# EPA claims no hazard from GM sugarbeets



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

This goes right in hand with the revolving door between Monsanto and EPA, and other gov't agencies as well, as well as Dow Agro, DuPont, etc.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/March/Day-17/i5302.htm
"SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our determination that the 
Monsanto and KWS SAAT AG sugar beet designated as event H7-1, which has 
been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, 
is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations 
governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. 
Our determination is based on our evaluation of data *submitted by 
Monsanto Company and KWS SAAT AG* in its petition for a determination of 
nonregulated status, our analysis of *other scientific data*, and 
comments received from the public in response to a previous notice. 
This notice also announces the availability of our written 
determination and our finding of no significant impact."


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> This goes right in hand with the revolving door between Monsanto and EPA, and other gov't agencies as well, as well as Dow Agro, DuPont, etc.
> http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/March/Day-17/i5302.htm
> "SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our determination that the
> Monsanto and KWS SAAT AG sugar beet designated as event H7-1, which has
> ...



so what, now the sugar beet farmers don't have to hire folks to cut weeds out of the fields like they showed in that Dateline show on a while back

are you complaining about this because some migrant worker is now out of a job or are you p'ing and moaning because you have no clue what a GM sugar beet is used for but it is a franken food made by Monsanto so you are assuming its evil.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Were you expecting some different answer from Monsanto/EPA. They are of like mind at least. They share the same bed.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Linda fisher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Fisher
Another Revolving Door employee.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I suppose you think that hundreds of thousands of acres should sit fallow next year, thousands of American farmers should go bankrupt, tens of thousands of American workers should lose their jobs, and entire local economies should collapse instead?

You are an elitist.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

You are aware that mega-farming is the surest way to sink yourself in debt? Monsanto will sue farmers that have non-GM crops if even a couple plants that are GM (owned by Monsanto) are found in their field. The farmers are never allowed to save their seed, and and farmers are not allowed to discuss sue settlements. Definitely the farmers friend.
I did not say thousands of acres should sit fallow, in fact, a common problem seem to be not enough acres farmed, at least not sustainably. 
And, mega farming has adverse effects on local economies, not positive.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> You are aware that mega-farming is the surest way to sink yourself in debt? Monsanto will sue farmers that have non-GM crops if even a couple plants that are GM (owned by Monsanto) are found in their field. The farmers are never allowed to save their seed, and and farmers are not allowed to discuss sue settlements. Definitely the farmers friend.
> I did not say thousands of acres should sit fallow, in fact, a common problem seem to be not enough acres farmed, at least not sustainably.
> And, mega farming has adverse effects on local economies, not positive.


Sugar beet seed is a 2 year crop. Seed farmers and beet farmers are different folks. 

I guess you have no problem with the thousands of jobs lost that your solution would create.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> You are aware that mega-farming is the surest way to sink yourself in debt? Monsanto will sue farmers that have non-GM crops if even a couple plants that are GM (owned by Monsanto) are found in their field. The farmers are never allowed to save their seed, and and farmers are not allowed to discuss sue settlements. Definitely the farmers friend.
> I did not say thousands of acres should sit fallow, in fact, a common problem seem to be not enough acres farmed, at least not sustainably.
> And, mega farming has adverse effects on local economies, not positive.


Farms keep planting RR products year after year.

Either farmers are dumb, or Monsanto puts a gun to their heads and forces them buy their products.

Or, maybe it's possible that farmers make good money farming with RR.


The issue of the "saving seeds", occured when the farmers started getting greedy, themselves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> mega farming has *adverse effects *on local economies, not positive.


That's an opinion.
Many would disagree
Especially those employed by the "mega farms"
(Which is just a buzz word with no real meaning)


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

saving seeds is an antique/tree huggers fantasy. realistically speaking how is a row crop farmer going to save seed that's sole purpose is to be planted. does he have a climate controlled storage facility to ensure the viability of the seed separate from the storage bins for grain to be fed and grain to be sold? once this fantastic seed is saved from a previous crop, is it pure? Do you realize how seed corn, for an example, is grown? Now we are planting seed that might not produce the same yield as the previous year's crop. Wow, what a risk, what an unnecessary gamble.

saving seeds works in the garden, it works for home use - I do it with my tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers, can't save peppers, squash and pumpkins -- they cross pollinate with other garden plants and don't produce pure seeds, so I know what I am talking about and I really fail to see where it works when you have 100's of acres.

no thank you... I'll keep my local seed dealer in business and buy certified and guaranteed seed from him. Farming as a business is risky enough without having to take the unnecessary risks in planting bad seed just to stick it to "the man"


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Lilandra said:


> saving seeds is an antique/tree huggers fantasy. realistically speaking how is a row crop farmer going to save seed that's sole purpose is to be planted. does he have a climate controlled storage facility to ensure the viability of the seed separate from the storage bins for grain to be fed and grain to be sold? once this fantastic seed is saved from a previous crop, is it pure? Do you realize how seed corn, for an example, is grown? Now we are planting seed that might not produce the same yield as the previous year's crop. Wow, what a risk, what an unnecessary gamble.
> 
> saving seeds works in the garden, it works for home use - I do it with my tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers, can't save peppers, squash and pumpkins -- they cross pollinate with other garden plants and don't produce pure seeds, so I know what I am talking about and I really fail to see where it works when you have 100's of acres.
> 
> no thank you... I'll keep my local seed dealer in business and buy certified and guaranteed seed from him. Farming as a business is risky enough without having to take the unnecessary risks in planting bad seed just to stick it to "the man"


Nearly all of the RR "seed saving" lawsuits, for for soy beans. 

Soy beans can easily be stored, cleaned, treated with a fungicide and then planted, at great savings, over purchased seed, whether RR, or not.

It has alway been done this way. FWIW, no seed, needs to be stored in climate controlled facility. Only protected from direct moisture.

Corn is a much different story, for the reasons you have stated.


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly all of the RR "seed saving" lawsuits, for for soy beans.
> 
> Soy beans can easily be stored, cleaned, treated with a fungicide and then planted, at great savings, over purchased seed, whether RR, or not.
> 
> ...


you know with all the diseases that soybeans have, I think this would be the one crop you would want to encourage development in, plus I can't imagine what it would be like to grow non RR soybeans.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Lilandra said:


> saving seeds is an antique/tree huggers fantasy. realistically speaking how is a row crop farmer going to save seed that's sole purpose is to be planted. does he have a climate controlled storage facility to ensure the viability of the seed separate from the storage bins for grain to be fed and grain to be sold? once this fantastic seed is saved from a previous crop, is it pure? Do you realize how seed corn, for an example, is grown? Now we are planting seed that might not produce the same yield as the previous year's crop. Wow, what a risk, what an unnecessary gamble.
> 
> saving seeds works in the garden, it works for home use - I do it with my tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers, can't save peppers, squash and pumpkins -- they cross pollinate with other garden plants and don't produce pure seeds, so I know what I am talking about and I really fail to see where it works when you have 100's of acres.
> 
> no thank you... I'll keep my local seed dealer in business and buy certified and guaranteed seed from him. Farming as a business is risky enough without having to take the unnecessary risks in planting bad seed just to stick it to "the man"


So, first you say Monsanto helps farmers, and my plan (what plan??) would 'hurt' them, then you turn and say farmers are GREEDY when they want to save seed and make a little money??


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Lilandra said:


> saving seeds is an antique/tree huggers fantasy. realistically speaking how is a row crop farmer going to save seed that's sole purpose is to be planted. does he have a climate controlled storage facility to ensure the viability of the seed separate from the storage bins for grain to be fed and grain to be sold? once this fantastic seed is saved from a previous crop, is it pure? Do you realize how seed corn, for an example, is grown? Now we are planting seed that might not produce the same yield as the previous year's crop. Wow, what a risk, what an unnecessary gamble.
> 
> saving seeds works in the garden, it works for home use - I do it with my tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers, can't save peppers, squash and pumpkins -- they cross pollinate with other garden plants and don't produce pure seeds, so I know what I am talking about and I really fail to see where it works when you have 100's of acres.
> 
> no thank you... I'll keep my local seed dealer in business and buy certified and guaranteed seed from him. Farming as a business is risky enough without having to take the unnecessary risks in planting bad seed just to stick it to "the man"


Saving seeds was a way of life for family farmers not too long ago. 

