layers in 1948. He walked away after two years. Left the farm to
Purina and never looked back.
Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name
is on the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family
farms" are owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and
others needing to shelter some income.
I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston
corporation that runs the rice business in Texas.
The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over
the citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now
trying to do to the cattle industry what they did to the pork and
poultry business. And they are just about to succeed. And then, the
vegetable farmers are next and that will be the completion of the
corporate takeover of the entire food supply in America and then
you'll eat what they say you will eat.
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we fight
now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS going
to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Some states may make it mandatory.
Has any state made anything past premises registration mandatory yet?
BR
2006-12-22 17:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by BR
Post by Ann
Post by BR
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader to imagine
there's a division of farming into "'Family' = small; agribusiness =
enormous", but I didn't fall for it.
Post by J.C.
That's what Smithfield, Tyson and others of that ilk want you to
believe. There are hardly any true family farms left in this country.
There are a lot of farms of which the family sold out to the big
agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to them, working for 2% or less
of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to say my Dad was one of the
first in Texas to fall for that. He took the Purina deal for caged
layers in 1948. He walked away after two years. Left the farm to
Purina and never looked back.
Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name
is on the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family
farms" are owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and
others needing to shelter some income.
I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston
corporation that runs the rice business in Texas.
The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over
the citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now
trying to do to the cattle industry what they did to the pork and
poultry business. And they are just about to succeed. And then, the
vegetable farmers are next and that will be the completion of the
corporate takeover of the entire food supply in America and then
you'll eat what they say you will eat.
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we fight
now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS going
to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Some states may make it mandatory.
Has any state made anything past premises registration mandatory yet?
Give them time.
--
Remove the TOS star ship captain to reply.
J.C.
2006-12-22 16:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by BR
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader to imagine
there's a division of farming into "'Family' = small; agribusiness =
enormous", but I didn't fall for it.
Post by J.C.
That's what Smithfield, Tyson and others of that ilk want you to
believe. There are hardly any true family farms left in this country.
There are a lot of farms of which the family sold out to the big
agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to them, working for 2% or less
of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to say my Dad was one of the
first in Texas to fall for that. He took the Purina deal for caged
layers in 1948. He walked away after two years. Left the farm to
Purina and never looked back.
Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name
is on the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family
farms" are owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and
others needing to shelter some income.
I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston
corporation that runs the rice business in Texas.
The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over
the citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now
trying to do to the cattle industry what they did to the pork and
poultry business. And they are just about to succeed. And then, the
vegetable farmers are next and that will be the completion of the
corporate takeover of the entire food supply in America and then
you'll eat what they say you will eat.
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we fight
now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS going
to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Because it is only voluntary at the Federal level and the USDA is urging the
states to make it mandatory on a state by state basis.

Read and learn:


http://NoNAIS.org/
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/

J.C.
Ann
2006-12-22 16:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
Post by BR
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader to imagine
there's a division of farming into "'Family' = small; agribusiness =
enormous", but I didn't fall for it.
Post by J.C.
That's what Smithfield, Tyson and others of that ilk want you to
believe. There are hardly any true family farms left in this country.
There are a lot of farms of which the family sold out to the big
agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to them, working for 2% or less
of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to say my Dad was one of the
first in Texas to fall for that. He took the Purina deal for caged
layers in 1948. He walked away after two years. Left the farm to
Purina and never looked back.
Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name
is on the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family
farms" are owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and
others needing to shelter some income.
I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston
corporation that runs the rice business in Texas.
The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over
the citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now
trying to do to the cattle industry what they did to the pork and
poultry business. And they are just about to succeed. And then, the
vegetable farmers are next and that will be the completion of the
corporate takeover of the entire food supply in America and then
you'll eat what they say you will eat.
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we fight
now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS going
to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Because it is only voluntary at the Federal level and the USDA is urging the
states to make it mandatory on a state by state basis.
You repeated my question ... which mentions that the Federal plan is
voluntary. Which state have made any part of the plan other than,
perhaps, premises registration mandatory?
Post by J.C.
http://NoNAIS.org/
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/
J.C.
Grizzly
2006-12-27 16:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
Post by BR
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J.C.
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms
That's not even close to being correct.
I didn't believe it, either.
Whoever wrote the agitprop wants the unthinking reader to imagine
there's a division of farming into "'Family' = small; agribusiness =
enormous", but I didn't fall for it.
Post by J.C.
That's what Smithfield, Tyson and others of that ilk want you to
believe. There are hardly any true family farms left in this country.
There are a lot of farms of which the family sold out to the big
agribiz boys and are now mere slaves to them, working for 2% or less
of the profit they produce. I'm sorry to say my Dad was one of the
first in Texas to fall for that. He took the Purina deal for caged
layers in 1948. He walked away after two years. Left the farm to
Purina and never looked back.
Today, the folks that get the big subsidies get it because their name
is on the title, but it goes to the big boys upstairs. Todays "family
farms" are owned by corporate lawyers, stock brokers, car dealers and
others needing to shelter some income.
I'm right next to one of the largest rice producers in Texas. They get
millions. But they don't get to keep it. It goes to Houston
corporation that runs the rice business in Texas.
The USDA and their partners in crime have the wool pulled so far over
the citizens eyes they will never figure it out. The USDA is now
trying to do to the cattle industry what they did to the pork and
poultry business. And they are just about to succeed. And then, the
vegetable farmers are next and that will be the completion of the
corporate takeover of the entire food supply in America and then
you'll eat what they say you will eat.
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we fight
now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS going
to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Because it is only voluntary at the Federal level and the USDA is urging the
states to make it mandatory on a state by state basis.
You repeated my question ... which mentions that the Federal plan is
voluntary. Which state have made any part of the plan other than,
perhaps, premises registration mandatory?
Post by J.C.
http://NoNAIS.org/
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/
J.C.
From what I understand, here in Wisconsin, it is mandatory to tag your
cattle to show them at county and state fairs, with an rfid tag.
Eventually they will want all animals individually tagged here in state.
This is what the fed seeks to have the states do as the program as
written is clearly unconstitutional in terms of invasion of privacy and
will eventually result in confiscation of livestock and property for
those in violation if the program is allowed to continue on the path its
heading down. A state can seemingly write its own rules and the fed will
not have to field any lawsuits. Veterinarians will not be allowed to
send in blood samples for coggins tests on horses here in state as of
next year if you are non compliant and have no premises ID. This means
that you are forced to comply if you wish to show your animals. The
federal government is sending off millions of taxpayer dollars to states
to institute the program, and while they are spewing a non-mandatory
stance at this juncture, they are urging the states to make the program
mandatory in order to get those federal dollars. Go to the website
posted above and learn more.

Goedjn
2006-12-22 16:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by BR
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we fight
now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS going
to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Creeping bureaucracy meme.
The "voluntary" part is temporary.
the NAIS part is permanant.
Ann
2006-12-22 17:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goedjn
Post by Ann
Post by BR
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we
fight now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS
going to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Creeping bureaucracy meme.
The "voluntary" part is temporary.
the NAIS part is permanant.
Speculation. Homeland Security was supposed to soon be tracking visitors
to the US as they leave. They recently announced that they're not even
close to being able to do it. And I'd think that is the easy part; the
hard part would be finding those who don't leave (which, presumably is
the point). One of the things they tried was putting RFID chips in
documents. That system pretty much sucked when the documents were in a
vehicle and/or over a certain (short) distance from a scanner.
Goedjn
2006-12-22 20:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Goedjn
Post by Ann
Post by BR
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we
fight now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS
going to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Creeping bureaucracy meme.
The "voluntary" part is temporary.
the NAIS part is permanant.
Speculation.
Maybe so, but it's what I beleive, and it's what most
of the people who oppose the measure appear to beleive.
Telling them that you really, really promise that the
rules won't change on them later, isn't going to
be very convincing. Putting a couple billion dollars
in escrow as a guarantee might be.
Post by Ann
Homeland Security was supposed to soon be tracking visitors
to the US as they leave. They recently announced that they're not even
close to being able to do it. And I'd think that is the easy part; the
Ah, but that's a government agency that can't come
up with the money and manpower, and we're talking about requiring
the businesses to do it. Totally different mechanisms
at work. When an arm of the government can't meet it's
statutory obligations they do one or more of:
1: Throw more money at them,
2: Change the rules,
3: Lie about it.

When a business entity can't meet it's statutory obligations,
they do one or more of:
1: Fine them thousands of dollars a day
2: Throw the owner(s) in jail
3: Shut the business down.
Post by Ann
hard part would be finding those who don't leave (which, presumably is
the point). One of the things they tried was putting RFID chips in
documents. That system pretty much sucked when the documents were in a
vehicle and/or over a certain (short) distance from a scanner.
Jim
2006-12-22 22:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goedjn
Post by Ann
Post by Goedjn
Post by Ann
Post by BR
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we
fight now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS
going to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Creeping bureaucracy meme.
The "voluntary" part is temporary.
the NAIS part is permanant.
Speculation.
Maybe so, but it's what I beleive, and it's what most
of the people who oppose the measure appear to beleive.
Telling them that you really, really promise that the
rules won't change on them later, isn't going to
be very convincing. Putting a couple billion dollars
in escrow as a guarantee might be.
Post by Ann
Homeland Security was supposed to soon be tracking visitors
to the US as they leave. They recently announced that they're not even
close to being able to do it. And I'd think that is the easy part; the
Ah, but that's a government agency that can't come
up with the money and manpower, and we're talking about requiring
the businesses to do it. Totally different mechanisms
at work. When an arm of the government can't meet it's
1: Throw more money at them,
2: Change the rules,
3: Lie about it.
When a business entity can't meet it's statutory obligations,
1: Fine them thousands of dollars a day
2: Throw the owner(s) in jail
3: Shut the business down.
are making an attempt at bad mouthing the yankee gag a maggot
street light hugger government?
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-22 23:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
Post by Goedjn
Post by Ann
Post by Goedjn
Post by Ann
Post by BR
And the NAIS will make it even worse for small farmers, unless we
fight now to stop this boondoggle.
Since participation (in the Federal plan) is voluntary, how is NAIS
going to make it worse for farmers who decide not to participate?
Creeping bureaucracy meme.
The "voluntary" part is temporary.
the NAIS part is permanant.
Speculation.
Maybe so, but it's what I beleive, and it's what most
of the people who oppose the measure appear to beleive.
Telling them that you really, really promise that the
rules won't change on them later, isn't going to
be very convincing. Putting a couple billion dollars
in escrow as a guarantee might be.
Post by Ann
Homeland Security was supposed to soon be tracking visitors
to the US as they leave. They recently announced that they're not even
close to being able to do it. And I'd think that is the easy part; the
Ah, but that's a government agency that can't come
up with the money and manpower, and we're talking about requiring
the businesses to do it. Totally different mechanisms
at work. When an arm of the government can't meet it's
1: Throw more money at them,
2: Change the rules,
3: Lie about it.
When a business entity can't meet it's statutory obligations,
1: Fine them thousands of dollars a day
2: Throw the owner(s) in jail
3: Shut the business down.
are making an attempt at bad mouthing the yankee
Shut the fuck up, you ignorant hick cracker.
Jim
2006-12-22 23:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Shut the fuck up, you ignorant hick cracker.
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-22 23:39:43 UTC
Permalink
jimmie-fat-fuck ledford, credulous hick cracker
Post by Rudy Canoza
Shut the fuck up, you ignorant hick cracker.
DO IT, jimmie-fat-fuck.
Jim
2006-12-23 00:01:20 UTC
Permalink
3 cheers for the space shuttle's safe landing!
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-23 00:13:34 UTC
Permalink
chauvinistic flag-waving jimmie-fat-fuck, betraying his
brainless acceptance of expensive national white
Post by Jim
3 cheers for the space shuttle's safe landing!
I think a possum just escaped your pantry.
Jim
2006-12-23 01:38:30 UTC
Permalink
3 cheers for the space shuttle's safe landing!

and a round of applause for all those working
behind the scenes too!
Ronny TX
2006-12-24 09:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Re: a little happy happy joy joy
Group: misc.rural Date: Sat, Dec 23,
chauvinistic flag-waving
jimmie-fat-fuck, betraying his brainless
acceptance of expensive national white
3 cheers for the space shuttle's safe
landing!
I think a possum just escaped your
pantry.
Ronny:
And so he did;but then said possum ran over to my house and into my
pantry! Where upon I killed him,cleaned him, baked him and ate him! :-)
And very good he was too,what with those baked sweet potatoes as a side
dish! LoL
Nick Hull
2006-12-22 14:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.C.
I don't pay any attention to what politicians say.
IT'S WHAT THEY DO THAT MOVES ME TO VOTE!
Why do you vote for politicians, it just encourages them ;)
--
Committees of Correspondence Web page:
<http://tinyurl.com/y7th2c>
- free men own guns, slaves don't
J.C.
2006-12-22 16:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Hull
Post by J.C.
I don't pay any attention to what politicians say.
IT'S WHAT THEY DO THAT MOVES ME TO VOTE!
Why do you vote for politicians, it just encourages them ;)
Actually, I'm usually voting AGAINST a particular politician by voting for
one I know is not going to win.
--
Want to see your future? http://www.spp.gov/

I don't pay any attention to what politicians say.
IT'S WHAT THEY DO THAT MOVES ME TO VOTE!

JC
Ann
2006-12-21 22:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
"It's embarrassing," Phipps said. "My government is basically saying I am
incompetent and need help."..."
But I doubt he sent the check back.
Read the article and you'll find out why he didn't.
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-21 23:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
"It's embarrassing," Phipps said. "My government is basically saying I am
incompetent and need help."..."
But I doubt he sent the check back.
Read the article and you'll find out why he didn't.
It's not persuasive. He takes it because he wants to
farm, and without it he can't. In other words, he
*does* need the help, even if only because others are
receiving it.