The family has been destroyed, so why do we need the family farm? Is that what you ask?:grump:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Saving seeds was a way of life for family farmers not too long ago.


It still can be if they don't use RR crops.
But they will spend more time and money cultivating


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I am under the impression that seed saving will still save money, even if big containers are required. Fungicides aren't really necessary. A healthy plant has a number of microbes on the aerial parts, that resist pathogenic bacteria. External seeds (soybean) would naturally therefore not need fungicides. BUT, roundup kills microbes. It will kill the aerial beneficial bacteria, and the beneficial soil bacteria, making conditions ideal for pathogenic bacteria. It is therefore no surprise when disease wipes out whole fields of monoculture. The improper solution? More chemicals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I am under the impression that seed saving will still save money, even if big containers are required.


It takes 2 years to get beet seeds to save, which means NOT having a harvest one of those years.

Most people son't WANT to "save seeds"
They want to SELL a crop



> It is therefore no surprise when disease wipes out whole fields of monoculture


Got examples? Or is that just more conjecture?

You claim "Roundup kills bacteria", and yet also claim it "leaves pathogenic bacteria"

Let's see your *scientific evidence *please

If YOU don't like Mosanto and their products, don't use them
Many folks DO like the advantages.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> I am under the impression that seed saving will still save money, even if big containers are required. Fungicides aren't really necessary. A healthy plant has a number of microbes on the aerial parts, that resist pathogenic bacteria. External seeds (soybean) would naturally therefore not need fungicides. BUT, roundup kills microbes. It will kill the aerial beneficial bacteria, and the beneficial soil bacteria, making conditions ideal for pathogenic bacteria. It is therefore no surprise when disease wipes out whole fields of monoculture. The improper solution? More chemicals.


Then why didn't Monsanto lose their shirt on RR beans?


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

I like how you folks twist words, I had at no point in this thread ever said a farmer is or was greedy for buying seed or saving seed. I also never said we don't need the family farm, gee if the family farm was unneeded, I guess I have been wasting my time with my DH, his dad and our children digging in the dirt and worrying about the rains. I live, eat and sleep family farming from the chickens in the yard to the tractors out in the shed. Cut me I bleed 4-H green and FFA blue... for heavens sake if I ever had to buy a winter coat (the seed dealer gives them to us with a nice logo on the chest pocket) I think it would be to be buried in.

saving seeds is a novel idea and yes it was done in the past but in the past we farmed with horses, had 10 kids to do the field work and cooked on a wood stove. Do I want to farm like my grandfather did? NOPE I don't want to work that hard when I don't have to.

Monsanto is a good/bad company just like everyone on this board works for a company that has a bad side and a good side. Monsanto has been nothing but good for me and mine from my son's summer job to the steady realiable seeds that we use year after year to the sponsorship of agricultural education and our community. I much rather owe Monsanto than be a slave to feel good think tanks who have never seen a real live "mega farm" or a successful livestock farm complete with those oh so nasty confinement buildings and cages.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It takes 2 years to get beet seeds to save, which means NOT having a harvest one of those years.
> 
> Most people son't WANT to "save seeds"
> They want to SELL a crop
> ...


"If YOU don't like Mosanto and their products, don't use them."

Erm, you might as well as tell me to stop eating food. As for the scientific data, hang in for a few days while I write my paper...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Lilandra said:


> I like how you folks twist words, I had at no point in this thread ever said a farmer is or was greedy for buying seed or saving seed. I also never said we don't need the family farm, gee if the family farm was unneeded, I guess I have been wasting my time with my DH, his dad and our children digging in the dirt and worrying about the rains. I live, eat and sleep family farming from the chickens in the yard to the tractors out in the shed. Cut me I bleed 4-H green and FFA blue... for heavens sake if I ever had to buy a winter coat (the seed dealer gives them to us with a nice logo on the chest pocket) I think it would be to be buried in.
> 
> saving seeds is a novel idea and yes it was done in the past but in the past we farmed with horses, had 10 kids to do the field work and cooked on a wood stove. Do I want to farm like my grandfather did? NOPE I don't want to work that hard when I don't have to.
> 
> Monsanto is a good/bad company just like everyone on this board works for a company that has a bad side and a good side. Monsanto has been nothing but good for me and mine from my son's summer job to the steady realiable seeds that we use year after year to the sponsorship of agricultural education and our community. I much rather owe Monsanto than be a slave to feel good think tanks who have never seen a real live "mega farm" or a successful livestock farm complete with those oh so nasty confinement buildings and cages.


I recognize your mind will not be changed, you can keep buying GM seeds that can be having unknown health effects on you... However, what about the fact that the system is not sustainable?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As for the scientific data, hang in for a few days *while I write my paper*


So you don't have any from an UNbiased source?



> However, what about the fact that the system is not sustainable?


What's not "sustainable"?
They've been planting those crops for years already


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you don't have any from an UNbiased source?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Be that as it may, however, never acres upon acres upon acres *of the same plant.* Monocultures beg disaster, hence the need for chemicals. And, they have never planted a plant that is, in bulk, resistant to an extremely toxic herbicide. I also dislike how Monsanto covers up their information, and/or skews the facts. Some of the info against them right is from stolen records from the FDA and the Biotech companies.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

I tend to think you really have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Be that as it may, however, never acres upon acres upon acres *of the same plant.* Monocultures beg disaster, hence the need for chemicals. And, they have never planted a plant that is, in bulk, resistant to an extremely toxic herbicide. I also dislike how Monsanto covers up their information, and/or skews the facts. Some of the info against them right is from stolen records from the FDA and the Biotech companies.


this shows how little you know about modern agriculture.

very few farmers plant the same crop in the same field year after year. Just as you rotate plantings in your own garden, farmers do the same with their row crops. Up in "sugar beet" country - they rotate root crops beets/potatoes/carrots/onions... down here in the bread basket, we do corn/beans/wheat/oats and you even see folks trying sunflowers and cotton in the rotation. 

You act as if the farmer is the dumbest person on the planet... like every occupation - there are good guys and bad guys. Not all egg producers are the DeCoster family, not every oil seed producer rapes their land, not every livestock producer is a PETA invasion waiting to happen. Simply put, you have to value your ground and livestock - they are your inventory, your factory, your product to sell and make a living on - abuse it and you get less from your investment.

As you write this paper of yours, do some actual research from some industry sources. You will see the education, skills and hard work/focus/dedication it takes to do what you see as a field of stupid people planting stupid plants.

As far as franken foods and the evils of Monsanto, look at Pioneer Seeds, and other chemical companies. What Monsanto does is part of corporate culture. There are things that work and are celebrated and then there are things that fail horribly and are dealt with accordingly. Lets look beyond the witch hunt you have mounted against one company and lets shine a light on all of those who are doing wrong.... if you would take a fraction of your hatred for Monsanto and apply it to what China does to their food and products - you actually might make a difference.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> nd, they have never planted a plant that is, in bulk, resistant to an extremely toxic herbicide.


Atrazine is far more toxic and long lasting than Round up yet even OP corn will not be bothered by it.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Saving seeds was a way of life for family farmers not too long ago.


Not all family farms.
Since Dad started in 1969 we never saved seed. We always ran a high yield corn hybrid and all our oats went into the feed or went to the co-op to pay a bill....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Be that as it may, however, *never acres upon acres upon acres of the same plant.* Monocultures beg disaster, hence the need for chemicals. And, they have never planted a plant that is, in bulk, resistant to an extremely toxic herbicide. I also dislike how Monsanto covers up their information, and/or skews the facts.


LOL 
I think it's you who's "skewing facts".
You don't seem to *really know *much about the history of RR crops


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Look, here is the deal, if you want to fight to ban RR crops fine, but to ban them at a point when farmers would not be able to find replacement seed to get their crops in is unrealistic and would have devastating financial consequences that would ripple across the economy and threaten the food supply.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Lilandra said:


> this shows how little you know about modern agriculture.
> 
> very few farmers plant the same crop in the same field year after year. Just as you rotate plantings in your own garden, farmers do the same with their row crops. Up in "sugar beet" country - they rotate root crops beets/potatoes/carrots/onions... down here in the bread basket, we do corn/beans/wheat/oats and you even see folks trying sunflowers and cotton in the rotation.
> 
> ...


Rotating crops only does so much. A high-yield plant removes more nutrients from the soil faster. Crops such as corn, soy and cotton are over-produced in the US. Dumping on foreign markets, such as Mexico, has caused large amounts of immigration. I do not see the point in producing a crop that may just end up getting dumped in Mexico and ruining farmers lives down there. Of course, that is the government.
Back to GM, the Big Ag companies make most the money. Of a $4.00 box of cereal, $0.04 winds back to farmer. How is that helpful?


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

well we all know that farmers aren't supposed to worry about profit. They should be happy enough toiling away in the dirt.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

They aren't "dumped" on foreign markets. The foreign markets buy them because they are cheap.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Of a $4.00 box of cereal, $0.04 winds back to farmer. How is that helpful


The farmer gets paid *by the bushel*.
How many bushels in that box?

Your arguments are becoming more UNrealistic


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sammyd said:


> well we all know that farmers aren't supposed to worry about profit. They should be happy enough toiling away in the dirt.


I don't know where that came from.



sammyd said:


> They aren't "dumped" on foreign markets. The foreign markets buy them because they are cheap.


Same deal. I'd like to know why the Mexican Gov't is allowing it. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> The farmer gets paid *by the bushel*.
> How many bushels in that box?


I am aware of that.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Chex-Oven-Toasted-Corn-Cereal-14-oz/10311423
$3 X 55# (bushel) = $165. The farmer gets paid $2-3, somewhere in there. Go figure.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I am aware of that.
> http://www.walmart.com/ip/Chex-Oven-...14-oz/10311423
> $3 X 55# (bushel) = $165. The farmer gets paid $2-3, somewhere in there. Go figure.


LOL What does that box of cereal have to do with anything?
The farmer *already got paid *for his corn, at the PER BUSHEL price.

The price of the cereal isn't based on JUST the amount of corn in the box.

Your arguments continue to get weaker, and you haven't shown any data to back any of your other claims.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> I'd like to know why the Mexican Gov't is allowing it


Why does any govt allow it?
It ain't just Mexico that gets the stuff you know..
Maybe feeding 98 % of the population instead of propping up 2% with high import tariffs is the goal.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL What does that box of cereal have to do with anything?
> The farmer *already got paid *for his corn, at the PER BUSHEL price.
> 
> The price of the cereal isn't based on JUST the amount of corn in the box.
> ...


I don't understand what you don't understand. I'm demonstrating how little money the farmer gets from that box of cereal.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> Rotating crops only does so much. A high-yield plant removes more nutrients from the soil faster. Crops such as corn, soy and cotton are over-produced in the US. Dumping on foreign markets, such as Mexico, has caused large amounts of immigration. I do not see the point in producing a crop that may just end up getting dumped in Mexico and ruining farmers lives down there.


LOL. So the Mexicans are sneaking into the U.S., because they have too much corn? 

The economy of Mexico has always been terrible and their average farm size is like 25 acres - of mostly desert. Low cost U.S. imports actually help their exonomy, by giving them lower cost food.

What you call "dumping", American farmers consider export, which helps them, by creating markets for their abundant "monoculture" products. People that sell tractors, seed and yes, chemicals, ,including fuels, get a piece of the action, as do many other Americans.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Well America is fond of exporting all sorts of stuff that other countries neither want nor need but because we are the big boys we do it anyhow. We have destroyed far too many countries farming communities with our subsidised agriculture here including America's own.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> I'm demonstrating how little money the farmer gets from that box of cereal.


There is no point to that...the farmer got his before the cereal was made.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL What does that box of cereal have to do with anything?
> The farmer *already got paid *for his corn, at the PER BUSHEL price.
> 
> The price of the cereal isn't based on JUST the amount of corn in the box.
> ...


You seriously don't get this???? Farmer's make very little from the food they raise. it is the middle men who rake in all the big bucks. If you want to make money off a bushel of corn you need to figure out how to make the corn flakes. If farmers were actually making a decent amount of money off what they raise then we wouldn't have to subsidise them now would we?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm demonstrating how little money the farmer gets from that box of cereal


I realize WHAT you're doing.
What I don't understand is WHY, since it's pointless. 

But I'll play your game.

If the farmer gets at least $.05 , he's getting full price for his BUSHEL of corn (which he's already been paid for anyway)

What you're* ignoring *is most of that price is processing,. packaging , and distributing costs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You seriously don't get this???? Farmer's make very little from the food they raise


LOL Most make enough that they keep farming.

Are you going to *pretend* those "middle men" don't have anything invested in the products too?



> If you want to make money off a bushel of corn you need to figure out how to make the corn flakes.


If you want to make MONEY making corn flakes , the FIRST step is *pay the farmer for his corn.* Then the farmers part is *over*



> If farmers were actually making a decent amount of money off what they raise then we wouldn't have to subsidise them now would we?


When prices are high they DON'T get any subsidies. It's a price SUPPORT system, and not a handout.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

If somebody has to come in and pay the farmer a subsidy so he doesn't have a net loss on that bushel of corn then something is sadly broken in our agricultural system. That is just simple common sense.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Patt said:


> If somebody has to come in and pay the farmer a subsidy so he doesn't have a net loss on that bushel of corn then something is sadly broken in our agricultural system. That is just simple common sense.


Sadly, It's not broken, it is working just as the gooberment wants is to. Cheap food equals complacent populations. The system isn't about farmers and it never was, it is about cheap food.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

GM Sugarbeets safe per EPA.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

tinknal said:


> Sadly, It's not broken, it is working just as the gooberment wants is to. Cheap food equals complacent populations. The system isn't about farmers and it never was, it is about cheap food.


At the expense of everyone's health. Isn't anyone getting a little worried over the obesity and cancer epidemics?


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

we've got a cancer epidemic? I believe cancer is on the decline in the US.



> Death rates and new diagnoses of cancer are dropping,


http://www.wsbtv.com/nationalnews/22863637/detail.html

but don't let that stop ya....


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

You think that little mini-article nullifies what I said? :umno:


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> we've got a cancer epidemic? I believe cancer is on the decline in the US.
> 
> 
> http://www.wsbtv.com/nationalnews/22863637/detail.html
> ...


Did you actually read past the first sentence there? 



> Over the last decade, the rate of new diagnoses has dropped almost 1 percent.
> 
> Gapstur and other authors of a commentary said the biggest factor in the drop is a reduction in smoking.


Almost 1% and it is due to a decrease in smoking. Cancer is not going away. As a matter of fact rectal cancer is rising in young individuals. And colon cancer has been directly linked to what you eat.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100823080627.htm


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You think that little mini-article nullifies what I said?


Yes, because nothing you've said has been backed up with any proof at all.
It's all just your biased opinion


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And colon cancer has been directly linked to what you eat.


And how much you sit around: (This is from YOUR source)





> Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer. Each year more than 100,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with colon cancer and about 40,000 are diagnosed with rectal cancer. The study suggests that *if the American population became significantly more physically active, up to 24 percent, or more than 24,000, fewer cases of colon cancer would occur each year*.



They don't mention changing diets at all


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> ...Got examples? Or is that just more conjecture?....


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/agriculture_02

Believe it or not, you can argue with them.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And how much you sit around: (This is from YOUR source)
> They don't mention changing diets at all


From The American Cancer Society:



> Diet, exercise, and body weight
> 
> You can lower your risk of developing colorectal cancer by managing the risk factors that you can control, like diet and physical activity.
> 
> ...


http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/ColonandRectumCancer/DetailedGuide/colorectal-cancer-prevention


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

wy_white_wolf said:


> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/agriculture_02
> 
> Believe it or not, you can argue with them.


That's interesting, I knew it was because they only had the one type of potato but I never thought about them all basically being genetic clones.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

GM Sugarbeets safe per EPA. Please explain how cancer, the cost of corn flakes, Irish
potatoes and NAFTA are related to EPA&#8217;s declaration that GM sugar beets are safe?

I guess if most folks are agreeing with you, thread drift is OK?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, because nothing you've said has been backed up with any proof at all.
> It's all just your biased opinion


Oops. My mistake. :fussin:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_cancer_an_epidemic


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> From The American Cancer Society:


Not one word there about GMO's being bad


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Isn't anyone getting a little worried over the obesity and *cancer epidemics*?


Evidently you didnt *read *your source before you posted:




> Is Cancer an epidemic?





> No, epidemics only include infectious diseases.


Still nothing that *BACKS UP* any of your claims.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And since potatoes can be *propagated vegetatively*, all of these lumpers were clones, genetically identical to one another.