He could always stop farming.
Gil Faver
2006-12-21 23:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ann
"It's embarrassing," Phipps said. "My government is basically saying I
am incompetent and need help."..."
But I doubt he sent the check back.
Read the article and you'll find out why he didn't.
It's not persuasive. He takes it because he wants to farm, and without it
he can't. In other words, he *does* need the help, even if only because
others are receiving it.
He could always stop farming.
he says he needs it to buy more land. He could just not buy more land, and
keep farming what he currently has.
Ann
2006-12-22 00:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Faver
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ann
"It's embarrassing," Phipps said. "My government is basically saying I
am incompetent and need help."..."
But I doubt he sent the check back.
Read the article and you'll find out why he didn't.
It's not persuasive. He takes it because he wants to farm, and without it
he can't. In other words, he *does* need the help, even if only because
others are receiving it.
He could always stop farming.
he says he needs it to buy more land. He could just not buy more land, and
keep farming what he currently has.
But, probably, not be as competitive. And, unless he has a very long term
unbreakable lease, he'll be outbid on the that land.
Ann
2006-12-22 00:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
"It's embarrassing," Phipps said. "My government is basically saying I am
incompetent and need help."..."
But I doubt he sent the check back.
Read the article and you'll find out why he didn't.
It's not persuasive. He takes it because he wants to
farm, and without it he can't. In other words, he
*does* need the help, even if only because others are
receiving it.
I read it that he takes it to be able to continue to buy/lease land for
his crops. If he didn't take the subsidy money, he would be out-bid by
farmers who do.
Post by Rudy Canoza
He could always stop farming.
He wasn't complaining. The farmer used as an example of one who isn't
doing as well wasn't complaining either.

For farmers who for whatever reason don't want to (or can't) do what it
takes to stay competitive, it's easier on the ego to blame big bad
agribusiness, rather than acknowledge that farmer Jones down the road
farmed smarter.
Larry Caldwell
2006-12-22 15:36:57 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@epix.net>, ***@epix.net
(Ann) says...
Post by Ann
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
That actually sounds like the big operations are getting the short end
of the stick. 60% of the food and only 54% of the subsidies?

When most urbanoids think of family farms they think of pigs, chickens,
milking a cow and riding a horse around the pasture. My family sold its
last milk cow when I started college and wasn't around to milk it any
more. We quit chickens even earlier, when eggs and poultry got cheaper
at the store than you could raise them at home. Farms nowadays are
specialists, raising one or two crops.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
BR
2006-12-22 17:14:28 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Larry Caldwell
We quit chickens even earlier, when eggs and poultry got cheaper
at the store than you could raise them at home. ...
I find that hard to believe, from what I've read, one should be able to
produce eggs for 1/2 the cost of store bought. I'm going to try it
next spring perhaps.
--
Remove the TOS star ship captain to reply.
J.C.
2006-12-22 19:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
[snip]
We quit chickens even earlier, when eggs and poultry got cheaper at the
store than you could raise them at home. ...
I find that hard to believe, from what I've read, one should be able to
produce eggs for 1/2 the cost of store bought. I'm going to try it next
spring perhaps.
Nothing teaches better than experience.
--
Want to see your future? http://www.spp.gov/

I don't pay any attention to what politicians say.
IT'S WHAT THEY DO THAT MOVES ME TO VOTE!

JC
Jim
2006-12-22 19:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.C.
Post by BR
[snip]
We quit chickens even earlier, when eggs and poultry got cheaper at the
store than you could raise them at home. ...
I find that hard to believe, from what I've read, one should be able to
produce eggs for 1/2 the cost of store bought. I'm going to try it next
spring perhaps.
Nothing teaches better than experience.
the school of Hard Knocks..
enigma
2006-12-23 12:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.C.
Post by BR
[snip]
Post by Larry Caldwell
We quit chickens even earlier, when eggs and poultry got
cheaper at the store than you could raise them at home.
...
I find that hard to believe, from what I've read, one
should be able to produce eggs for 1/2 the cost of store
bought. I'm going to try it next spring perhaps.
Nothing teaches better than experience.
why do you say that? my kid has chickens. they routinely
produce more eggs that we can eat ourselves & they cost hardly
anything in feed & shelter. i don't buy the fancy certified
organic feed, so a 50 pound bag is under $7. the chickens are
a hell of a lot less work & cost than the llamas & goats.

lee
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Larry Caldwell
2006-12-23 18:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by enigma
Post by J.C.
Post by BR
[snip]
Post by Larry Caldwell
We quit chickens even earlier, when eggs and poultry got
cheaper at the store than you could raise them at home.
...
I find that hard to believe, from what I've read, one
should be able to produce eggs for 1/2 the cost of store
bought. I'm going to try it next spring perhaps.
Nothing teaches better than experience.
why do you say that? my kid has chickens. they routinely
produce more eggs that we can eat ourselves & they cost hardly
anything in feed & shelter. i don't buy the fancy certified
organic feed, so a 50 pound bag is under $7. the chickens are
a hell of a lot less work & cost than the llamas & goats.
How much do you make an hour keeping chickens? I remember days when my
mother and grandmother butchered, plucked and dressed 25 chickens in a
day. That little chore happened twice a year, once when the roosters
got to fryer size, and once when the hens were ready for replacement. I
also remember cleaning the chicken house, which was my job. I would
gladly have delegated that one to a front loader.

You also won't be buying any $7 chicken feed in the future. In case you
missed the other articles about it, cheap grain is a thing of the past.

If you want to keep chickens around, have at it. They really don't cost
much, and if your kid does the labor for free, that's all you need.
You just need to spend your time on something more productive if you
want to pay the mortgage.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
enigma
2006-12-24 01:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Caldwell
How much do you make an hour keeping chickens? I remember
days when my mother and grandmother butchered, plucked and
dressed 25 chickens in a day. That little chore happened
twice a year, once when the roosters got to fryer size, and
once when the hens were ready for replacement. I also
remember cleaning the chicken house, which was my job. I
would gladly have delegated that one to a front loader.
they pay for their own grain & upkeep, plus they produce great
compost for the garden. we haven't had ticks around since we
got chickens & the mosquito population within range of the
house is now practically non-existant.
Post by Larry Caldwell
You also won't be buying any $7 chicken feed in the future.
In case you missed the other articles about it, cheap
grain is a thing of the past.
it's still $7 here, and the organic feed has dropped from
$21/50 pounds to $15/50 pounds. i'm still not buying them the
organic stuff though (although i could add more customers if i
did, but then i'd need more chickens).
Post by Larry Caldwell
If you want to keep chickens around, have at it. They
really don't cost much, and if your kid does the labor for
free, that's all you need. You just need to spend your
time on something more productive if you want to pay the
mortgage.
exactly. i was under the impression that the person that
first mentioned getting a few chickens meant exactly that, a
few chickens for personal egg production. going into mass egg
production seems insane actually ;)


lee
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Jim
2006-12-24 06:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by enigma
we haven't had ticks around since we
got chickens & the mosquito population within range of the
house is now practically non-existant.
you got a good point about the good things chickens do.
that's why my friend was so PO'ed when the town made him
get rid of his chickens.

the town said the chickens were nasty and they made to much
noise. by friend LOL when he told me the town had spoke of
his chickens as he had heard me speak of the town.

forced annexation, it's what town people do so they can make
other people unhappy too...
Ronny TX
2006-12-24 10:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Re: "something the town took away"
Group: misc.rural Date: Sun, Dec 24,
we haven't had ticks around since we
got chickens & the mosquito population
within range of the house is now
practically non-existant.
you got a good point about the good
things chickens do. that's why my friend
was so PO'ed when the town made him get
rid of his chickens.
the town said the chickens were nasty
and they made to much noise. =A0 by friend
LOL when he told me the town had spoke
of his chickens as he had heard me speak
of the town.
forced annexation, it's what town people
do so they can make other people unhappy
too...
---
Ronny:
:-) Some towns are rather nasty and smelly. LoL Certainly not a place
where a decent person would want to live! LoL

I do feel sorry for your friend. And I feel sorry for the people who
forced him to get rid of his chickens because they thought chickens were
nasty and smelly. They aren't,not unless kept that way.
Jim
2006-12-24 15:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronny TX
Re: "something the town took away"
Group: misc.rural Date: Sun, Dec 24,
we haven't had ticks around since we
got chickens & the mosquito population
within range of the house is now
practically non-existant.
you got a good point about the good
things chickens do. that's why my friend
was so PO'ed when the town made him get
rid of his chickens.
the town said the chickens were nasty
and they made to much noise. by friend
LOL when he told me the town had spoke
of his chickens as he had heard me speak
of the town.
forced annexation, it's what town people
do so they can make other people unhappy
too...
---
:-) Some towns are rather nasty and smelly. LoL Certainly not a place
where a decent person would want to live! LoL
yep. pure torment it would be for me if I were forced
to live in a town or city.
Post by Ronny TX
I do feel sorry for your friend. And I feel sorry for the people who
forced him to get rid of his chickens because they thought chickens were
nasty and smelly. They aren't,not unless kept that way.
any animal forced into living in a confined area will create
in time a nasty confined area. cities are a good example of
this. EVERY city has the abandoned run down eyesore. something
they'd rather we not see.
Dean Hoffman
2006-12-24 16:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
any animal forced into living in a confined area will create
in time a nasty confined area. cities are a good example of
this. EVERY city has the abandoned run down eyesore. something
they'd rather we not see.
So do many small towns in Nebraska: buildings of long closed
businesses, houses of people long gone or dead, junk cars, pickups or
farm equipment. There might be a rundown house or two because people
are too lazy or old to care for it. Many towns have schools that are
abandoned.
Ong, NE is one example. Even the little bar/cafe is closed. I
don't remember if the grain elevator is closed. The coops are
consolidating like just about everything else. I think there are only
about 40 left. They used to be counted in the hundreds.
People usually think of poverty being in the cities. It isn't:
http://tinyurl.com/yasa2h

Dean

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-24 16:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
any animal forced into living in a confined area will create
in time a nasty confined area. cities are a good example of
this. EVERY city has the abandoned run down eyesore. something
they'd rather we not see.
So do many farms in NC: abandoned hulks of 30+ year
old cars, busted farm equipment, etc.

Squalor can occur anywhere. There is no "god's country".
Ronny TX
2006-12-24 20:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Re: "something the town took away"
Group: misc.rural Date: Sun, Dec 24,
Re: "something the town took away"
Group: misc.rural Date: Sun, Dec 24,
we haven't had ticks around since we
got chickens & the mosquito population
within range of the house is now
practically non-existant.
you got a good point about the good
things chickens do. that's why my friend
was so PO'ed when the town made him get
rid of his chickens.
the town said the chickens were nasty
and they made to much noise. =A0 by friend
LOL when he told me the town had spoke
of his chickens as he had heard me speak
of the town.
forced annexation, it's what town people
do so they can make other people unhappy
too...
:-) Some towns are rather nasty and
smelly. LoL Certainly not a place where
a decent person would want to live! LoL
yep. pure torment it would be for me if
I were forced to live in a town or city.
Ronny:
2 of so years ago my youngest sister asked me if I would like to move
into an apartment at our county seat? I just looked at her like she was
crazy :-) and said no! LoL Then she said,how about in a house here? I
said no to that too. My oldest sister used to live in that town too,
with people on every side. I would hate to live like that! And my oldest
sister and her husband only moved to town because of their three kids
being in schools there and they both had jobs there. And when someof
those circumstances changed,
they sold their house in town and moved back to their little farm place
out in the rural area.

I did tell my youngest sister that I might consider moving to town if I
could find a house situated sort of how hers was. That is,way out on the
edge of town with farmland around and not much growth on that side of
town;but I wouldn't even want to consider that now as her side of town
has grown too much! Even a small apartment building right in front of
them!
Yet that sister does live on the wilder side of town yet. :-) I ate
breakfast with her and her husband this morning and sis was telling me
about how she woke up last night and couldn't get back to sleep,so she
got up and on the couch and watched TV a bit. And while doing that a
coyote started to howl right outside her window! :-) Said when that
happened she jumped about a foot up off of her couch! LoL Said she then
ran to the bedroom,woke her husband up and told him about it! I said,why
did you do that? The coyote couldn't of gotten in your house as he
surely wasn't the kind that could huff and puff and blow your house
down! :-) LoL
I do feel sorry for your friend. And I
feel sorry for the people who forced him
to get rid of his chickens because they
thought chickens were nasty and smelly.
They aren't,not unless kept that way.
any animal forced into living in a
confined area will create in time a
nasty confined area. cities are a good
example of this. EVERY city has the
abandoned run down eyesore. something
they'd rather we not see.
---
Ronny:
Here you set me to comparing chickens and people and what it would be
like if some people were cooped up like some chickens and their home
seldom cleaned out! Now that would be nasty :-( and nasty smelling! LoL

Now I live here in a rural area,a 100 yards from the nearest neighbor
and I remember us raising chickens years ago. There was their small
house and the roost in that,all maybe 100 feet from the house. Under
that roost could get a bit smelly at times! LoL For we didn't clean it
daily or even weekly;but then there was no need for that here as such
wouldn't bother our neighbors and the smell simply didn't go that far
from the chicken house. And during daylight our 2 dozen or so chickens
were free range and or had a good sized outdoor pen to scratch around
in. So under the roost would get cleaned out now and then and that put
on the garden.

One way I would do things differently now would be to put some of my
yard grass clippings under the roost or maybe spread a bit of dry hay
now and then to cover up the manure under the roost. Maybe even shredded
up newspaper or cardboard that was not wax coated? I know I've read of
some ways that some people do that in a town area to keep down odors.