That doesn't apply to plants grown from seeds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean



> However, the RR gene has been bred into so many different soybean cultivars that the* genetic modification itself has not resulted in any decline of genetic diversity*, as demonstrated by a 2003 study on genetic diversity.[41]





> ^ Sneller CH (2003). "Impact of transgenic genotypes and subdivision on diversity within elite North American soybean germplasm". Crop Sci 43: 409&#8211;14. doi:10.2135/cropsci2003.0409.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not one word there about GMO's being bad


http://csn.cancer.org/node/168027
One word.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evidently you didnt *read *your source before you posted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*sigh* 
.... I thought for you could pick up on this line:
"that the cancer rate in a particular location is "of epidemic *proportions*"
Bottom line: cancer is a big problem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Bottom line: cancer is a big problem.


It always has been.
Your claim was that it's linked to GMO's and herbicide use.

Still no proof to back that claim
Just more opinions


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://csn.cancer.org/node/168027
> One word.





Bearfootfarm said:


> It always has been.
> Your claim was that it's linked to GMO's and herbicide use.
> 
> Still no proof to back that claim
> Just more opinions


Read the link.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

http://www.susunweed.com/A_Campaign_for_Organic_Lawns2.htm
"1. A study published in the March 1999 Journal of American Cancer Society reveals clear links between the world's most widely used herbicide (glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer. (1)"
http://www.safe2use.com/pesticidenews/roundup.htm
"A recent study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden [1], has revealed clear links between one of the world's biggest selling herbicide, glyphosate, to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer [2]. "


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://csn.cancer.org/node/168027
> One word.


You're kidding right?
Some post on a chat board is proof?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sammyd said:


> You're kidding right?
> Some post on a chat board is proof?


I just realized it was null. Also,


> Leave your flamethrowers at the door, please.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

LOL Your sources are :



> Herbal Medicine and Spirit Healing the Wise Woman Way


And:



> Safe2Use Products


Both of which are trying to sell organic products

Nothing like unbiased sources to "prove" a point

Here's some info you don't want to see:



> A 2006 United States Department of Agriculture report found that *the adoption of genetically engineered soy, corn and cotton reduced the amount of pesticides used overall,* but did result in a slightly greater amount of herbicides used for soy specifically





> The use of GE soy was also associated with greater conservation tillage, indirectly leading to *better soil conservation*, as well as *increased income *from off-farming sources due to the greater ease with which the crops can be managed. Most farmers adopted the GE crops to improve yields, save time and reduce the amount of money spent on pesticides. *The use of GE soy also permits the use of a herbicide that is less toxic to humans*.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Um, and the USDA doesn't have an agenda, either, do they? Of course not.
Let's look at the citations in the SunSun lady site:


Sunsunweed.com said:


> 1. Lennart Hardell, M.D., PhD. Department of Oncology, Orebro Medical Centre, Orebro, Sweden and Miikael Eriksson, M.D., PhD, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, 'A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides', Cancer, March 15, 1999/ Volume 85/ Number 6.


A very well footnoted article for some Crazy Herbal 'junk'.
[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=Lennart+Hardell%2C+M.D.%2C+PhD&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS362US362&ie=UTF-8]google search[/ame]
Lennart Hardell M.D., PhD seems to have done extensive research.
http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/royal_society_hardell.pdf
Nice... I might take a look at that sometime.

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundup-Cancer.htm
Yes, I know. Mindfully. Mostly volunteers. No corporate goals. Most likely a bad site. 

http://www.preventcancer.com/press/pdfs/legislative_proposals.pdf
Interesting - THIS site claims GM foods are indeed a hazard. They ESPECIALLY hate rBGH - which should never have even been allowed at the market. 

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone
"Still, there is no evidence that drinking milk, produced with or without rBGH treatment, increases circulating IGF levels into the range of concern. So it is unclear whether drinking milk treated with rBGH has any effect on cancer risk."

False according to this article:
http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

It is evidenced by the "Happy Cows'" short life that rBGH has negative impacts on cows, and then the people who drink the milk. It is known that monsanto deliberately modified the rBGH test, first by pasteurizing milk for 30 minutes, and using a powdered form of BST.
BTW... rBGH is made by GM E. Coli. So is cheese color.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It is evidenced by the "*Happy Cows'*


They are the most credible source you've listed.

Most of the others have an agenda
And you've strayed FAR from Sugarbeets and Roundup now that you've seen the truth about them.

No need to keep going in circles now


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Of course Monsanto doesn't have an agenda. Monsanto is a not-for profit organization whose only goal is to help farmers. Same deal with Cargill and ADM. Let's go over to www.monsanto.com and read the truth, since they only have a $26billion agenda. Instead of the group of volunteer writers. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense.
I didn't really intend this to be about sugarbeets.
As for Roundup, maybe you should click links that are provided in posts.
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showpost.php?p=4627835&postcount=69

It's a viscous cycle. Come up with a new miracle herbicide, sell tons of it, get sued and take it off the market. Come up with a new miracle pesticide, sell tons of it, get sued, take it off the market. Soon, someone might do some loaded expose on Roundup. Take it off the market... Make a new miracle product...
As for reducing pesticide and herbicide use, I do not deny that RR crops reduce the use of Roundup. But why should it even be necessary? Nature never intended for hundreds of acres to be planted in one single breed of plant. As for rotating crops, that may be, and that's good too. It doesn't nullify the mono part: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture
"Monoculture is the agricultural practice of producing or growing one single crop over a wide area. It is widely used in modern industrial agriculture and its implementation has allowed for large harvests from minimal labor. However, monocultures can lead to the quicker spread of diseases, where a uniform crop is susceptible to a pathogen. "
The current mega-production is not necessary. Most of the corn is number 2 commodity corn - something that doesn't have much flavor or nutrition and gets fed to CAFO animals. CAFOs have obvious negative implications, but I won't go there...
Anyways, I'm not discussing this much more... I can do more good talking face-to-face with people.
G'night, I'm off to bed after a good dinner of GM free meatloaf!


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

quick question -- how do suggest food is grown to feed more than a family?

is it as simple as going to the grocery store - you know they don't kill animals to create steaks and burgers plus the vegetables don't grow in dirt so they are safe to eat...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Of course Monsanto doesn't have an agenda


I didn't use any source with agendas, while most of yours did.

Science has proven Round up is *safer *than the alternatives, and that most contamination in the water comes from HOMEOWNERS and NOT farmers.

If you don't like Monsanto, don't buy anything they have a hand in.
No one is forced to use the products.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Patt said:


> If somebody has to come in and pay the farmer a subsidy so he doesn't have a net loss on that bushel of corn then something is sadly broken in our agricultural system. That is just simple common sense.


The USA had a pretty good and sorta equal deal. We used our crops, and sold the extras we had on the open world market. Other contries needed grain, so they would buy from us. Worked out for everyone. Sorta.

Then in the 60's, and again in the '70's, Nixon & Carter put up grain embargoes as a policy to punish other countries.. Embargo means no more sales to other countries.

So, the grain piled up in our country, we were afloat in grain and it dropped to worthless proces. For working folk, this would be like outlawing unions and slashing your wages to below minimum wage. Here, take, it, it's a National Policy.

Well, to make up for it, the subsidies started. Something had to be done, agriculture in the USA was going to die.....

Meanwhile, countries that were buying grain from us realized the USA could use food as a weapon. the USA could shut off food supplies.

So, they started looking around - even our friends - and put some investment money into Brazil & Argentina. They can grow soybeans & corn real well. Also Austrailia was looked at to produce more wheat.

So, a few years down the road, suddenly the USA is not the only country with surplus grain to sell. We relaxed our emargoes - but no one came to buy.

The rest of the world would buy all the grain from Brazil or Argentina - where they invested money to raise the crops. Only aafter those countries ran out of grains, did anyone come to buy a little at the end from the USA.

So, those in agriculture in the USA suffered. A lot. Many went broke. The govt floundered around with one program or another to try to supply a fair, livable price to grains.

Meanwhile, people in the USA got real used to the cheap food prices in the grocery store. It was good for politicians - people with full bellies and extra oney to spend on 'stuff' are good voters.....

So politically we can't return to high grain prices.

Back in 2008 grain prices rose to really, really high proces. And people on this forum, in this very thread, were complaining about all the profits & price gouging farmers were doing. Rich dern farmers....

So - no, we will not get rid of subsidies. It's political. And it's you consumers too - you like your cheap food, you wouldn't stand for prices returning to where they should be.

Along the way, other countries learned how to subsidise their farmers even better than the USA does. Japan, all of Europe, other Asian countries. They all have better subsidies for their crop farmers than the USA does. Canada has their 'wheat board' which takes over wheat sales from farmers, and sets their grain prices. Farmers up north get scammed by the program, but it makes an artifical wheat price to the rest of the world....

So no, we won't get rid of subsidies.

Nixon & Carter made sure of that. Can't really make it political, as one from each side there, screwed over USA farmers.

Now it's ingrained into consumers, cheap food. Can't get away from it.


The deal with the sugarbeets: If you get rid of RR beet seed wellt hat's fine. But realize at this time 95% of beets are RR, and it takes 2 years before you can get new beet seed.

So if you decide this winter to outlaw RR beets, you are eliminating 90% or more of the sugar beets for 2011 and 2012. There will _not_ be enough regular beet seed until 2013. It takes 2 years to grow seed.

If you have some sense on that issue at least, and say no more RR beet from 2013 and beyond....

Then farmers will stop using it, and go from the relatively low toxic glyphosate, to the harsher, more long-lasting, chemicals they used to use, which were less effective at controlling weeds.

So, you would be going backwards in many ways.

More weeds.
More toxic chemicals used.
Less production per acre.

I guess if that is what people want, then that's what we can return to.

Why, I have no idea.

But that is 2 years from now.

For the next 2 years, either we raise RR sugarbeets, or we grow less than 10% of the beets we normally need. There is little regular seed. Because of course, RR sugarbeets work so much better. Few want to mess with the regular weed sprays when Roundup is so much more effective and so much safer.

--->Paul


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Lilandra said:


> quick question -- how do suggest food is grown to feed more than a family?
> 
> is it as simple as going to the grocery store - you know they don't kill animals to create steaks and burgers plus the vegetables don't grow in dirt so they are safe to eat...


If we sold it, we produce enough milk for about 5-7 families. Our beef production could feed those same families all the beef they need for a year. We plan on getting a garden going next year. It will produce enough for us all year, and probably 1-2 other families for a year (if they buy).
And I don't understand the second line... Are you talking about people's distancing from the animal? What might happen if people knew their chicken came from a CAFO? A revolution overnight.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't use any source with agendas, while most of yours did.


You haven't even used any sources aside from Wikipedia.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Science has proven Round up is *safer *than the alternatives, and that most contamination in the water comes from HOMEOWNERS and NOT farmers.


1. To me, that sounds like saying "co2 more environmentally friendly than methane", on the premise that co2 has less impact than methane. A toxin is a toxin.
2. What? In the corn belt, groundwater is not consumable! That is not coming from lawns.



Bearfootfarm said:


> If you don't like Monsanto, don't buy anything they have a hand in.
> No one is forced to use the products.


True, but most people don't even know what GMO means. Again, you may as well tell me not to eat food. I am slowing breaking my chains to walmart, but I still have to grit my teeth and buy some things from them, as organics are not big around here.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

rambler said:


> The USA had a pretty good and sorta equal deal. We used our crops, and sold the extras we had on the open world market. Other contries needed grain, so they would buy from us. Worked out for everyone. Sorta.
> 
> Then in the 60's, and again in the '70's, Nixon & Carter put up grain embargoes as a policy to punish other countries.. Embargo means no more sales to other countries.
> 
> ...


Finally we might agree on something. Funny, yes? Except... Do we really NEED that grain? Most of it just goes to feed livestock - relatively little is sweet corn. Thus the 6 billion people and enough food for 9 billion people. Which proves that needing GM to 'feed the world' is a hoax.



rambler said:


> The deal with the sugarbeets: If you get rid of RR beet seed wellt hat's fine. But realize at this time 95% of beets are RR, and it takes 2 years before you can get new beet seed.
> 
> So if you decide this winter to outlaw RR beets, you are eliminating 90% or more of the sugar beets for 2011 and 2012. There will _not_ be enough regular beet seed until 2013. It takes 2 years to grow seed.
> 
> ...


Perhaps... But why do we need sugar? Either American are intent on eating unhealthily, or the gov't is intent on making people think unhealthy food is good for them (margarine).


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Are you suggesting we force everybody to adopt your views on the way things should be.
Do we have the govt outlaw sugar?
Do we have the govt break up all the big farms so they can put small places in that will only feed a few families per farm?
Where will you get all the folks to run all those little farms?
Are you suggesting everything revert to the 1700's?
So what if Americans are intent on eating in a way you deem unhealthy.
This is still the land of the free people can choose what they want. Fitting it into your myopic view of the way things should be is not something people should be subject to.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sammyd said:


> Are you suggesting we force everybody to adopt your views on the way things should be.
> Do we have the govt outlaw sugar?
> Do we have the govt break up all the big farms so they can put small places in that will only feed a few families per farm?
> Where will you get all the folks to run all those little farms?
> ...


And you told me not to skew words...
I am not suggesting things go back to the 1700s. Yes, I am aware that American can choose to sit in front of the TV all day eating Chunch-n-munch. Everyone can continue to eat that way, but they shouldn't complain when they get health problems.
"Do we have the govt break up all the big farms so they can put small places in that will only feed a few families per farm?"
The bunches of small farms are for the most part adequate to feed bunches of families. 
Something has to change... For the better. The modern methods are, bottom line, unsustainable.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 2. What? In the corn belt, groundwater is not consumable!


Just one more unsubstantiated claim.



> The modern methods are, bottom line, unsustainable.


And more meaningless rhetoric

Too boring


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Just one more unsubstantiated claim.


What? You seriously didn't know? You're joking, right?
http://www.ewg.org/node/25734
In The Omnivore's Delimma, a corn farmer (George Naylor) is interviewed. George uses a reverse osmosis water filtration system.
And, since you know about chemical fertilizers, I hope I don't have to hunt down info about nitrates.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/18/us/weed-killers-in-tap-water-in-corn-belt.html
No, it does not mention Roundup. No need to point that out. A toxin is a toxin.
http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachPressRelease.aspx?codi=74749&lr=1
This article says pesticide levels are declining, but it doesn't say how much.

You should also be aware that Monsanto was sued for saying their Roundup was biodegradable and environmentally friendly. 


mindfully said:


> Where, Oh, Where Did My Food Dollars Go?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> And more meaningless rhetoric
> 
> Too boring


Pointless.



mindfully said:


> And Where Did All the Farms Go?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> And you told me not to skew words...
> I am not suggesting things go back to the 1700s. Yes, I am aware that American can choose to sit in front of the TV all day eating Chunch-n-munch. Everyone can continue to eat that way, but they shouldn't complain when they get health problems.
> "Do we have the govt break up all the big farms so they can put small places in that will only feed a few families per farm?"
> The bunches of small farms are for the most part adequate to feed bunches of families.
> Something has to change... For the better. The modern methods are, bottom line, unsustainable.


Thanks for discussing this issue. At times I find you wandering all over the place, and not really addressing whatever is on the front burner. But you are willing to discuss, so I hope we can continue without becoming unproductive. Not that I expect either of us to change, but it's helpful to learn. 

Your last sentence puzzles me, you and/or others have mentioned it in this thread before.

In what way is a big modern farm _not_ sustainable?

In what way is a little homesteader farm considered _sustainable_?

Both grow crops, both need to export some crop to feed others, both need to import some stuff to replace the nutrients that are exported. 

Really the only difference is the scale - a modern farm might produce 220 bu of corn per acre, while you might produce 50 bu of sweet corn? So you can get by mining nutrients from your soil, or put up with lower yields, or not notice a shortage of N, P, or K.

But both farms end up being about the same. Either both are 'sustainable' or both are _not_ sustainable.

As the do the same thing, they will both fit the same model.

On what basis do you consider your type of farming sustainable, and other types not sustainable?

--->Paul


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No, it does not mention Roundup. No need to point that out. A toxin is a toxin.


Once again you use BIASED sources with obvious agendas that FAIL to prove anything about THIS topic.



> In 2001, about 10% of the average grocery bill paid for* packaging (mostly paper and plastics)* - that's more than goes to the farmers


How does that matter at all? The farmer doesn't DO packaging. Why should he get anything for it?

It's just more meaningless babble.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> Are you suggesting we force everybody to adopt your views on the way things should be.
> Do we have the govt outlaw sugar?
> Do we have the govt break up all the big farms so they can put small places in that will only feed a few families per farm?
> Where will you get all the folks to run all those little farms?
> ...