Now a cousin of mine and his wife did have some problems when they lived
in Houston. One neighbor moved in beside them and put in chickens right
across the fence from their house! Right across from their kitchen and
AC unit! Now that was stupid of that neighbor as both houses had chain
link fenced in large back yards and long backyards that connected up to
a wooded area and creek. So the guy could of easily put his chicken
house back a good bit further from their and his house. And kept things
cleaned out and up better so as to cut way down on any smell. He could
of done a lot to be a good neighbor about that;but he chose not to. And
sometimes some of those chickens would fly over into my cousin's yard
and mess up parts of his garden and flower beds and he couldn't get his
neighbor to do anything about that. So he simply put out a bit of rat
poison and his neighbor soon had a few dead chickens. (ha) Told his
neighbor what he did too and told him to keep them off of his place and
that problem would be solved! LoL Don't know what came of all of that?
But several years ago cousin and his wife retired and moved back up here
to NE Texas. Built their house on some really rural land that his wife
had inherited from her mother. So they very much have peace and quite
now and no right beside them neighbors to annoy them! LoL
Ronny TX
2006-12-24 10:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Re: "The Myth of the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Sun, Dec 24,
Post by Larry Caldwell
How much do you make an hour keeping
chickens? I remember days when my mother
and grandmother butchered, plucked and
dressed 25 chickens in a day. That
little chore happened twice a year, once
when the roosters got to fryer size, and
once when the hens were ready for
replacement. I also remember cleaning
the chicken house, which was my job. I
would gladly have delegated that one to
a front loader.
they pay for their own grain & upkeep,
plus they produce great compost for the
garden. we haven't had ticks around
since we got chickens & the mosquito
population within range of the house is
now practically non-existant.
Ronny:
Aha,chickens are multitaskers! :-) Now that's the idea I was searching
for! LoL

Another good fowl is guineas for getting rid of bugs,especially
grasshoppers. :-) Guineas eat very little too if they can free range on
bugs,grass and grass seed. I only have 5 now as some raccoons got in one
pen last summer and killed the few others I had! :-( And this winter
I've seen those two coons,at night,on my front porch eating the cat's
feed! Ronny thinking he needs to look up a good recipe for baked coon!
LoL
Post by Larry Caldwell
You also won't be buying any $7 chicken
feed in the future. In case you missed
the other articles about it, cheap
grain is a thing of the past.
it's still $7 here, and the organic feed
has dropped from $21/50 pounds to $15/50
pounds. i'm still not buying them the
organic stuff though (although i could
add more customers if i did, but then
i'd need more chickens).
Ronny:
Less than $6 for 50lbs of hen scratch here in rural,small town NE Texas.
Not sure what the laying mash costs? But if I were to go back to raising
a few chickens,I would definately want to plant them a small plot of
greens for winter and early spring. Both to help keep the feed costs
down and to provide them with good healthy green food for winter and
early spring time. Plus,the more green stuff they get,the richer and
better tasting eggs I would get! :-)
Post by Larry Caldwell
If you want to keep chickens around,
have at it. They really don't cost much,
and if your kid does the labor for free,
that's all you need. =A0 You just need to
spend your time on something more
productive if you want to pay the
mortgage.
=A0=A0exactly. i was under the impression
that the person that first mentioned
getting a few chickens meant exactly
that, a few chickens for personal egg
production. going into mass egg
production seems insane actually ;)
lee
---
Ronny:
Now this thread has almost got me into the notion of once again raising
a few chickens! :-) Need to repair the old hen house for starters;but
then I have plenty of extra tin sheeting for that. Got that free too.
:-) My oldest Sis has a few Rhode Island Red hens and an older brother
does too-plus some mixed breed hens. So there are my starter eggs! :-) I
am so tempted to fire up one of my two little incubators! LoL Maybe
after Christmas or New Years? :-)
J.C.
2006-12-24 17:08:42 UTC
Permalink
"Ronny TX" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:398-458E5AFE-***@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net...

What part of northeast Texas? I grew up in Mineola and that's where my Dad
was one of the first to bring factory farming to Texas. First it was the
Purina broiler deal and then switched to the caged layer deal. I had enough
chicken .... to last me a lifetime. But I do raise quite a few on pasture
now for both eggs and meat.

JC
Ronny TX
2006-12-24 20:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronny TX
Re: "The Myth of the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Sun, Dec 24,
y.webtv.net...
What part of northeast Texas? I grew up
in Mineola and that's where my Dad was
one of the first to bring factory
farming to Texas. First it was the
Purina broiler deal and then switched to
the caged layer deal. I had enough
chicken .... to last me a lifetime. But
I do raise quite a few on pasture now
for both eggs and meat.
JC
---
Ronny:
I'm up in Hopkins county,which is northeast of Mineola by about 30 or so
miles. Which reminds me,I've thought before about going back to Mineola.
They have a great museum there in a really old hotel. Lots of good stuff
to look at and for sale on 3 floors and an attic! :-) Place is over a
hundred years old.

And what we have in some places now is not Purina;but the Pilgrims Pride
broiler deal. Glad none of those are close to me 'cause those places
stink! (ha) One cousin and wife of mine thought to go into business with
them several years ago;but they ended up deciding not too and are glad
they didn't. Pilgrims Pride wants to put the big chicken houses up on
your property,you buy their feed,raise the birds and sell those to them.
I think cousin and his wife checked out that "good deal" and found out
some people were putting in a good bit of work and simply not making
that much money off of it all?

Then there is the Pilgrims Pride processing plant in Mount Pleasant.
That's about 40 or so miles east of Hopkins county. One sister of mine
was telling me this morning that she's been by there before and that
place really stinks up that area of the country! :-( They had first
thought to put that plant in Sulphur Springs,several years ago;but some
people kicked up a fuss over the smell problem,so they didn't. Sad to
say;but I think some people here were more concerned about the Mexican
workers, more than any concerns about bad smells.

The more I read your post and some in here,the more I think I should go
back to raising a few chickens! :-) Just have 5 guineas now and 2 or so
dozen quail. And all of the birds except for one are in pens right now.
And I need to get those two raccoons that killed some of my guineas! :-(
I've raised some quail for awhile up off of the ground. Thinking I might
raise some on the ground,in an enclosed pen,where they could get to more
grass? And would raise any chickens free range. Can get Rhode Island Red
eggs from my sister and a brother to set in one of my little incubators.
And last week I was at a neighbors,didn't find anyone home;but I saw he
had quite a few little game roosters and hens. Now if I could get some
eggs from him?! LoL I do love those little game/bantam chickens. Small
eggs; but good layers and great Mama hens. And those little things just
have a way about them that seems to say,I am the boss of this place
thank you! LoL Those type birds just have a different personality from
the larger type chickens. (ha) And I've heard they don't scratch up your
garden as bad as bigger type chickens. LoL Don't know it that is so or
not? (ha) And except for one,all the chickens we used to have were the
full size. Just kept them up some in spring as the early garden was
starting to grow and let them out when things got big enough so that
they couldn't hurt much. Really something to see big chickens go jumping
and flying through the summer corn,as they chased those grasshoppers!
LoL
J.C.
2006-12-24 22:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronny TX
Post by Ronny TX
Re: "The Myth of the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Sun, Dec 24,
y.webtv.net...
What part of northeast Texas? I grew up
in Mineola and that's where my Dad was
one of the first to bring factory
farming to Texas. First it was the
Purina broiler deal and then switched to
the caged layer deal. I had enough
chicken .... to last me a lifetime. But
I do raise quite a few on pasture now
for both eggs and meat.
JC
---
I'm up in Hopkins county,which is northeast of Mineola by about 30 or so
miles. Which reminds me,I've thought before about going back to Mineola.
They have a great museum there in a really old hotel. Lots of good stuff
to look at and for sale on 3 floors and an attic! :-) Place is over a
hundred years old.
That would be the Beckham and I still get the newspaper from there and I
believe they are closing the place down. At least the Pickin' Parlor is
closing for sure. Don't remember about the rest of it.
Post by Ronny TX
And what we have in some places now is not Purina;but the Pilgrims Pride
broiler deal. Glad none of those are close to me 'cause those places
stink! (ha) One cousin and wife of mine thought to go into business with
them several years ago;but they ended up deciding not too and are glad
they didn't. Pilgrims Pride wants to put the big chicken houses up on
your property,you buy their feed,raise the birds and sell those to them.
I think cousin and his wife checked out that "good deal" and found out
some people were putting in a good bit of work and simply not making
that much money off of it all?
Our deal was we provide the land, put up and own the buildings and provide
the management. They provided the stock, the feed and medication and we got
10 cents a pound at 6 weeks I believe it was. That was a joke. Worked out to
about 15 cents an hour. We switched to caged layers. That was what made us
rich. I think it worked out to about 12 cents an hour. <G>
Post by Ronny TX
Then there is the Pilgrims Pride processing plant in Mount Pleasant.
That's about 40 or so miles east of Hopkins county. One sister of mine
was telling me this morning that she's been by there before and that
place really stinks up that area of the country! :-( They had first
thought to put that plant in Sulphur Springs,several years ago;but some
people kicked up a fuss over the smell problem,so they didn't. Sad to
say;but I think some people here were more concerned about the Mexican
workers, more than any concerns about bad smells.
The more I read your post and some in here,the more I think I should go
back to raising a few chickens! :-) Just have 5 guineas now and 2 or so
dozen quail. And all of the birds except for one are in pens right now.
And I need to get those two raccoons that killed some of my guineas! :-(
I've raised some quail for awhile up off of the ground. Thinking I might
raise some on the ground,in an enclosed pen,where they could get to more
grass? And would raise any chickens free range. Can get Rhode Island Red
eggs from my sister and a brother to set in one of my little incubators.
And last week I was at a neighbors,didn't find anyone home;but I saw he
had quite a few little game roosters and hens. Now if I could get some
eggs from him?! LoL I do love those little game/bantam chickens. Small
eggs; but good layers and great Mama hens. And those little things just
have a way about them that seems to say,I am the boss of this place
thank you! LoL Those type birds just have a different personality from
the larger type chickens. (ha) And I've heard they don't scratch up your
garden as bad as bigger type chickens. LoL Don't know it that is so or
not? (ha) And except for one,all the chickens we used to have were the
full size. Just kept them up some in spring as the early garden was
starting to grow and let them out when things got big enough so that
they couldn't hurt much. Really something to see big chickens go jumping
and flying through the summer corn,as they chased those grasshoppers!
LoL
Regardless of what you raise, if you're country, you gotta have critters.

JC
Ronny TX
2006-12-26 08:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Re: "The Myth of the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Sun, Dec 24,
2006, 10:17pm (CST+6) From:
***@hughes.net (J.C.)
"Ronny TX" wrote in message news:498-458EE5D7-***@storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net... Re: "The Myth of
the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Sun, Dec 24,
2006, 5:08pm (CST+6) From:
***@hughes.net (J.C.)
"Ronny TX" wrote in message news:398-458E5AFE-***@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net...
(snip)
Post by Ronny TX
They
have a great museum there in a really
old hotel. Lots of good stuff to look at
and for sale on 3 floors and an attic!
:-) Place is over a hundred years old.
That would be the Beckham and I still
get the newspaper from there and I
believe they are closing the place down.
At least the Pickin' Parlor is closing
for sure. Don't remember about the rest
of it.
Ronny:
I hate to hear that! :-( I need to check and see if they are closed yet
or not? Would love to see that place one more time.

Onething I really remember from that place were two paintings with
peacocks and iris in them. You know how the circles of color look on a
peacock's tail feathers? Whoever did those painting matched those so
well and painted such tiny lines. I can never figure out how any person
could have such a steady hand to do such! (ha) A straight line maybe;but
circles! :-) {snip}
Post by Ronny TX
Our deal was we provide the land, put up
and own the buildings and provide the
management. They provided the stock, the
feed and medication and we got 10 cents
a pound at 6 weeks I believe it was.
That was a joke. Worked out to about 15
cents an hour. We switched to caged
layers. That was what made us rich. I
think it worked out to about 12 cents an
hour.
Ronny:
Reminds me of the time I once agreed to milk cows for a fellow,by the
job and not by the hour and he kept adding new cows to his herd. :-( I
got rich too! LoL (snip)
Post by Ronny TX
Regardless of what you raise, if you're
country, you gotta have critters.
JC
---
Ronny:
True,how true! :-)
Ronny TX
2006-12-24 10:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronny TX
Re: "The Myth of the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Sat, Dec 23,
(Larry Caldwell)
says...
mcast.com...
[snip]
We quit chickens even earlier, when eggs
and poultry got cheaper at the store
than you could raise them at home.
I find that hard to believe, from what
I've read, one should be able to produce
eggs for 1/2 the cost of store bought.  
I'm going to try it next spring perhaps.
Nothing teaches better than experience.
  why do you say that? my kid has
chickens. they routinely produce more
eggs that we can eat ourselves & they
cost hardly anything in feed & shelter.
i don't buy the fancy certified organic
feed, so a 50 pound bag is under $7. the
chickens are a hell of a lot less work &
cost than the llamas & goats.
How much do you make an hour keeping
chickens?
Ronny:
Good question.
Post by Ronny TX
I remember days when my mother
and grandmother butchered, plucked and
dressed 25 chickens in a day. That
little chore happened twice a year, once
when the roosters got to fryer size, and
once when the hens were ready for
replacement.
Ronny:
Did they do that,at least partly,because they couldn't afford to buy
chicken at a local store? If so,then the time they put into that was
worth much to them. So their labor was a payback for the time they put
in.
Post by Ronny TX
I also remember cleaning
the chicken house, which was my job. I
would gladly have delegated that one to
a front loader.
Ronny:
LoL Ah,so that is why you're so hard about not liking raising chickens?!
Now that I can understand! LoL But chicken manure does make for some
great fertilizer. Once had a small plot that had been the chicken run
and that piece of land produced the biggest and healthiest looking
garden produce I have ever seen! :-)
Post by Ronny TX
You also won't be buying any $7 chicken
feed in the future. In case you missed
the other articles about it, cheap grain
is a thing of the past.
Ronny:
Perhaps? And if so and if I were to raise a few chickens again,then I
would need to raise some feed for them. Perhaps a plot of rye,crimson
clover and turnips for the greens?
Post by Ronny TX
If you want to keep chickens around,
have at it. They really don't cost much,
and if your kid does the labor for free,
that's all you need. You just need to
spend your time on something more
productive if you want to pay the
mortgage.
---
Ronny:
I'm so glad the mortgage on this place was paid off long ago! :-) And
her child isn't really doing the labor for free if he/ she is getting to
eat good farm grown eggs and chicken. :-) Try finding something
comparable to that in the usual chain groceries. Do they even have such?
Or is such only found in the high priced specialty shops now? But beyond
all of that,there is the simple pleasure in raising a few chickens. Now
that's something that a price can't be put on! :-) Such goes beyond mere
money matters.
IdaSpode
2006-12-22 23:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
[snip]
Post by Larry Caldwell
We quit chickens even earlier, when eggs and poultry got cheaper
at the store than you could raise them at home. ...
I find that hard to believe, from what I've read, one should be able to
produce eggs for 1/2 the cost of store bought. I'm going to try it
next spring perhaps.
I guess that "depends". A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a
friend who is hooked up with our state's Dept of Ag. He said one of
our big local egg producers went out of biz 'cuz his wholesale
customers could buy them shipped from NC cheaper than what he could
sell his for. I'm in Idaho...