I don't give a rip how you or anybody else cares to eat and yes it would be a free country except for 2 things: in America I am forced to pay for your healthcare and to pay you a subsidy for all that useless corn you grow. So that also forces me to have an opinion on what you eat and what you grow. Do I want to have an opinion? Of course not but if money is going to be pulled out of my pocket to subsidise your life then yes I am entitled to tell you what I think you should eat and grow.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

rambler said:


> Thanks for discussing this issue. At times I find you wandering all over the place, and not really addressing whatever is on the front burner. But you are willing to discuss, so I hope we can continue without becoming unproductive. Not that I expect either of us to change, but it's helpful to learn.
> 
> Your last sentence puzzles me, you and/or others have mentioned it in this thread before.
> 
> ...


Simple answer: oil will not stay cheap forever. Big ag is dependant on oil for every part of it's farming. I use zero oil in my actual farming and a minimal amount to get my food to market. So mine will be sustainable when yours is not.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> I am forced to pay for your healthcare


You are not forced to do anything. You have made the choice to earn money and not have tax shelters to keep that money in your pocket. 


I really like this one..


> The picturesque American family-run farm is disappearing rapidly as large corporations buy them out for pennies on the dollar.


I take it you haven't priced any land lately...relying on info from the horrible 1980's to show how big farms are screwing little guys isn't too smart. I believe you're looking at better than 6000 an acre in the corn belt, 2500 or better here in America's Dairyland...lots more than Grandpa paid back in 02 for sure.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Well, in my view, sustainable simply means something that can keep going. To sustain means:
1.
to support, hold, or bear up from below; bear the weight of, as a structure. 
5.
to keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation. 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sustain

So, sustain essentially means something that can be kept, to keep going.

Definition of SUSTAINABLE
1
: capable of being sustained
2
a : of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged <sustainable techniques> <sustainable agriculture> b : of or relating to a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods <sustainable society> 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sustainability

Basically, something that can keep going, without permanently damaging, or depleting.
"Mega-farming":
Most mega-farms are monocultures. Meaning only one thing is grown. One need only look to nature to see a truly sustainable system: nature entails a polyculture. Meaning many different species, biodiversity. There is not strength in numbers, rather, strength in the methods of interaction: Insect eats plant, bird eats insect, bigger bird eats bird. Deer eats plant, human/coyote eats deer. (Do they? Nasty creatures, coyotes.) Plant feeds off soil nutrients, and nutrients provided by microbes, in exchange for nutrients for the microbes. Healthy soil isn't just loaded with compounds, rather, the plant entails the help of beneficial microbes (in the soil) to help feed it, and to help ward off virulent, antagonist and pathogenic microbes. Microbes can also inhabit aerial parts of the plant.
Now, back to the cycle, deer eats plant (essentially soil), coyote eats deer (essentially soil), coyote dies, goes back into soil with aid of "decomposers". Therefore, we are all dirt. 
But not always.
Modern methods of agriculture insure that we aren't composed entirely of dirt, but also of petroleum. In a sense, we can't consume the petroleum directly, but that would make things easier from an industrial standpoint. Oil fixes nitrogen from the air, or coal or something. It creates other Nutrients, as well, making the classic N-P-K fertilizers.
(of course, legumes fix nitrogen, through recruitment of microbes. But that is entirely different from the industrial methods of using N) Oil ships the fertilizers, oil ships the pesticides, the herbicides, the seeds, then the crop itself, it ships the animals, the antibiotics, powers the plants to make antibiotics, and it does plenty of other stuff behind the scenes. It has been estimated that it takes 5 calories to get a calorie on your plate. That's 10,000 calories to get you your recommended intake every day. From an ecological standpoint, this method is *unsustainable*, due to the amount of oil and how far away everything is. If oil suddenly disappeared, all CAFO animals would likely die, while those on pasture and in nature would continue to function. But, from an *industrial* standpoint, this system makes practical sense, since oil is cheap. 
Further reasons why the methods are unsustainable is because of their vulnerability to disease and pests. Diseases typically attack the weak, just as the coyote (or wolf) attacks the weaker animal, since it is easy prey.
In the book, *Science in Agriculture Advanced Methods for Sustainable Farming*, by Dr. Arden B. Anderson, the author states that disease and pests are simply nature's cleanup. I don't know about that, but it is indeed true to a certain extent. In his analysis of conventionally raised crops, he states that the root system is in bad condition. In corn, the taproot has died off, and has sent sidewards-growing smaller roots, in response to the toxins being applied. An additional indentifier is that the first portions of the inside of the stalk will be dark, in response to build-up of toxins. To further the argument, most herbicides and pesticides kill microbes. When the microbes are killed, down goes the plants natural defense system, in move the pathogenic and virulent microbes. Someone asked how they could move in if the others had been killed and the environemnt hostile.
From chapter 7, _Science in Agriculture_,


> As the farmer alters the soil environment, he arranges it to support whatever microbial system survives best in the surroundings he has created. If he chooses to create a soil environment that is most conductive to pathogenic microbes such as fusarium, verticillium, parasitic nematodes, and mosaic viruses, he need only reduce the soil oxygen level, degrade the humus, destroy the soil structure, and maintain a continuous toxicity level; he will have the perfect soil environment for such pathogens. This is exactly what thousands of farmers do regularly, in accord with the directions they are given by Extensions agents of the land-grant universities.


The text goes on to give demonstrations of microbial activities in the soil. It continuously gives evidence of beneficial microbial activity, and gives examples of harmful activities to microbes and soil. It also states that, "...inorganic compounds are readily leached." Fertilization practices can also have an effect on the sustainability of a farming system, aka. anhydrous ammonia, which also has negative effects on microbes.

Modern agriculture has brought about the "mining of soil" instead of farming of soil. A genetically modified plant, in conjunction with chemicals, that produces prodigiously has negative impacts on soil. Without the use of chemical inputs (NPK fertilizer), the soil would disappear promptly. Such a system is unsustainable, not because of the inputs needed, but because of the prodigious amount of product that requires the use of inputs, and despite that, the rapid removal of soil. A sustainable farm will keep the amount of soil it has.
Regarding the use of inputs and outputs, it is a fact that farmers, when they sell their product, it is an output. When they buy fertilizers, be it organic or inorganic, it is an input. (NOTE: the term organic is used here in the chemical context.) Because a farm needs input, does not make it unsustainable. As has been stated, small farms typically do not produce as much as mega farms. That is true, and it the natural way of things: looking back at nature, nature never produces more than can be consumed, or reabsorbed. Forcing the soil to yield its fruit so fast is not sustainable.
Again, regarding sustainability, it may be what is in an individual persons mind what is and what isn't sustainable. There is a clear line that can be drawn, however. A system that uses a corrupted government's intervention, toxic chemicals, and large amount of oil is obviously not sustainable.
Therefore, it becomes apparent that we should look, not to which chemicals pollute less, and which objects fit the Soil Mining project adequately, but we should look to the system that actually works. Grassfed meats instead of those fed with grains, which is not only unhealthy but indeed, unsustainable. Naturally lower-producing gardens with healthy microbial activity and healthy soils. Correct biological interactions between plants, microbes and animals, aka making the farms resemble as closely as possible natural systems.
That being said, we will now take a look at some of the most common comments regarding 'sustainable' agriculture.
1. Sustainable (natural) farms produce less.
That is true. However, most of the crops produced in the USA, and some imported grains as well, go to feed animals. In _The CAFO Reader_, it state that it takes "157 million pounds of grain to produce 27 million pounds of meat." Again, from an ecological standpoint, that is an entirely unsustainable system, but from an economical standpoint, it makes perfect sense, due to the fact that a CAFO can buy grain cheaper than it costs to produce it. On the other hand, grass-feeding beef makes ecological sense, since they convert an otherwise useless crop and otherwise not suitable for cash crops land into a value-added nutrient dense product. If most cropland was used for biodiversified gardens, the multiple plants support each other from pathogenic microbes and disease, and in some cases, pests and weeds. It also becomes apparent that if a disease does for some reason attack the squash, it will not attack the tomato. Likewise, if a tomato gets an infestation of horn worms, they won't eat the potatos. In a small garden, insects can be picked off. Because of the fact that farmers would be able to sell straight to the person instead of Cargill/ADM, they would make more money, and hence they would be able to work less and not go so deeply in debt that mega-farming is renowned for. Farmers would be able to be healthier, because they would not be exposed to continuous levels of toxins, and the customer would also be much healthier.
2. Natural food costs more.
That depends entirely on what the farmer demands. Entirely. Currently, off-the-farm beef generally costs less than supermarket beef, and is not packaged with CO and does not carry anywhere near the health risk that eating supermarket meat does. Not only can eating store bought meat contribute to antibiotic "superbugs", but meat (especially the fats) contains pesticide and herbicide residues from feedlot diets. It has also been said that paying a little more for food is like an investment, for the absence of medical bills.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once again you use BIASED sources with obvious agendas that FAIL to prove anything about THIS topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Find something aside from a dictionary or encyclopedia without agenda and I'll eat my foot!:goodjob:


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

ok... you posted a TON of words and made sentences that string together random thougts BUT you still haven't addressed how to feed a city from YOUR farm? 5-7 families per 1 farm family is not going to keep your community from starving.

ALSO... I live and work on a century farm ie a farm that's been in the family for 100 years, my neighbor is pushing 125 years on her family farm... how long do you need to be farming a piece of ground to be considered sustainable?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

And why not? I think a collection of family farms could do quite nicely in feeding our community.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Lilandra said:


> ok... you posted a TON of words and made sentences that string together random thougts BUT you still haven't addressed how to feed a city from YOUR farm? 5-7 families per 1 farm family is not going to keep your community from starving.
> 
> ALSO... I live and work on a century farm ie a farm that's been in the family for 100 years, my neighbor is pushing 125 years on her family farm... how long do you need to be farming a piece of ground to be considered sustainable?


It's fairly simple: if the price of oil triples or quadruples can you continue to farm the way you currently do? And if you can't do you have a plan in place for how you will change when that happens? Because cheap oil will not last forever and we will not be shipping all of our salad from California and all our asparagus from Chile and so on and so on. Right now in Arkansas we no longer have enough dairies to get milk to everyone that wants it. That is a real problem. There are real gaps like that in the food supply in every state in America.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> You are not forced to do anything. You have made the choice to earn money and not have tax shelters to keep that money in your pocket.


Last time I checked all the tax shelters in the world will not keep me from paying my Social Security and Medicare taxes. Try again......


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Most mega-farms are monocultures. Meaning only one thing is grown


Yeah, they've never heard of rotation. 
Most run beans and corn. Most mega farms put the corn stalks and bean residue back in the soil to improve the organic matter. Most mega farms practice min or no till to reduce the amount of trips across the fields and reduce the use of fossil fuels. Most mega farms are into Roundup so they can use less of the more toxic herbicides. Most mega farms will set aside land in a CRP to lessen the effects of erosion and allow nature to reclaim some land.

How do you propose getting a collection of small family farms? How do you propose doing that around say NYC?

More unsubstantiated blather...


> Not only can eating store bought meat contribute to antibiotic "superbugs",


Yet....


> Myth: The use of antibiotics and hormone growth implants in livestock production is causing hazardous residues in beef and contributing to the development of health problems in humans.
> 
> Fact:
> 
> ...


http://www.animalrangeextension.montana.edu/Articles/Beef/Wklynwsltr/12-19.01.htm


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Last time I checked all the tax shelters in the world will not keep me from paying my Social Security and Medicare taxes.


I pay them as well so I will be paying for myself thank you.

As for those subsidies you were worried about, I do not receive any.
If I do end up paying taxes I tell myself I'm probably buying a few fire hoses for the Nimitz or something, there just isn't enough hate in me to figure every dime I send in goes to someone who lives a lifestyle I choose not to.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> And why not? I think a collection of family farms could do quite nicely in feeding our community.


Ok, what about the other 4 billion mouths to feed on the planet? Will there be enough "low cost" grass fed beef, for even the 37 million residents of CA?

Throwing "sustainable" and "monoculture" around and saying it is doomed for failure, makes little sense, looking at modern agriculture.

With many more sucesses than problems, monoculture has sustained feeding people and making other products, for over 200 years. Even Roundup has been around for 30 years, with only a handful of weed species, that developed a resistance to it.

The all-natural concept is a good one, but it cannot be implemented in a scope, that will supply the world with the farm products in the quanities it needs, IMO.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

6.88 billion, and most don't eat mega-farmed food. In case you didn't know, there is still enough farmland to feed the population.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Again, regarding sustainability, it may be what is in an individual persons mind what is and what isn't sustainable.


If you understand that, then I don't have much argument with you.

Sustainable farming is just an opinion, a lifestyle, and has nothing to do with the word itself.

I kinda agree.

The problem for me is that city folk are being told your 'spin' on things, and start to think the actual word is true. That somehow your type of farm is magic and can get something for nothing, while regular farms are somehow evil & can't grow anything.....

That is what bothers me about all this. The mix-up & turning logic upside down.



A lot of your message talks about oil as bad, but hand labor as good. What we are talking about is energy. Both your farm, and a neighbor's 1000 acre 'regular' farm consume energy. I'd say your farm using many more hours of hand labor is no more sustainable than the neighbor's big farm if you compare _energy use_. You can feed 5 families or so; the neighbor can feed 100's of families. You use a lot more energy per bu or lb of output. And thus, you are _less_ sustainable by the definition of the word.


Sustainable can be applied to our planet's population as well.

your way of farming, with far more hand labor and more net energy use per lb produced, as well as less lbs produced per acre means we cannot sustain the population we have in this world.

At some point we will face that with any food production system. However, if we adopt your beliefs and abandon modern farming, who gets to pick the people that need to die this decade?


I do not see your system as anything at all 'sustainable'.

It is just older ways, with more hand labor producing less product per acre. In effect, it is less sutainable than modern farming. Your way used more energy, and has lower yields.


Now, if it were called 'georgetown farming' or 'oldway farming' then I'd think that's pretty cool.

The trouble is, your side decided to call it 'sutainable farming' which really isn't true at all.

It's basically a lie to consumers, to make your ways appeal more, and to demonize regular farming methods.

And that's my problem with it all.

You are less sustainable, but somehow managed to twist things around all backwards with good PR.

It doesn't bother me that you farm that way, kinda neat really.

It's the false labeling that bothers me.


I understand your use of 'monoculture' which is different than many of us normally think. Your way is to plant groupd of plants together, very different than a garden with rows of seperate things, or a field of corn one year followed by a field of beans the next year. There is no easy or low-energy way to harvest your type of fields, each crop needs to be hand picked and carefully so as not to hurt the other crops growing. Very energy intensive.

Thank you for the reply, I only quoted a small bit, but enjoyed reading what you said. I'm not opposed to your way of things at all. I just very much disagree with the labels and presumtions that your way is somehow better for the world at large. I strongly disagree. Using more energy to produce less crop of an acre of land is _not_ more sustainable in any shape or form!


--->Paul


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Patt said:


> It's fairly simple: if the price of oil triples or quadruples can you continue to farm the way you currently do? And if you can't do you have a plan in place for how you will change when that happens? Because cheap oil will not last forever and we will not be shipping all of our salad from California and all our asparagus from Chile and so on and so on. Right now in Arkansas we no longer have enough dairies to get milk to everyone that wants it. That is a real problem. There are real gaps like that in the food supply in every state in America.


Dad paid 28 cents a gallon for gasoline when I was old enough to remember such a number on this farm.

This year I'm paying about $2.50 a gallon for diesel. 18 months ago I was paying over $3.50 a gallon for diesel. Back 2 deacades ago fuel price was pretty stable at about 75 cents a gallon for many years.

I probably use 1/3 as much fuel per acre as dad did. More btu's in diesel, but I do far less trips over the ground, and more efficent machines.

So - yes. The answer to your question is yes.

Triple the price to $9 a gallon, and - I'd be in Europe. Where they still farm with tractors.

So - yes. It will work.

Will your ways work to feed the world??? Ah, that's the question. 

Myself, I like the current mix of both ways. That's cool. It shouldn't be us against them. I'm not opposed to your ways of farming or gardening at all.

What puzzles me is why you are opposed to others.