DJ
Ronny TX
2006-12-24 09:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronny TX
Re: "The Myth of the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Fri, Dec 22,
[snip]
We quit chickens even earlier, when eggs
and poultry got cheaper at the store
than you could raise them at home. ...
I find that hard to believe, from what
I've read, one should be able to produce
eggs for 1/2 the cost of store bought. =A0
I'm going to try it next spring perhaps.
---
Ronny:
That's according,according to a lot of things. And this is just from my
limited personal experience;but last year I raised a few Rhode Island
Red chicks under their Mama hen. But then I got that hen and a few
others free from one of my brothers. :-) So the first lesson is that
it's good to have a more well to do brother with a few extra hens that
he wishes to give you! LoL So that one RIR hen hatched out a few chicks
in the spring and I was shocked at how little they ate;but then I could
free range mine. And thankfully no neighbor dogs came around to bother
them;but if they had of and if I had of seen such,then I would of simply
used my shotgun and some bird shot, from a fair distance back from them
and that would of solved that problem. It did in the past. One burning
shot and the neighbor dogs did not come back to bother my chickens or
ducks. Neither did the coyotes and I didn't even manage to hit them! LoL

So what surprised me about those Rhode Island Red chicks is they ate so
little store bought feed,ate mostly grass,bugs and such with the Mama
hen and they grew so fast! In fact at two months old they were really
already big enough to eat. Certainly as big as those full grown small
chickens I sometimes see in the grocery story,that have a high price tag
on them.

But wait. You also have to have a very good and tight pen for your
chickens. I didn't and that was a sad mistake on my part. I had an
old,small chicken house that I could have fixed up and it would of been
just fine;but no,I had to get in a hurry. So got the chickens first and
then got so busy I didn't have time to work on that chicken house.
So,don't make that mistake if there is any chance that there are some
wild or not so wild animals around you that might very well like chicken
for their dinner! Learn from my mistakes. So a good tight chicken house
first. Look online to see how big a one you need according to how many
chickens you plan on getting and raising. And if you don't have to,don't
build a chicken house fancy or expensive. In other words,scrounge for at
least some of your building materials it at all possible!:-)

Now I like Rhode Island Red chickens because they are a dual purpose
chicken. You'll get eggs from them and a good bit of meat for eating
too. And it's likely that some of them will want to set their own
eggs,so if you want to,you can let some of them do that and in that way
raise you some more chickens.

Now unless you can raise it all,you are going to have to buy chicken
feed. So check on the price of that in your area. Now chicken scratch
feed is pretty cheap; but the needed laying mash feed is not so cheap.
Yet,you won't need so much of the latter if you are situated where your
laying hens can get to good green grass and bugs much of the year. Or
where you can provide them with grass clipping from your yard mowing.

And I won't claim you can grow eggs or chicken meat at lower cost than
you can buy such in a grocery store. I don't know if you or I or anyone
can do that or not? But if you grow your own chickens you will have
better tasting chicken eggs and meat than that which is bought in big
grocery chain stores. And you will know what they have been grown on and
what they haven't been fed. Plus and not the least of things at all,it
can simply be a pleasure to have a few chickens about. Well,just so long
as they don't scratch up your garden, flower beds or annoy the
neighbors! LoL

So I say go for it if you can. Life is short and raising a few chickens
for eggs,meat and simply watching can be one of its cheaper pleasures.
:-) And such makes a lot more sense than a person drowning their sorrows
and spending their money for alcohol or drugs! :-) LoL
Ronny TX
2006-12-24 09:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Re: "The Myth of the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Fri, Dec 22,
2006, 7:36am (CST-2) From:
***@peaksky.com
(Larry=A0Caldwell)
Post by Larry Caldwell
says...
Large family farms, defined as those
with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all
agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more
than 54 percent of government subsidies.
And their share of federal payments is
growing -- more than doubling over the
past decade for the biggest farms.
That actually sounds like the big
operations are getting the short end of
the stick. 60% of the food and only 54%
of the subsidies?
When most urbanoids think of family
farms they think of pigs, chickens,
milking a cow and riding a horse around
the pasture. My family sold its last
milk cow when I started college and
wasn't around to milk it any more. We
quit chickens even earlier, when eggs
and poultry got cheaper at the store
than you could raise them at home. Farms
nowadays are specialists, raising one or
two crops.
Ronny:
What will such specialist family farmers do if things got really bad and
they needed to grow their own food? They would have the land for
that;but would they know how to grow,harvest and put up their own food?

Thinking of my Mom and Dad during the 30's Depression in the United
States. They specialized then too. Mainly cotton and corn. Cotton for
cash and corn mainly for their animals and themself. Cotton prices got
so low you could hardly live on such. Many didn't. But at least they had
the corn they could eat. Plus,back then they had very big gardens,so
they had fresh produce and produce to put up for winter. And they raised
hogs for their own meat and chickens for eggs and meat. Lots of people
on farms used to do that,so they could make it,have food on the table,
even when the price of a specialized crop like cotton fell to the
bottom.

Compare that to today,where specialized family farms have only one or
two crops and they don't raise their own food;but buy all such at the
local grocery. Now how will such family farmers make it foodwise, if the
price of their specialized crop or two drops down way low? Will their
family farm go under and that partly because they don't grow a lot of
their own food and don't even know how?
Larry Caldwell
2006-12-25 16:24:12 UTC
Permalink
In article <398-458E4194-***@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net>, budd1y1
@webtv.net (Ronny TX) says...
Post by Ronny TX
What will such specialist family farmers do if things got really bad and
they needed to grow their own food? They would have the land for
that;but would they know how to grow,harvest and put up their own food?
It's not a concern. Farmers are not survivalists. They have to keep
feeding the mortgage, property taxes and crop loans. They would be out
of business and standing in a bread line long before they were reduced
to shelling their own peas.

You can't compare modern America to 1930's America. Back then, it was
an agrarian nation. The City of Los Angeles only had a population of
1.2 million, and Los Angeles County was still the most agriculturally
productive county in the nation, which only had 122 million people.
Food technology has changed too. In 1930, most rural families didn't
even have electricity, much less a refrigerator and freezer.

The world has moved on. The next time the economy collapses, we are
going to have to find new solutions.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Ronny TX
2006-12-26 09:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronny TX
Re: "The Myth of the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Mon, Dec 25,
(Larry=A0Caldwell)
TX) says...
What will such specialist family farmers
do if things got really bad and they
needed to grow their own food? They
would have the land for that;but would
they know how to grow,harvest and put up
their own food?
It's not a concern.
Ronny:
What I hear you saying here is that specialist family farmers should
have no concern about how they will feed themself and their family
members if things got bad. Now I can understand how such people feel as
they do and do as they do when they are comfortable with the amount of
money they have and the grocery stores are handy and they can pay cash
for what they need or want;but my question was what would such people do
to feed themselves if things got bad? And since they are farmers and
have land,then should not part of their life be involved in growing some
of their own food? That simply seems prudent to me for a person in such
a position to do such,instead of their paying out so much of their hard
earned cash to a local grocery chain store.
Post by Ronny TX
Farmers are not
survivalists.
Ronny:
My contention is that they need to be,at least to some degree. And who
has a better chance to be,than a specialist family farmer who already
has the land and equipment to personally grow some of their own food?
Post by Ronny TX
They have to keep feeding
the mortgage, property taxes and crop
loans. They would be out of business and
standing in a bread line long before
they were reduced to shelling their own
peas.
Ronny:
Shouldn't a specialist family farmer be striving to pay off their
mortage and thus own their own land as free and clear as they possibly
can,as soon as they can? And couldn't at least a part of that be done by
their growing much of their own food on their own land and thus freeing
up money to go for faster mortage payments-
money that would otherwise would simply go to the local chain grocery
stores?

And where would the small or large specialist family farmers bread come
from as he stood in the bread line with his family? And it's been years
back now that I knew a farmer who specialized in wheat and pinto beans
and I never thought to ask him if he and his family prepared and ate
some of the food they produced? But wouldn't it make sense if they did?
After all,not a bad start having your own bread and pinto beans! :-) LoL
Add to that a garden plot with various things that they could eat fresh
and put up for winter and if so then they would have it pretty good if
times got bad. Even better if their place were paid for in full and the
bank could not come after them in harder times.
Post by Ronny TX
You can't compare modern America to
1930's America. Back then, it was an
agrarian nation. The City of Los Angeles
only had a population of 1.2 million,
and Los Angeles County was still the
most agriculturally productive county in
the nation, which only had 122 million
people. Food technology has changed too.
In 1930, most rural families didn't even
have electricity, much less a
refrigerator and freezer.
The world has moved on. The next time
the economy collapses, we are going to
have to find new solutions.
--
Ronny:
People had to eat back then,people have to eat now. If not,they starve.
That's not changed,nor will it ever change in our present world. Just a
fact of life. Eat or die. So it's still my belief that the specialists
family farmers of today should at least consider growing some of their
own food for their own table and storing some of that too. Which,among
other things,simply seems the prudent thing to do if things got bad with
their specailty crop(s) and the price dropped way down on such. Better
to have that at home than to have to count on a bread line where you and
your family might or might not find food or enough food to eat.

And as you said;"The next time the economy collapses,we are going to
have to find new solutions." My question to that is,what new solutions.
Again, farmers produce and they and others eat and live or farmers don't
produce and they and others don't eat and they die. Pretty stark isn't?
So the only solution is for farmers to keep producing so that they and
others can keep eating and living. And again,my contenion is simply that
specialists family farmers need to produce more of their own personal
food. To me such simply makes sense on many levels. One of which is that
doing so simply makes the specialist family and family farm stronger and
more durable. Especially so if or when the price for their specialty
crop(s) takes a nose dive. Providing more for themself would simply make
such farms and families more likely to survive and be able to come out
better when things got better.

Now one type of specialist family farm that I know a little about are
dairy farms. Now right off the bat those have milk and beef. They also
have land,equipment and an abundance of good fertilizer :-) for use in
growing any food crops for family consumption. Yet I've known of few
that do that in the past few years. Only one guy in particular and he
was an older farmer. The younger dairy farmers I've known simply buy
their milk and produce at the local chain grocery store. And some that
do simply ended up going out of the farming business because the
specialty crop they produced,milk and beef,simply would not pay their
bills. Others make it because they had/have well to do kinfolk to invest
in their farms and they also get subsidies. Funny thing,a family farmer
getting subsidies from the government when he or she produces little or
any food for his ownself or his family. And that when he or she could.
And yes,I know some people like that might be pressed for time to do
such;but then I know many who aren't. Many who hire Mexican farm workers
to do such things as the actual milking of the cows and much of the
other farm upkeep too. Not sure what some of those people do with their
free time? But I have seen a number of them congregated at the local
rural store,simply drinking coffee or such and gossiping. LoL
Larry Caldwell
2006-12-26 18:36:29 UTC
Permalink
In article <506-4590EE64-***@storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net>, budd1y1
@webtv.net (Ronny TX) says...

Ronny, you are wrapped up in the myth of the family farm; cows 'n
chickens 'n pigs 'n 40 acres of corn. Today, that's a hobby farm. It's
possible to make a living off of small acreage, but only by specializing
and finding a niche market.
Post by Ronny TX
What I hear you saying here is that specialist family farmers should
have no concern about how they will feed themself and their family
members if things got bad. Now I can understand how such people feel as
they do and do as they do when they are comfortable with the amount of
money they have and the grocery stores are handy and they can pay cash
for what they need or want;but my question was what would such people do
to feed themselves if things got bad? And since they are farmers and
have land,then should not part of their life be involved in growing some
of their own food? That simply seems prudent to me for a person in such
a position to do such,instead of their paying out so much of their hard
earned cash to a local grocery chain store.
Ronny, food is cheaper than dirt. The average American family spends
about 8% of its income on unprepared food, compared to about 30% in
1925. As a percentage of income, nobody in the world pays less for food
than Americans. If you want to take responsibility for feeding
yourself, learn to cook. Quit eating Big Macs and Hamburger Helper, and
you will quickly find out how cheap food is.
Post by Ronny TX
My contention is that they need to be,at least to some degree. And who
has a better chance to be,than a specialist family farmer who already
has the land and equipment to personally grow some of their own food?
Farmers don't grow their own food, they grow food for hundreds or
thousands of other people. It's what they get paid for. The water bath
canner and the smoke house are just hobbies, like knitting, or hand
spinning your own yarn.

Certainly I have a water bath canner, and a pressure canner too, but
when the canneries are clearing out their seasonal inventory, I can buy
tins of canned vegetables 3/$1 at the local canned food outlet. The
contents of a 7 quart canner would cost me $4.69 at the store, less than
an hour's wages at minimum wage. You want me to take up a lifestyle
where my time is worth about a quarter of minimum wage?
Post by Ronny TX
Shouldn't a specialist family farmer be striving to pay off their
mortage and thus own their own land as free and clear as they possibly
can,as soon as they can? And couldn't at least a part of that be done by
their growing much of their own food on their own land and thus freeing
up money to go for faster mortage payments-
money that would otherwise would simply go to the local chain grocery
stores?
Most farmers end up farming the equity, at least part of the time. If
they are very lucky, their only debt is the mortgage. Many farmers
borrow the money to put in a crop, and almost everyone sooner or later
has to borrow to replace equipment. Most farmers are also looking to
buy more land, and their expansion loans are just a percentage of their
overhead. By the time the mortgage is paid off, a farmer is ready to
retire. If you are farming with your own money, you don't worry about
where your next meal is coming from.
Post by Ronny TX
And where would the small or large specialist family farmers bread come
from as he stood in the bread line with his family? And it's been years
back now that I knew a farmer who specialized in wheat and pinto beans
and I never thought to ask him if he and his family prepared and ate
some of the food they produced? But wouldn't it make sense if they did?
After all,not a bad start having your own bread and pinto beans! :-) LoL
Add to that a garden plot with various things that they could eat fresh
and put up for winter and if so then they would have it pretty good if
times got bad. Even better if their place were paid for in full and the
bank could not come after them in harder times.
When was the last time you bought 25 lbs. of pinto beans? Do you have
any concept of how much food that is, and how little it would cost at
any bulk food grocery? A farm is a business. It needs a substantial
cash flow to survive. You aren't going to get that cash flow out of a
hobby garden. When things get bad enough that you can't buy groceries,
you better start packing a suitcase, because you won't have a farm
tomorrow.

I have neighbors who make about half a living off of a farm stand.
Their "garden" is 60 acres of irrigated row crops on rich river bottom
land. Some of it they truck garden and some they sell farmgate. It
takes half a dozen Mexicans to plant, irrigate, cultivate and pick, and
three Anglos to run the farm stand. Their payroll costs alone are over
a third of a million dollars a year. That's a lot of beans.
Post by Ronny TX
People had to eat back then,people have to eat now. If not,they starve.
That's not changed,nor will it ever change in our present world. Just a
fact of life. Eat or die. So it's still my belief that the specialists
family farmers of today should at least consider growing some of their
own food for their own table and storing some of that too. Which,among
other things,simply seems the prudent thing to do if things got bad with
their specailty crop(s) and the price dropped way down on such. Better
to have that at home than to have to count on a bread line where you and
your family might or might not find food or enough food to eat.
You are letting your survivalist fantasies run away with you, Ronny.
Farmers can't afford to go back to 19th century farming practices.
Governments can't allow farmers to go back to 19th century farming
practices. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet now. The only
way to feed them is high input industrial agriculture. When the cities
go dark and the highways go silent, the farms will still have fuel and
fertilizer necessary to produce a crop.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Jim
2006-12-26 18:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Larry Caldwell wrote:
[....]
Post by Larry Caldwell
When the cities
go dark and the highways go silent, the farms will still have fuel and
fertilizer necessary to produce a crop.
When the cities go dark and the highways go silent,
WILL the farms still have fuel and fertilizer
necessary to produce a crop.
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-27 00:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
[....]
Post by Larry Caldwell
When the cities
go dark and the highways go silent, the farms will still have fuel and
fertilizer necessary to produce a crop.
When the cities go dark and the highways go silent,
WILL the farms still have fuel and fertilizer
necessary to produce a crop.
No.
Ronny TX
2006-12-27 04:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Re: "some food for thought"
Group: misc.rural Date: Tue, Dec 26,
[....]
When the cities
go dark and the highways go silent, the
farms will still have fuel and
fertilizer necessary to produce a crop.
When the cities go dark and the highways
go silent, WILL the farms still have
fuel and fertilizer necessary to produce
a crop.
---
Ronny:
They won't unless they already have such stored on their farm. :-) After
all,if the highways are silent then that means no delivery trucks to
deliver the fuel and fertilizer anywhere. And even if the farmer had
such,then how would his crop(s) be delivered to market? And how would
the people in the dark cities and silent highways pay for such? So when
all is said and done,the farm folk depend on the city people and the
city folk depend on the farmers. Can't have one without the other.
enigma
2006-12-27 13:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
[....]
Post by Larry Caldwell
When the cities
go dark and the highways go silent, the farms will still
have fuel and fertilizer necessary to produce a crop.
When the cities go dark and the highways go silent,
WILL the farms still have fuel and fertilizer
necessary to produce a crop.
small farms will. small farms can still run with horses,
which are both motive power & fertilizer producers.
however, food for those unable to grow thier own garden plots
& preserve the fruits will be *much* more expensive.
i can sort of see how to make draft farming work on larger
acreage, but it will require a paradigm shift in thinking
about wages & the types of jobs people are willing to do. also
in what produce is available when & where (remember when
oranges & bananas were a big treat, not an everyday item, up
north?)

lee
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
BR
2006-12-27 00:33:38 UTC
Permalink
[much snipped]
Post by Larry Caldwell
Post by Ronny TX
People had to eat back then,people have to eat now. If not,they starve.
That's not changed,nor will it ever change in our present world. Just a
fact of life. Eat or die. So it's still my belief that the specialists
family farmers of today should at least consider growing some of their
own food for their own table and storing some of that too. Which,among
other things,simply seems the prudent thing to do if things got bad with
their specailty crop(s) and the price dropped way down on such. Better
to have that at home than to have to count on a bread line where you and
your family might or might not find food or enough food to eat.
You are letting your survivalist fantasies run away with you, Ronny.
Farmers can't afford to go back to 19th century farming practices.
Governments can't allow farmers to go back to 19th century farming
practices. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet now. The only
way to feed them is high input industrial agriculture. When the cities
go dark and the highways go silent, the farms will still have fuel and
fertilizer necessary to produce a crop.
I don't think so. Visit http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net and/or read
"The Long Emergency" by Jim Kunstler.
--
Remove the TOS star ship captain to reply.
Ronny TX
2006-12-27 04:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronny TX
Re: "The Myth of the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Tue, Dec 26,
(Larry=A0Caldwell)
TX) says...
Ronny, you are wrapped up in the myth of
the family farm; cows 'n chickens 'n
pigs 'n 40 acres of corn. Today, that's
a hobby farm. It's possible to make a
living off of small acreage, but only by
specializing and finding a niche market.
Ronny:
I agree with you about the need for a niche market,for a small farm to
provide a living. But the 40 acres of corn seems a tad excessive to me.
:-) And don't get me wrong,I'm not talking about a living that provides
a house that is actually 3 to 5 times bigger than what someone really
needs. Nor am I talking about a living that provides the newest of
vehicles,truck and car every 2 to 4 years. And I've seen I don't know
how many people of my generation doing just that. Buying things like
that. Going into debt for years on end to the bank when so much could of
been trimmed back and they still would of been very comfortable in their
own smaller home and their own good;but used vehicles. (Heck,one of the
best deals I've ever gotten was buying a good used 6 year old van this
year for a 1/4 to a 1/3 of what a brand new one would have cost me. And
to me anyway,another good deal I got this year was paying out about
$1200 to have several things fixed up on a nearly 40 year old truck of
mine. No guarantees on it of course;but it's running like a top since
last winter and I just brought in a half cord of wood in it today. And
the yearly insurance bill for it is around $400. Bought that truck from
a nephew of mine 13 years ago for around $1200,when he was a teen and
thought he just had to have a brand new sporty type car to impress the
girls! LoL Now compare all of that to what I would of paid for a new
truck in monthly payments and insurance.)
Post by Ronny TX
What I hear you saying here is that
specialist family farmers should have no
concern about how they will feed
themself and their family members if
things got bad. Now I can understand how
such people feel as they do and do as
they do when they are comfortable with
the amount of money they have and the
grocery stores are handy and they can
pay cash for what they need or want;but
my question was what would such people
do to feed themselves if things got bad?
And since they are farmers and have
land,then should not part of their life
be involved in growing some of their own
food? That simply seems prudent to me
for a person in such a position to do
such,instead of their paying out so much
of their hard earned cash to a local
grocery chain store.
Ronny, food is cheaper than dirt. The
average American family spends about 8%
of its income on unprepared food,
compared to about 30% in
1925. As a percentage of income, nobody
in the world pays less for food than
Americans.
Ronny:
I must be shopping at the wrong grocery store! :-) But then I admit that
I don't buy much unprepared food and that I need to get to doing more.
But then I wondered how much unprepared food the average person buys in
the United States? I would bet very little as to their overall diet.
Post by Ronny TX
If you want to take
responsibility for feeding yourself,
learn to cook. Quit eating Big Macs and
Hamburger Helper, and you will quickly
find out how cheap food is.
Ronny:
I completely agree with you on this part. And I do cook some;but not
nearly enough. And that needs to change this coming year. Not just for
the lower prices alone;but for my health. (BTW,I seldom eat takeout
hamburgers and such. I usually don't have time for that and such is a
treat for me seeing as the nearest fast food place is 12 or more miles
from me.)
Post by Ronny TX
My contention is that they need to be,at
least to some degree. And who has a
better chance to be,than a specialist
family farmer who already has the land
and equipment to personally grow some of
their own food?
Farmers don't grow their own food, they
grow food for hundreds or thousands of
other people. It's what they get paid
for.
Ronny:
Do you really realize what's being said when you say;"Farmers don't grow
their own food."? And it's great that they grow food for so many
people;but why not also a bit for themselves? And I'm speaking of the
smaller family farms here that specialize in one or two crops. Not
talking about huge farms owned by big businesses that have lawyers that
know how to farm the government as well or better than some people know
how to farm the land.
Post by Ronny TX
The water bath canner and the smoke
house are just hobbies, like knitting,
or hand spinning your own yarn.
Certainly I have a water bath canner,
and a pressure canner too, but when the
canneries are clearing out their
seasonal inventory, I can buy tins of
canned vegetables 3/$1 at the local
canned food outlet. The contents of a 7
quart canner would cost me $4.69 at the
store, less than an hour's wages at
minimum wage. You want me to take up a
lifestyle where my time is worth about a
quarter of minimum wage?
Ronny:
It's all more than about money. It's also a matter or being more
independant and self reliant,at least to a degree that makes sense. So I
have not a thing against a smaller family farmer buying and stocking up
on canned vegetables at the store when they're on sale 3 for a dollar or
such like. Such as that makes perfect sense.

Now about that 7 quart canner? :-) How many times can you reuse your
jars? See, that needs to be counted in too when sayin how much this and
that costs. Plus, isn't a really good canner a long term investment?
Post by Ronny TX
Shouldn't a specialist family farmer be
striving to pay off their mortage and
thus own their own land as free and
clear as they possibly can,as soon as
they can? And couldn't at least a part
of that be done by their growing much of
their own food on their own land and
thus freeing up money to go for faster
mortage payments- money that would
otherwise would simply go to the local
chain grocery stores?
Most farmers end up farming the equity,
at least part of the time. If they are
very lucky, their only debt is the
mortgage. Many farmers borrow the money
to put in a crop, and almost everyone
sooner or later has to borrow to replace
equipment. Most farmers are also looking
to buy more land, and their expansion
loans are just a percentage of their
overhead. By the time the mortgage is
paid off, a farmer is ready to retire.
Ronny:
So,are you saying that most smaller family farms just live in and exist
on debt? That's sure not a good place to be if the price of your one or
two specialty crops drops way down. And if you're borrowing money to put
in a crop,then that means borrowing money from the banker at interest.
Any cheap interest out there now days? :-) And why should a smaller
family farm always be looking to buy more land? If what they already
have doesn't make them a comfortable living and pay the debts,then how
will buying more land to farm and adding on more debt help such people?
Or will such tend to simply put them further and further into debt? I
simply can't see the use in growing a bigger debt when the idea is to
grow crops on the land you already have and that in such a way as to at
least pay for the land and all and make the farmer a comfortable living.
Post by Ronny TX
If you are farming with your own money,
you don't worry about where your next
meal is coming from.
Ronny:
You do if the value of your money drops too much. Not much use in paper
money if it's not worth much. Can't eat it,can't do much of anything
with it.
Post by Ronny TX
And where would the small or large
specialist family farmers bread come
from as he stood in the bread line with
his family? And it's been years back now
that I knew a farmer who specialized in
wheat and pinto beans and I never
thought to ask him if he and his family
prepared and ate some of the food they
produced? But wouldn't it make sense if
they did? After all,not a bad start
having your own bread and pinto beans!
:-) LoL Add to that a garden plot with
various things that they could eat fresh
and put up for winter and if so then
they would have it pretty good if times
got bad. Even better if their place were
paid for in full and the bank could not
come after them in harder times.
When was the last time you bought 25
lbs. of pinto beans? Do you have any
concept of how much food that is, and
how little it would cost at any bulk
food grocery?
Ronny:
Are you saying it would cost less for the pinto bean farmer to buy his
pinto beans at the bulk grocery store? It that's so,then he's doing
something wrong in his farming or else that store will soon be out of
business. And the farmer I spoke of already had his land,his equipment
and the pinto beans and wheat he grew. So my idea was that such a farmer
should simply put some of that food by for use for himself and his own
family.
A farm is a business. It
Post by Ronny TX
needs a substantial cash flow to
survive. You aren't going to get that
cash flow out of a hobby garden. When
things get bad enough that you can't buy
groceries, you better start packing a
suitcase, because you won't have a farm
tomorrow.
Ronny:
You'll still own your farm if you don't have a large amount of debt that
you're having to make payments on to the bank. But if you do and you
lose your farm,pack your suitcases and have to leave it,then exactly
where is that specialized family farmer and his family going then and
where are their groceries coming from then and how will they pay for
such? And that's just groceries and not even talking about how they will
then house or cloth themselves? So my idea is simply that such people
should grow at least some of their own food,stock up on that,go into
debt only when absolutely necessary and pay off all debts on their land
and home as quickly as they can.
Post by Ronny TX
I have neighbors who make about half a
living off of a farm stand. Their
"garden" is 60 acres of irrigated row
crops on rich river bottom land. Some of
it they truck garden and some they sell
farmgate. It takes half a dozen Mexicans
to plant, irrigate, cultivate and pick,
and three Anglos to run the farm stand.
Their payroll costs alone are over a
third of a million dollars a year.
That's a lot of beans.
Ronny:
Have they gotten to the place where they own their own land free and
clear? If not, then hopefully they are working towards that goal as soon
as possible. And does their diet consist a great deal of the truck crops
they grow? Or do they buy a lot of groceries from the local chain
stores? Do they store any of their own truck farm crops for their own
use when such are not available fresh? If they don't,couldn't they? You
see it's not just cash that's security. In fact cash can be very poor
security;but stored food is a good form of security.
Post by Ronny TX
People had to eat back then,people have
to eat now. If not,they starve. That's
not changed,nor will it ever change in
our present world. Just a fact of life.
Eat or die. So it's still my belief that
the specialists family farmers of today
should at least consider growing some of
their own food for their own table and
storing some of that too. Which,among
other things,simply seems the prudent
thing to do if things got bad with their
specailty crop(s) and the price dropped
way down on such. Better to have that at
home than to have to count on a bread
line where you and your family might or
might not find food or enough food to
eat.
You are letting your survivalist
fantasies run away with you, Ronny.
Farmers can't afford to go back to 19th
century farming practices. Governments
can't allow farmers to go back to 19th
century farming practices. There are 6.5
billion people on this planet now. The
only way to feed them is high input
industrial agriculture.
Ronny:
Don't we mostly have high input industrial agriculture in the U.S. now?
We got that and how many of those 6.5 billion people, in this
world,can't afford to buy food from us? Some of those people even living
in the United States. So it's great that we can produce a lot of
food;but that doesn't fill the stomach of the person that can't afford
to buy such from us. And I'm not asking any smaller specialized family
farmer to go back to 19 century farming practices;but I do believe they
could go by some of them and have a better life,a better living and more
security for themself and their whole family. And I don't have
survivalist fantacies;but I do believe it is prudent for smaller
specialized family farmers to grow at least some of their own food and
stock up on that as they can. After all they already have the land and
the equipment for that. And if it's truly a family farm they have,
then they have at least some of their own labor or perhaps all of it in
some cases. So why not put such to use at times when they aren't tied up
with the specialized crops? Why not them and any kids they have working
even a smal amount of personal for use at home crops and that say in
place of the kid(s) being indoors playing a video game? Or is that
considered too much to ask of farm kids nowdays? :-)
Post by Ronny TX
When the cities
go dark and the highways go silent, the
farms will still have fuel and
fertilizer necessary to produce a crop.
---
Ronny:
But such ain't going nowhere if the trucks aren't running down those
highways and delivering such to the processors and then even more trucks
delivering such to the grocery stores. And if the highways go silent
then how are the people to get to the grocery stores to buy the food
that finally gets their from the farms? So if the cities go dark and the
highways go silent, then it doesn't amount to a hill of beans if the
farmer can still get fuel and fertilizer to raise a crop. But what will
matter to the farmer is such a case as that is if he or she has a small
debt load,land and home paid for and if he or she has actually grown or
purchased some of their own food and have such stored for their own
personal use.

But then I'm not at all talking about end times deals,really horrible
bad times when I say I don't see why specialized family farmers don't
grow and store at least a bit of their own personal food? I say doing
such is good as just as good and called for in much better times. Anyway
like that,that saves the farmer money is good. Anything that helps him
or her get out of debt quicker is good. And it's not just growing their
own food;but as you mentioned and as I agree,it would also consist of
buying bulk food,canned food and such out of the stores when such was
cheaper. Such a way of life simply makes sense for the smaller
specialized family farmer or anyone for that matter. So if you can
produce some fresh foods cheaper than the stores,then so that;but if
another can produce bulk dry or canned goods cheaper than you can,then
buy from that person and stock up a bit when such is cheaper. Just
simple common sense things like this will lower any persons debt,the
amount of cash they have to shell out to others. And such makes sense to
me for all people,specialized family farmers included.
Jim
2006-12-23 02:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
Ann, the reporter has a misconception and has in their article printed
some misleading information. Ann, as your conversation with others
progressed in this thread you mentioned the following web site:
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=fsahome&subject=landing&topic=landing
on that page you can find the price support cut off margins. by careful
tracking of the commodities on the CBoT web site: http://www.cbot.com/
the price of soybeans never fell below the cut off margins during the harvest
season. something don't add up. my suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins
in the early part of the 2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off
margins. as for corn, I have no idea since I've not tracked that commodity
as closely.


as for what the article did attempt to impart or communicate by statement,
suggestion or gesture was really a matter of mathematical logic. consider two
Farms where one produced 1000 bushels of beans and the other produced 100,000
bushels of same grade and quality beans. both sold on equal condition and
thus both received the same bushel price. both were below the price support
cut off margins and both were accepting subsidies where the subsidy equaled
.24 cents a bushel. doing the math one can clearly see from this example who
got the bigger of the two subsidy checks. and it's really that simple.

I did enjoy reading the article and thought when the writer mentioned
the use of technologies how it would have been interesting for the reader
to learn of how GPS has found a home on the Farm.

"reduce drift from 7.5" with typical GPS assisted steering to less than 1"
http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?sigcat=farmjournal&pageid=123767
Post by Ann
"It's embarrassing," Phipps said. "My government is basically saying I am
incompetent and need help."..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001591.html?nav=rss_email/components
http://tinyurl.com/t3ry8
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-23 02:47:46 UTC
Permalink
jimmie-fat-fuck ledford, subsidy-guzzling CHISELER,
Post by Jim
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
Ann, the reporter has a misconception
Uh-huh. Anything to keep the wool pulled over the eyes
of the taxpayers who are funneling money into your
grubby mits, jimmie-fat-fuck.
Jim
2006-12-23 03:57:25 UTC
Permalink
today has been a really nice day. got rain to
wet the seed and green up the lawns.
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-23 04:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
today has been a really nice day.
It was an okay day, but there were a few blemishes,
specifically your maudlin and saccharine dumps into usenet.
enigma
2006-12-23 12:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Jim
today has been a really nice day.
It was an okay day, but there were a few blemishes,
specifically your maudlin and saccharine dumps into usenet.
as opposed to your bitter & snarky ones?

lee
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-23 07:11:38 UTC
Permalink
jimmie-fat-fuck ledford, semi-literate possum-gobbling
"anyhow, on a different note, remember when you shared
with me concerning your visit to a farm and how you road
in a combine?"
http://gyxe.com/divorcement/26-276-re-jesus-commands-jim-ledford-to-get-in-his-combine-and-cut-beans-read.shtml
RODE, jimmie-fat-fuck, you colossally fucking idiot
hick; not "road".

god-fucking-DAMN-it, jimmie-fat-fuck. You blow.
Ronny TX
2006-12-24 09:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Re: "The Myth of the Small Farmer"
Group: misc.rural Date: Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 10:57pm (CST+1) From:
***@bellsouth.net (Jim)
today has been a really nice day. got rain to wet the seed and green up
the lawns.

Ronny:
Good for you! :-)

Here in NE Texas we got a 1/3 of an inch of rain last week. Helped;but I
was hoping for much more. What made it bad was the two day before
promise of one of our weather men on TV. He saw the storm heading our
way from the Pacific NW and California and said we were going to get
soaking rains here from that. Souded great! :-) But his prediction was
way wrong! :-( Still any rain at all helps here as we're still in a
drought. The neighbor planted rye grass earlier on my small patch of
ground,for his heifers. It came up,they eat it;but not enough rain here
for it to get up and really grow yet.

Sort of ironic that I needed to mow some wild rye grass in my yard last
week. Now that stuff was thick and pretty;but then it wasn't getting
eaten down by cattle just as soon as it came up! (ha)
Ann
2006-12-23 05:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
Ann, the reporter has a misconception and has in their article printed
some misleading information. Ann, as your conversation with others
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=fsahome&subject=landing&topic=landing
on that page you can find the price support cut off margins. by careful
tracking of the commodities on the CBoT web site: http://www.cbot.com/
the price of soybeans never fell below the cut off margins during the harvest
season. something don't add up. my suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins
in the early part of the 2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off
margins. as for corn, I have no idea since I've not tracked that commodity
as closely.
According to the EWG Farm Subsidy Database (from USDA data), John W Phipps
of Chrisman, IL received $120,044 in commodity subsidies in 2005.
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=003109912
(See "Programs" for how this breaks down by crop, etc.)

Faulting the reporters for rounding off to the nearest $100 seems a bit
picky. <g>

BTW, if these are the brothers and/or father mentioned in the article,
they didn't do bad either:
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=009725649
Post by Jim
as for what the article did attempt to impart or communicate by
statement, suggestion or gesture was really a matter of mathematical
logic. consider two Farms where one produced 1000 bushels of beans and
the other produced 100,000 bushels of same grade and quality beans. both
sold on equal condition and thus both received the same bushel price.
both were below the price support cut off margins and both were
accepting subsidies where the subsidy equaled .24 cents a bushel. doing
the math one can clearly see from this example who got the bigger of the
two subsidy checks. and it's really that simple.
That depends on what the purpose of the subsidy program is ... which is
well covered in the article.
Post by Jim
I did enjoy reading the article and thought when the writer mentioned
the use of technologies how it would have been interesting for the
reader to learn of how GPS has found a home on the Farm.
"reduce drift from 7.5" with typical GPS assisted steering to less than 1"
http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?sigcat=farmjournal&pageid=123767
Post by Ann
"It's embarrassing," Phipps said. "My government is basically saying I
am incompetent and need help."..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001591.html?nav=rss_email/components
http://tinyurl.com/t3ry8
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-23 05:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Jim
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
Ann, the reporter has a misconception and has in their article printed
some misleading information. Ann, as your conversation with others
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=fsahome&subject=landing&topic=landing
on that page you can find the price support cut off margins. by careful
tracking of the commodities on the CBoT web site: http://www.cbot.com/
the price of soybeans never fell below the cut off margins during the harvest
season. something don't add up. my suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins
in the early part of the 2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off
margins. as for corn, I have no idea since I've not tracked that commodity
as closely.
According to the EWG Farm Subsidy Database (from USDA data), John W Phipps
of Chrisman, IL received $120,044 in commodity subsidies in 2005.
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=003109912
(See "Programs" for how this breaks down by crop, etc.)
Faulting the reporters for rounding off to the nearest $100 seems a bit
picky. <g>
BTW, if these are the brothers and/or father mentioned in the article,
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=009725649
jimmie-fat-fuck is getting some amount of money from
the yankee gummint that hard-working people in other
occupations don't get. He's a liar and a hypocrite.
Ann
2006-12-23 06:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ann
Post by Jim
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
Ann, the reporter has a misconception and has in their article printed
some misleading information. Ann, as your conversation with others
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=fsahome&subject=landing&topic=landing
on that page you can find the price support cut off margins. by careful
tracking of the commodities on the CBoT web site: http://www.cbot.com/
the price of soybeans never fell below the cut off margins during the harvest
season. something don't add up. my suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins
in the early part of the 2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off
margins. as for corn, I have no idea since I've not tracked that commodity
as closely.
According to the EWG Farm Subsidy Database (from USDA data), John W Phipps
of Chrisman, IL received $120,044 in commodity subsidies in 2005.
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=003109912
(See "Programs" for how this breaks down by crop, etc.)
Faulting the reporters for rounding off to the nearest $100 seems a bit
picky. <g>
BTW, if these are the brothers and/or father mentioned in the article,
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=009725649
jimmie-fat-fuck is getting some amount of money from
the yankee gummint that hard-working people in other
occupations don't get. He's a liar and a hypocrite.
I don't think so, at least not though the USDA farm subsidy programs.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.rural/browse_frm/thread/cd98b4b7ed7cbd94/34ab32e020cc162b?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#34ab32e020cc162b
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-23 06:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ann
Post by Jim
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
Ann, the reporter has a misconception and has in their article printed
some misleading information. Ann, as your conversation with others
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=fsahome&subject=landing&topic=landing
on that page you can find the price support cut off margins. by careful
tracking of the commodities on the CBoT web site: http://www.cbot.com/
the price of soybeans never fell below the cut off margins during the harvest
season. something don't add up. my suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins
in the early part of the 2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off
margins. as for corn, I have no idea since I've not tracked that commodity
as closely.
According to the EWG Farm Subsidy Database (from USDA data), John W Phipps
of Chrisman, IL received $120,044 in commodity subsidies in 2005.
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=003109912
(See "Programs" for how this breaks down by crop, etc.)
Faulting the reporters for rounding off to the nearest $100 seems a bit
picky. <g>
BTW, if these are the brothers and/or father mentioned in the article,
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=009725649
jimmie-fat-fuck is getting some amount of money from
the yankee gummint that hard-working people in other
occupations don't get. He's a liar and a hypocrite.
I don't think so, at least not though the USDA farm subsidy programs.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.rural/browse_frm/thread/cd98b4b7ed7cbd94/34ab32e020cc162b?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#34ab32e020cc162b
That doesn't say he didn't receive subsidies; it said
he isn't James V. Ledford who received some $8400 over
10 years for some unspecified crop.

jimmie-fat-fuck has, or at least used to have, enough
info on his Bellsouth personal ego-gratification web
page that I was able to determine he lives a bit east
of Raleigh. That other $8400-subsidy-gobbling James
Ledford lives in another part of the state.

Here's a link -
http://www.homekb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/rural/2993/Is-Jim-Ledford-really-a-farmer-or-just-a-hired-hand
- that illustrates jimmie-fat-fuck has been pissing and
moaning about "yankee street-light huggers" for quite a
while now. It seems that jimmie-fat-fuck makes his
primary living from mowing the lawns of these "yankee"
parvenus that he bitches about here.
Ann
2006-12-23 07:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Ann
Post by Jim
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family
farms that are large operations using state-of-the-art computers,
marketing consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and
costs. The owners are frequently college graduates who are as
comfortable with a spreadsheet as with a tractor. They cover more
acres and produce more crops with fewer workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family
farms are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists,
analysts and farmers say. That's because owners of large farms
receive the largest share of government subsidies. They often use
the money to acquire more land, pushing aside small and medium-size
farms as well as young farmers starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than
$250,000, account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural
production but just 7 percent of all farms. They receive more than
54 percent of government subsidies. And their share of federal
payments is growing -- more than doubling over the past decade for
the biggest farms. ...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of
corn and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He
grossed nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3
percent. Still, he received $120,000 in subsidies.
Ann, the reporter has a misconception and has in their article
printed some misleading information. Ann, as your conversation with
others progressed in this thread you mentioned the following web
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=fsahome&subject=landing&topic=landing
on that page you can find the price support cut off margins. by
http://www.cbot.com/ the price of soybeans never fell below the cut
off margins during the harvest season. something don't add up. my
suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins in the early part of the
2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off margins. as for
corn, I have no idea since I've not tracked that commodity as
closely.
According to the EWG Farm Subsidy Database (from USDA data), John W
Phipps of Chrisman, IL received $120,044 in commodity subsidies in
2005. http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=003109912
(See "Programs" for how this breaks down by crop, etc.)
Faulting the reporters for rounding off to the nearest $100 seems a
bit picky. <g>
BTW, if these are the brothers and/or father mentioned in the
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=009725649
jimmie-fat-fuck is getting some amount of money from the yankee
gummint that hard-working people in other occupations don't get. He's
a liar and a hypocrite.
I don't think so, at least not though the USDA farm subsidy programs.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.rural/browse_frm/thread/cd98b4b7ed7cbd94/34ab32e020cc162b?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#34ab32e020cc162b
That doesn't say he didn't receive subsidies; it said he isn't James V.
Ledford who received some $8400 over 10 years for some unspecified crop.
So, check the EWG database yourself.
jimmie-fat-fuck has, or at least used to have, enough info on his
Bellsouth personal ego-gratification web page that I was able to
determine he lives a bit east of Raleigh. That other
$8400-subsidy-gobbling James Ledford lives in another part of the state.
Here's a link -
http://www.homekb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/rural/2993/Is-Jim-Ledford-really-a-farmer-or-just-a-hired-hand
- that illustrates jimmie-fat-fuck has been pissing and moaning about
"yankee street-light huggers" for quite a while now. It seems that
jimmie-fat-fuck makes his primary living from mowing the lawns of these
"yankee" parvenus that he bitches about here.
Most of that thread appears to be from "here" (m.r) so the fact that he
does landscape work is hardly a revelation. But how do you know that his
primary income isn't from an early retirement deal? Yes, I do get tired
of Jim's yankee obsession AND with your obsession with "piling it on".
But, nobody makes me read it so I have only myself to blame.
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-23 07:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Ann
Post by Ann
Post by Jim
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family
farms that are large operations using state-of-the-art computers,
marketing consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and
costs. The owners are frequently college graduates who are as
comfortable with a spreadsheet as with a tractor. They cover more
acres and produce more crops with fewer workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family
farms are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists,
analysts and farmers say. That's because owners of large farms
receive the largest share of government subsidies. They often use
the money to acquire more land, pushing aside small and medium-size
farms as well as young farmers starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than
$250,000, account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural
production but just 7 percent of all farms. They receive more than
54 percent of government subsidies. And their share of federal
payments is growing -- more than doubling over the past decade for
the biggest farms. ...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of
corn and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He
grossed nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3
percent. Still, he received $120,000 in subsidies.
Ann, the reporter has a misconception and has in their article
printed some misleading information. Ann, as your conversation with
others progressed in this thread you mentioned the following web
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=fsahome&subject=landing&topic=landing
on that page you can find the price support cut off margins. by
http://www.cbot.com/ the price of soybeans never fell below the cut
off margins during the harvest season. something don't add up. my
suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins in the early part of the
2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off margins. as for
corn, I have no idea since I've not tracked that commodity as
closely.
According to the EWG Farm Subsidy Database (from USDA data), John W
Phipps of Chrisman, IL received $120,044 in commodity subsidies in
2005. http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=003109912
(See "Programs" for how this breaks down by crop, etc.)
Faulting the reporters for rounding off to the nearest $100 seems a
bit picky. <g>
BTW, if these are the brothers and/or father mentioned in the
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=009725649
jimmie-fat-fuck is getting some amount of money from the yankee
gummint that hard-working people in other occupations don't get. He's
a liar and a hypocrite.
I don't think so, at least not though the USDA farm subsidy programs.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.rural/browse_frm/thread/cd98b4b7ed7cbd94/34ab32e020cc162b?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#34ab32e020cc162b
That doesn't say he didn't receive subsidies; it said he isn't James V.
Ledford who received some $8400 over 10 years for some unspecified crop.
So, check the EWG database yourself.
I can't seem to make the search feature work. When I
attempt to "sign up" at the "sign me up" link, nothing
happens.
Post by Ann
jimmie-fat-fuck has, or at least used to have, enough info on his
Bellsouth personal ego-gratification web page that I was able to
determine he lives a bit east of Raleigh. That other
$8400-subsidy-gobbling James Ledford lives in another part of the state.
Here's a link -
http://www.homekb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/rural/2993/Is-Jim-Ledford-really-a-farmer-or-just-a-hired-hand
- that illustrates jimmie-fat-fuck has been pissing and moaning about
"yankee street-light huggers" for quite a while now. It seems that
jimmie-fat-fuck makes his primary living from mowing the lawns of these
"yankee" parvenus that he bitches about here.
Most of that thread appears to be from "here" (m.r) so the fact that he
does landscape work is hardly a revelation.
When I looked at it a bit more closely, I saw you all
over it.
Post by Ann
But how do you know that his
primary income isn't from an early retirement deal?
Formally, I don't. But he has blabbered away at length
about the farm land having been in his family for over
a century, and he writes in an extraordinarily
semi-literate style, so I really don't think he's a
retired bio-tech or other sort of modern rich fuck.
The lawn care thing is a giveaway, a sort of "tell".
He's tending yankees' lawns and making dough from them
even as he pisses and moans about them. He's massively
hypocritical, judgmental (serious sin, that)
shit-4-braincell hypocrite. By comparison, I'm merely
obnoxious, which isn't really a big deal.
Dean Hoffman
2006-12-23 14:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
jimmie-fat-fuck is getting some amount of money from
the yankee gummint that hard-working people in other
occupations don't get. He's a liar and a hypocrite.
Here's a link if you want something to be really outraged about:
http://tinyurl.com/yz6ek9

This group at one time had a list of non farmers receiving
subsidies. Basketball player Scottie Pippen was on the list. Media rich
guy Ted Turner was on the list. I think Sam Donaldson of ABC news was
too.
This site also had a list called City Slickers on the list. I
don't see it there now. One could do a similar thing with the zip code
search on there now.
Quite a few of the farmer's wives I know work in town. One reason
is to get health insurance.
A couple farmers I know work as welders off the farm. They don't
raise livestock so don't have chores to do each day. Their employers
let them take time off during harvest and planting season. Neither one
is living a fancy life style.
The USDA has pretty liberal rules defining who a farmer is. One has
to sell only $1000 worth of product in a year to qualify. There are
some loopholes to that rule.

Dean

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Ann
2006-12-23 16:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Hoffman
Post by Rudy Canoza
jimmie-fat-fuck is getting some amount of money from
the yankee gummint that hard-working people in other
occupations don't get. He's a liar and a hypocrite.
http://tinyurl.com/yz6ek9
This group at one time had a list of non farmers receiving
subsidies. Basketball player Scottie Pippen was on the list. Media rich
guy Ted Turner was on the list. I think Sam Donaldson of ABC news was
too.
This site also had a list called City Slickers on the list. I
don't see it there now. One could do a similar thing with the zip code
search on there now.
Quite a few of the farmer's wives I know work in town. One reason
is to get health insurance.
A couple farmers I know work as welders off the farm. They don't
raise livestock so don't have chores to do each day. Their employers
let them take time off during harvest and planting season. Neither one
is living a fancy life style.
That's been standard here for dairy farm families for several generations.
And before that, they raised cash crops like buckwheat, tobacco, etc on
the side.
Post by Dean Hoffman
The USDA has pretty liberal rules defining who a farmer is.
One has
Post by Dean Hoffman
to sell only $1000 worth of product in a year to qualify. There are
some loopholes to that rule.
Dean
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim
2006-12-23 18:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Hoffman
http://tinyurl.com/yz6ek9
This group at one time had a list of non farmers receiving
subsidies. Basketball player Scottie Pippen was on the list. Media rich
guy Ted Turner was on the list. I think Sam Donaldson of ABC news was
too.
This site also had a list called City Slickers on the list. I
don't see it there now. One could do a similar thing with the zip code
search on there now.
Quite a few of the farmer's wives I know work in town. One reason
is to get health insurance.
A couple farmers I know work as welders off the farm. They don't
raise livestock so don't have chores to do each day. Their employers
let them take time off during harvest and planting season. Neither one
is living a fancy life style.
The USDA has pretty liberal rules defining who a farmer is. One has
to sell only $1000 worth of product in a year to qualify. There are
some loopholes to that rule.
Dean
thanks Dean. <g>
Jim
2006-12-23 13:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Jim
Post by Ann
"Today, most of the nation's food is produced by modern family farms that
are large operations using state-of-the-art computers, marketing
consultants and technologies that cut labor, time and costs. The owners
are frequently college graduates who are as comfortable with a spreadsheet
as with a tractor. They cover more acres and produce more crops with fewer
workers than ever before.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms
are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and
farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest
share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more
land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers
starting out.
...
Large family farms, defined as those with revenue of more than $250,000,
account for nearly 60 percent of all agricultural production but just 7
percent of all farms. They receive more than 54 percent of government
subsidies. And their share of federal payments is growing -- more than
doubling over the past decade for the biggest farms.
...
John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of corn
and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He grossed
nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3 percent. Still, he
received $120,000 in subsidies.
Ann, the reporter has a misconception and has in their article printed
some misleading information. Ann, as your conversation with others
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=fsahome&subject=landing&topic=landing
on that page you can find the price support cut off margins. by careful
tracking of the commodities on the CBoT web site: http://www.cbot.com/
the price of soybeans never fell below the cut off margins during the harvest
season. something don't add up. my suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins
in the early part of the 2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off
margins. as for corn, I have no idea since I've not tracked that commodity
as closely.
According to the EWG Farm Subsidy Database (from USDA data), John W Phipps
of Chrisman, IL received $120,044 in commodity subsidies in 2005.
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=003109912
(See "Programs" for how this breaks down by crop, etc.)
I did not consider taking another look at the data compiled
during 2005 and after having taken a quick glance I can see
where the commodity subsidies arrived from.
duh Jim, my fault again.
Post by Ann
Faulting the reporters for rounding off to the nearest $100 seems a bit
picky. <g>
I never looked up the actual amount.
Post by Ann
BTW, if these are the brothers and/or father mentioned in the article,
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=009725649
"$866,842.43 from 1995 through 2005" how many homeless and
hungry people could have been helped? by first establishing
a cost base for housing and food, we could answer that question.
Post by Ann
Post by Jim
as for what the article did attempt to impart or communicate by
statement, suggestion or gesture was really a matter of mathematical
logic. consider two Farms where one produced 1000 bushels of beans and
the other produced 100,000 bushels of same grade and quality beans. both
sold on equal condition and thus both received the same bushel price.
both were below the price support cut off margins and both were
accepting subsidies where the subsidy equaled .24 cents a bushel. doing
the math one can clearly see from this example who got the bigger of the
two subsidy checks. and it's really that simple.
That depends on what the purpose of the subsidy program is ... which is
well covered in the article.
I felt as if the writer was making an attempt at saying, it's not
fair how the government program intended to help the smaller Farm
has actually hurt them. when considering the over all picture the
implication is not the complete truth.

why will the man with a 25k annual Farm income compare himself
with the Farm having a 125k annual income? I believe the need
arrives from the human trait known as jealousy and greed.

what are the external pressures actually causing the smaller
Farms to disappear? in my area it's not the larger Farms seeking
to gobble up the smaller Farms. the real threat is from local
governments and their desire to see their tax base increased with
residential expansion. the larger Farm on my northeast property
line has never offered or voiced a desire to purchase this smaller
Farm. on the other hand my mailbox is littered with offers from
developers as they seek the first raw material required for the
continued practice of their trade. [if] and when a town government
works in collusion with a developer to force the sale of a Farm
located on their city limit or within their planning jurisdiction,
all they need do is extend the town's sewer and water lines across
the Farmland and then send their invoice to the Farmland owner.
that act alone will most always force the sale of the land as the
owner is required to obtain the funds required of him in order to
satisfy the invoice terms. rezoning is another tool contained
within the town's box of gismos and gadgets often used to force
an obstinate landowner into the predicament of financial hardship
where the pressure to sell the land overcomes the original
expostulation for the sale.

I missed where the writer said anything about the expansion of
cities and towns having an adverse influence on a Farm's ability
for continued existence.

have a nice day Ann, and thanks for the topic of discussion.
Ann
2006-12-23 15:50:03 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by Ann
Post by Jim
"John Phipps of Chrisman, Ill., harvested nearly 170,000 bushels of
corn and soybeans last year on two square miles of fertile soil. He
grossed nearly $500,000, putting his farm in the nation's top 3
percent. Still, he received $120,000 in subsidies."
Ann, the reporter has a misconception and has in their article
printed some misleading information. Ann, as your conversation with
others progressed in this thread you mentioned the following web
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=fsahome&subject=landing&topic=landing
on that page you can find the price support cut off margins. by
http://www.cbot.com/ the price of soybeans never fell below the cut
off margins during the harvest season. something don't add up. my
suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins in the early part of the
2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off margins. as for
corn, I have no idea since I've not tracked that commodity as
closely.
According to the EWG Farm Subsidy Database (from USDA data), John W
Phipps of Chrisman, IL received $120,044 in commodity subsidies in
2005. http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=003109912
(See "Programs" for how this breaks down by crop, etc.)
I did not consider taking another look at the data compiled during 2005
and after having taken a quick glance I can see where the commodity
subsidies arrived from. duh Jim, my fault again.
That particular article was part of a series that I thought they had
vetted reasonably well ... so I checked.
Post by Ann
Faulting the reporters for rounding off to the nearest $100 seems a bit
picky. <g>
I never looked up the actual amount.
Post by Ann
BTW, if these are the brothers and/or father mentioned in the article,
http://www.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=009725649
"$866,842.43 from 1995 through 2005" how many homeless and hungry
people could have been helped? by first establishing a cost base for
housing and food, we could answer that question.
Post by Ann
Post by Jim
as for what the article did attempt to impart or communicate by
statement, suggestion or gesture was really a matter of mathematical
logic. consider two Farms where one produced 1000 bushels of beans
and the other produced 100,000 bushels of same grade and quality
beans. both sold on equal condition and thus both received the same
bushel price. both were below the price support cut off margins and
both were accepting subsidies where the subsidy equaled .24 cents a
bushel. doing the math one can clearly see from this example who got
the bigger of the two subsidy checks. and it's really that simple.
That depends on what the purpose of the subsidy program is ... which is
well covered in the article.
I felt as if the writer was making an attempt at saying, it's not fair
how the government program intended to help the smaller Farm has
actually hurt them. when considering the over all picture the
implication is not the complete truth.
why will the man with a 25k annual Farm income compare himself with the
Farm having a 125k annual income? I believe the need arrives from the
human trait known as jealousy and greed.
what are the external pressures actually causing the smaller Farms to
disappear? in my area it's not the larger Farms seeking to gobble up
the smaller Farms. the real threat is from local governments and their
desire to see their tax base increased with residential expansion. the
larger Farm on my northeast property line has never offered or voiced a
desire to purchase this smaller Farm. on the other hand my mailbox is
littered with offers from developers as they seek the first raw material
required for the continued practice of their trade. [if] and when a
town government works in collusion with a developer to force the sale of
a Farm located on their city limit or within their planning
jurisdiction, all they need do is extend the town's sewer and water
lines across the Farmland and then send their invoice to the Farmland
owner. that act alone will most always force the sale of the land as the
owner is required to obtain the funds required of him in order to
satisfy the invoice terms. rezoning is another tool contained within
the town's box of gismos and gadgets often used to force an obstinate
landowner into the predicament of financial hardship where the pressure
to sell the land overcomes the original expostulation for the sale.
I missed where the writer said anything about the expansion of cities
and towns having an adverse influence on a Farm's ability for continued
existence.
That isn't what the series is about. The article doesn't mention (except
possibly in passing) cost of production either, which is a reason for
farms closing here. Or that farming marginal land is a lot of work for
not much money and - back when there were decent factory jobs within
commuting distance - that option looked better to many of that generation.
have a nice day Ann, and thanks for the topic of discussion.
The webpage that lists all the articles in the series:

"As Congress prepares to debate a farm bill in 2007, The Washington Post
is examining federal agriculture subsidies that grew to more than $25
billion in 2005, despite near-record farm revenue."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2006/07/10/LI2006071000403.html
http://tinyurl.com/m8se5
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-23 07:53:57 UTC
Permalink
This is staggering.

Buy now, you're all very familiar with
jimmie-fat-fuck's stilted, pretentious, arch style of
writing. But this example really stands out as the
work of an inflated-ego dope:

The Jihad....... Interesting this appears to sum up

what we are faced with.

Muslim religion in the fastest growing religion per
capita in Canada and the United States especially in
the minority race.

http://www.gatago.com/soc/singles/3758836.html


This stupid plodder jimmie-fat-fuck not long ago puffed
himself up and said he "owned" me; not even close to
being true. But one plain truth is that
jimmie-fat-fuck doesn't come close to owning a command
of even high school English, either.
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-23 07:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
This is staggering.
Buy
By...simple 'wide finger' problem.
Post by Rudy Canoza
now, you're all very familiar with jimmie-fat-fuck's stilted,
pretentious, arch style of writing. But this example really stands out
The Jihad....... Interesting this appears to sum up
what we are faced with.
Muslim religion in the fastest growing religion per
capita in Canada and the United States especially in
the minority race.
http://www.gatago.com/soc/singles/3758836.html
This stupid plodder jimmie-fat-fuck not long ago puffed himself up and
said he "owned" me; not even close to being true. But one plain truth
is that jimmie-fat-fuck doesn't come close to owning a command of even
high school English, either.
Larry Caldwell
2006-12-23 17:58:44 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@bellsouth.net>, ***@bellsouth.net (Jim)
says...
Post by Jim
my suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins
in the early part of the 2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off
margins.
John Phipps moonlights as the host of US Farm Report, produced by Farm
Journal. It's an interesting show. For 10 cents you can buy a $3 put
on corn to cover the down side, and let the market float as far as it
will. At the moment corn is $3.60, and March corn is $3.75. I see
March soybeans are $6.75&1/4, and wheat is $5.10. Pretty good prices
compared to a couple years ago. Of course, fuel costs will eat most of
that...
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Jim
2006-12-23 18:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Jim says...
Post by Jim
my suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins
in the early part of the 2006 crop year when prices
were below the cut off margins.
John Phipps moonlights as the host of US Farm Report, produced by Farm
Journal. It's an interesting show. For 10 cents you can buy a $3 put
on corn to cover the down side, and let the market float as far as it
will. At the moment corn is $3.60, and March corn is $3.75. I see
March soybeans are $6.75&1/4, and wheat is $5.10.
back when I first took over the Farm I had lots to learn.
one day down at the mill someone was talking about April
beans and I interrupted with "it ain't fair, I ain't got
beans to sell in April!" after everyone finished their
good belly laugh, they explained futures growers contracts
to me. turned out to be a good day hanging out down at the
mill.
Pretty good prices
compared to a couple years ago. Of course, fuel costs will eat most of
that...
this year 2006 was for me much like a home run
with bases loaded. YeeHaw! was the word.

got diesel fuel for just under 2 dollars!
combine only broke twice with each repair
part being less then 100 dollars.
and Big Buba Truck® gave no trouble at all,
yep great year 2006 turned out to be on this Farm...

good day to you Larry.
Larry Caldwell
2006-12-24 08:29:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@bellsouth.net>, ***@bellsouth.net (Jim)
says...
Post by Jim
this year 2006 was for me much like a home run
with bases loaded. YeeHaw! was the word.
got diesel fuel for just under 2 dollars!
combine only broke twice with each repair
part being less then 100 dollars.
and Big Buba Truck® gave no trouble at all,
yep great year 2006 turned out to be on this Farm...
I'm glad to hear you had a good year. Life is not always thus.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Jim
2006-12-24 15:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Jim says...
Post by Jim
this year 2006 was for me much like a home run
with bases loaded. YeeHaw! was the word.
got diesel fuel for just under 2 dollars!
combine only broke twice with each repair
part being less then 100 dollars.
and Big Buba Truck® gave no trouble at all,
yep great year 2006 turned out to be on this Farm...
I'm glad to hear you had a good year.
thanks Larry.
Life is not always thus.
last year was rough because of the drought and
Big Buba Truck® made not a single trip to the
mill without breaking down.

I'm glad last year is now last year.
Ann
2006-12-23 18:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Caldwell
says...
Post by Jim
my suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins
in the early part of the 2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off
margins.
John Phipps moonlights as the host of US Farm Report, produced by Farm
Journal. It's an interesting show.
I hadn't connected up that it was that John Phipps until after I posted;
the article mentions the Farm Journal, but not USFR. Anyway, he also
authors "John's World" blog:
http://www.agweb.com/blogger/index.html

Scroll down a few pages to "No fair - I was quoted accurately..." for his
impression of the interview.
"All told, I've got no complaints. This experience has made me a little
less cynical about the MSM (mainstream media) and a little more skeptical
of those who dogmatically accuse them of bias. So if you ever have a
similar chance, I would say go for it."
Post by Larry Caldwell
For 10 cents you can buy a $3 put
on corn to cover the down side, and let the market float as far as it
will. At the moment corn is $3.60, and March corn is $3.75. I see
March soybeans are $6.75&1/4, and wheat is $5.10. Pretty good prices
compared to a couple years ago. Of course, fuel costs will eat most of
that...
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-23 20:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ann
Post by Larry Caldwell
says...
Post by Jim
my suspicion is Mr. Phipps emptied his bins
in the early part of the 2006 crop year when prices were below the cut off
margins.
John Phipps moonlights as the host of US Farm Report, produced by Farm
Journal. It's an interesting show.
I hadn't connected up that it was that John Phipps until after I posted;
the article mentions the Farm Journal, but not USFR. Anyway, he also
http://www.agweb.com/blogger/index.html
Scroll down a few pages to "No fair - I was quoted accurately..." for his
impression of the interview.
"All told, I've got no complaints. This experience has made me a little
less cynical about the MSM (mainstream media) and a little more skeptical
of those who dogmatically accuse them of bias. So if you ever have a
similar chance, I would say go for it."
Let's see if we can get this thread to morph into "The
Myth of the 'Mainstream Media'". It really is a myth.
I think there has long been a left-of-center bias in
much of the old media, but it was never as extreme as
the hate-radio blowhards who have got "MSM" into
contemporary political discussion always want to
pretend, nor has it been as monolithic. It kind of
depends on which old media outlet you see. The LA
Times has always been pretty liberal on all the major
social, political and economic issues since the 1960s.
So has the NY Times on everything except Israel. But
these aren't Maoists. They're liberals well within the
normal American political spectrum. With the exception
of "60 Minutes", they do not "have it in for"
conservatives.
Farm1
2006-12-24 00:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Let's see if we can get this thread to morph into "The
Myth of the 'Mainstream Media'". It really is a myth.
I think there has long been a left-of-center bias in
much of the old media, but it was never as extreme as
the hate-radio blowhards who have got "MSM" into
contemporary political discussion always want to
pretend, nor has it been as monolithic. It kind of
depends on which old media outlet you see. The LA
Times has always been pretty liberal on all the major
social, political and economic issues since the 1960s.
So has the NY Times on everything except Israel. But
these aren't Maoists. They're liberals well within the
normal American political spectrum. With the exception
of "60 Minutes", they do not "have it in for"
conservatives.
Jon it must be a while since you've done any travelling outside the
US. What you seem to think is left-of-centre press in the US seems to
be rabidly right to the rest of the world. And that is even taking
into account the tilt to the right that the rest of the western world
seems to have followed since 9/11. Only recently have the US polls on
support for the Iraq war reaching the low levels that they were in the
for the rest of the world prior to the invasion. Did you think the
same thing about the US press immediately after your return from
living in Europe?
Rudy Canoza
2006-12-24 04:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farm1
Post by Rudy Canoza
Let's see if we can get this thread to morph into "The
Myth of the 'Mainstream Media'". It really is a myth.
I think there has long been a left-of-center bias in
much of the old media, but it was never as extreme as
the hate-radio blowhards who have got "MSM" into
contemporary political discussion always want to
pretend, nor has it been as monolithic. It kind of
depends on which old media outlet you see. The LA
Times has always been pretty liberal on all the major
social, political and economic issues since the 1960s.
So has the NY Times on everything except Israel. But
these aren't Maoists. They're liberals well within the
normal American political spectrum. With the exception
of "60 Minutes", they do not "have it in for"
conservatives.
Jon it must be a while since you've done any travelling outside the
US. What you seem to think is left-of-centre press in the US seems to
be rabidly right to the rest of the world.
There's something intrinsically unfair about a
thoughtful, reasonable person like me dealing with a
knee-jerk, stupid person like you. You can blabber
some absurd nugget of bullshit like that in just a
couple of words, and it takes paragraphs of careful
explanation by me to try to make clear to you that you
are an idiot working off of poorly thought out
stereotypes fobbed off on you by *your* biased media.

What issues are you talking about where you feel the US
media are "rabidly right"? I think you don't know what
the fuck you're talking about (not that you ever did).
You know a very limited subset of what the US media
talk about.

There is a much broader range of issues on which the US
"mainstream media" come down, on average,
left-of-center - by anyone's measure - than you could
possibly imagine. That's because some of these issues
are unknown to you.

Once again, frannie, you have badly overreached.
Post by Farm1
And that is even taking
into account the tilt to the right that the rest of the western world
seems to have followed since 9/11.
Here, you give away your narrow focus.
Post by Farm1
Only recently have the US polls on
support for the Iraq war reaching the low levels that they were in the
for the rest of the world prior to the invasion.
So what?
Farm1
2006-12-26 08:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Farm1
Post by Rudy Canoza
Let's see if we can get this thread to morph into "The
Myth of the 'Mainstream Media'". It really is a myth.
I think there has long been a left-of-center bias in
much of the old media, but it was never as extreme as
the hate-radio blowhards who have got "MSM" into
contemporary political discussion always want to
pretend, nor has it been as monolithic. It kind of
depends on which old media outlet you see. The LA
Times has always been pretty liberal on all the major
social, political and economic issues since the 1960s.
So has the NY Times on everything except Israel. But
these aren't Maoists. They're liberals well within the
normal American political spectrum. With the exception
of "60 Minutes", they do not "have it in for"
conservatives.
Jon it must be a while since you've done any travelling outside the
US. What you seem to think is left-of-centre press in the US seems to
be rabidly right to the rest of the world.
There's something intrinsically unfair about a
thoughtful, reasonable person like me dealing with a
knee-jerk, stupid person like you.
Do tell me when you decide to start to be thoughtful and reasonable.
It certainly is seldom evident in your posts.

You can blabber
Post by Rudy Canoza
some absurd nugget of bullshit like that in just a
couple of words, and it takes paragraphs of careful
explanation by me to try to make clear to you that you
are an idiot working off of poorly thought out
stereotypes fobbed off on you by *your* biased media.
No You stupid and (as usual) pig ignorant man. I SEE a certain
amount of American media and I can tell how far to the right it is by
what I see in comparison to my own media.

Go find an intelligent and informed person to explain that to you.
Post by Rudy Canoza
What issues are you talking about where you feel the US
media are "rabidly right"? I think you don't know what
the fuck you're talking about (not that you ever did).
You know a very limited subset of what the US media
talk about.
But since you don't see ANY subset of Australian media then at least I
am better informed about BOTH sets of media than a pig ignorant moron
such as yourself.
Post by Rudy Canoza
There is a much broader range of issues on which the US
"mainstream media" come down, on average,
left-of-center - by anyone's measure - than you could
possibly imagine. That's because some of these issues
are unknown to you.
Once again, frannie, you have badly overreached.
Once again Jon you illustrate that you are a rude, ignorant, ill
informed slob. You don't even see ANY Australian media so can't
comment at all. but when did that ever stop you? A small man with a
VERY big chip on his little shoulder. You know nothing on which to
base a comparison. I do and I can make such comments little man. You
make comment based on nothing except your usual shoulder chip and
ignorance. The typical behaviour of a small and inadequate man. I
don't know why I bother to try to start a polite discussion with such
a pig ignorant and sterotypical moron who gives proof to the
stereotype of the fat headed, loud mouthed Yank. I used to think that
the ones I saw travelling were the exception but you keep proving the
stereotype.
Jim
2006-12-26 11:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farm1
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Farm1
Post by Rudy Canoza
Let's see if we can get this thread to morph into "The
Myth of the 'Mainstream Media'". It really is a myth.
I think there has long been a left-of-center bias in
much of the old media, but it was never as extreme as
the hate-radio blowhards who have got "MSM" into
contemporary political discussion always want to
pretend, nor has it been as monolithic. It kind of
depends on which old media outlet you see. The LA
Times has always been pretty liberal on all the major
social, political and economic issues since the 1960s.
So has the NY Times on everything except Israel. But
these aren't Maoists. They're liberals well within the
normal American political spectrum. With the exception
of "60 Minutes", they do not "have it in for"
conservatives.
Jon it must be a while since you've done any travelling outside the
US. What you seem to think is left-of-centre press in the US seems to
be rabidly right to the rest of the world.
There's something intrinsically unfair about a
thoughtful, reasonable person like me dealing with a
knee-jerk, stupid person like you.
Do tell me when you decide to start to be thoughtful and reasonable.
It certainly is seldom evident in your posts.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You can blabber
some absurd nugget of bullshit like that in just a
couple of words, and it takes paragraphs of careful
explanation by me to try to make clear to you that you
are an idiot working off of poorly thought out
stereotypes fobbed off on you by *your* biased media.
No You stupid and (as usual) pig ignorant man. I SEE a certain
amount of American media and I can tell how far to the right it is by
what I see in comparison to my own media.
Go find an intelligent and informed person to explain that to you.
Post by Rudy Canoza
What issues are you talking about where you feel the US
media are "rabidly right"? I think you don't know what
the fuck you're talking about (not that you ever did).
You know a very limited subset of what the US media
talk about.
But since you don't see ANY subset of Australian media then at least I
am better informed about BOTH sets of media than a pig ignorant moron
such as yourself.
Post by Rudy Canoza
There is a much broader range of issues on which the US
"mainstream media" come down, on average,
left-of-center - by anyone's measure - than you could
possibly imagine. That's because some of these issues
are unknown to you.
Once again, frannie, you have badly overreached.
Once again Jon you illustrate that you are a rude, ignorant, ill
informed slob. You don't even see ANY Australian media so can't
comment at all. but when did that ever stop you? A small man with a
VERY big chip on his little shoulder. You know nothing on which to
base a comparison. I do and I can make such comments little man. You
make comment based on nothing except your usual shoulder chip and
ignorance. The typical behaviour of a small and inadequate man. I
don't know why I bother to try to start a polite discussion with such
a pig ignorant and sterotypical moron who gives proof to the
stereotype of the fat headed, loud mouthed Yank. I used to think that
the ones I saw travelling were the exception but you keep proving the
stereotype.
stereotypical rude, ignorant, ill informed yankee slob. The typical
behaviour of a yankee. yep that'd be jonathan ball of Pasadena California.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...