--->Paul


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I don't even use the tractor - the animals do the work. I'm the orchestrator. 
So... What do you think is sustainable? Modern methods that use loads of gas are obviously not sustainable. And when you say that my farm will use more BTUs per acre, well, as I said, the livestock pretty much do all the work. The garden, though... Now, you realize, I'm converting FOOD into energy, while the tractor is converting OIL, which is a NON renewable resource, into energy.
You mentioned my farm as not being 'sustainable'... I'd like to know what your definition of sustainable is. The basic word means something that can keep going. In that respect, if herbicides, pesticides, and oil and oil to ship the products, the monoculture mega-farm would crash... And mine would keep going, since I use hand-labor. (when the garden is in, anyways) 
You mentioned 'oldway farming'... Um... This is like new-old combined, using old philosophies and modern sciences (acknowledging the presence of microbes, f.e.).
Monoculture... Well, there is no real definition... I'd consider it a farm with much acreage (100+) that only uses a couple species (soy, corn, something else). Rotating the species does not, in mine eye, nullify the monoculture aspect.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Monoculture... Well, there is no real definition*... I'd consider it a farm with much acreage (100+) that only uses a couple species (soy, corn, something else).


LOL Yes there IS a definition

It means growing ONLY ONE THING.


> I'd consider it a farm with much acreage (100+)


That's not a lot of acerage by today's standards.

I think most of your views are unrealistic, and you try to *redefine* reality to suit them:



> Rotating the species does not, in mine eye, nullify the monoculture aspect.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

It used to be, anti-farm folks would talk about monoculture as situations like Brazil or Kansas, where at times one crop was grown over & over & over. Never changing.

Then as the anti-farmers learned that most farmers most places actually rotate crops - even most of Kansas & Brazil - typically growing 2-3 crops and rotating from one to the next, they redefined the term monoculture to mean only one species is growing in the field at any one time.

But, if you just grow 5 crops on the same plot of land, it's the same old crops anyhow. Really not a heck of a lot of difference, whatever you call it.

I plant 10 acres or so of oats, with alfalfa, clover, turnips, and field peas mixed in - all planted at the same time. Makes a nice crop of oats, straw, plowdown N, and forage for cattle all in one field.

Probably something wrong with doing that tho, because I'm over 100 acres.... Someone will find a way to redefine 'sustainable' and 'monoculture' to make me an evil person for planting that field that way to fit their needs.

--->Paul


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

With that many species, you're not a monoculture.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

with more than 1 species you're not a monoculture..mono meaning one.
If you rotate between beans and corn you are not a monoculture, period, end of story.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

If you plant 500 acres in corn, it's a monoculture, if the next year the same 500 acres is planted in soy, it's still a monoculture. 
If you take a 10 foot square and grow squash on it, that designated area is a monoculture (aerial, anyways). Similarly, 10,000 acres of corn in the corn belt is a monoculture!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If you plant 500 acres in corn, it's a monoculture, if the next year the same 500 acres is planted in soy, it's still a monoculture.
> If you take a 10 foot square and grow squash on it, that designated area is a monoculture (aerial, anyways). Similarly, 10,000 acres of corn in the corn belt is a monoculture!


So it's a meaningless term, for all practical purposes


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

oh BS...
that's the most insane thing I have ever heard.
I see what was meant when it was mentioned the word had been twisted from its original sense of planting the same crop year after year.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So it's a meaningless term, for all practical purposes


Essentially. However, rotating crops only does so much.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

Then 1 acre of corn is a monoculture, 1/10 acre is a monoculture. Stupid yes. Without parameters also valid.


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

I just got done in my monocrop field... you should see all the mini-pumpkins I have ready for farmers market this weekend. OH and the other monocrop field I harvested with my bare hands is just as awesome - 10 bushel baskets of indian corn. OOOH.... you ought to come visit the best monocrop field of them all - a 1/4 mile strip of sunflowers that line the driveway - I have harvested enough seed heads to keep my rabbits and wild birds happy all winter.

oh bummer, you are hungry... sorry I don't have anything on the farm for you, but if you were a critter- you'd be one fat bellied happy animal.

my point here, we all farm for a purpose and a market. the 100's of acres of corn and beans you see while driving in the countryside aren't meant for your dinner table directly and they aren't bought and paid for by uncle sam. those acres are for a secondary market such as textiles, manufacturing, cooking oils, flour, cereal etc... those products feed more than our neighbors, they feed our country and then some.

the current buy and eat local is a great media blitz - I support it 110%! know where your food comes from, the less its handled the less chance of being contaminated. I also support modern agriculture in its effective livestock and crop production -- there is no other system of producing safe and affordable food than our own modern agri-practices.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

Pat If you think your farm is not dependant of oil you are kidding yourself. Virtually e
very manufactured product you use is. If for nothing else the transport. 
Hertitage You believe your model could feed the world? This sustainable farming is a joke. Only a truly closed system can be. Lower yields increase the time before nutrients are depleted, but they will deplete. If modern fertilizers and pesticides were not used the total food production of the world would crash in a very short period of time.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Lilandra said:


> I just got done in my monocrop field... you should see all the mini-pumpkins I have ready for farmers market this weekend. OH and the other monocrop field I harvested with my bare hands is just as awesome - 10 bushel baskets of indian corn. OOOH.... you ought to come visit the best monocrop field of them all - a 1/4 mile strip of sunflowers that line the driveway - I have harvested enough seed heads to keep my rabbits and wild birds happy all winter.
> 
> oh bummer, you are hungry... sorry I don't have anything on the farm for you, but if you were a critter- you'd be one fat bellied happy animal.
> 
> ...


And now, all of a sudden we agree on something? *scratches head* Odd, probably compounded by the fact that it is hard to relay correctly complex information on a forum.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bruce2288 said:


> Pat If you think your farm is not dependant of oil you are kidding yourself. Virtually e
> very manufactured product you use is. If for nothing else the transport.
> Hertitage You believe your model could feed the world? This sustainable farming is a joke. Only a truly closed system can be. Lower yields increase the time before nutrients are depleted, but they will deplete. If modern fertilizers and pesticides were not used the total food production of the world would crash in a very short period of time.


According to this article, it says 'only' *114mil* acres are planted GM. https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1O4Tq1d3npfxkuK-VrkFQ7YAoYBtQtDUdAFvJLgQNH1E&hl=en&pli=1#
And another thing, there is enough food to feed *9 billion* people. What say ye?
And another thing, my 'sustainable' farm will ultimately procure more money than if I went Big. Because sustainable farming operates on low inputs.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Why would you make less with more? Are you that bad of a manager?
There are many large farms that practice MIG. There is one down the road that milks over 500 head. I'm sure that's bigger than you.
Going big doesn't mean that someone would abandon what works.
If MIG works for a guy he would probably use it as he grew.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sammyd said:


> Why would you make less with more? Are you that bad of a manager?
> There are many large farms that practice MIG. There is one down the road that milks over 500 head. I'm sure that's bigger than you.
> Going big doesn't mean that someone would abandon what works.
> If MIG works for a guy he would probably use it as he grew.


Oh, I didn't think you liked sustainable systems. We use MIG. Cuts down on wormers astronomically when used right, in fact some people say they just stopped buying them. This is also a practice used by any 'sustainable' cow/sheep/goat operation. Definitely a horrid system, and should promptly be abolished.


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> And now, all of a sudden we agree on something? *scratches head* Odd, probably compounded by the fact that it is hard to relay correctly complex information on a forum.


we don't agree on anything - honestly... to buy local doesn't mean I am visiting the farm in which it was grown on, just that it was a seasonal crop that grows within my region. I refuse to buy imported farm commodities - no need to, I 110% believe in my own country's system of producing safe food - I don't trust China, Brazil or South America to keep problems from occurring.

You are mistakenly thinking I support your anti-farming stance. Just because it is grown locally doesn't mean the carrot on my plate didn't come from a 200+ acre field of them -- it more than likely did and I am fine with that. What I am not fine with is if my carrot came from China... there is a difference.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

OK, than, just a quick question: How do you feel safe, eating food sprayed with an herbicide toxic enough to kill any (or most) plant?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> OK, than, just a quick question: How do you feel safe, eating food sprayed with an herbicide toxic enough to kill any (or most) plant?


I will sprinkle it with a herbicide toxic enough to kill most plants. It's called "salt".


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Oh, I didn't think you liked sustainable systems. We use MIG. Cuts down on wormers astronomically when used right, in fact some people say they just stopped buying them. This is also a practice used by any 'sustainable' cow/sheep/goat operation.


I'm not the one speaking out against anything. You're the one who doesn't like what other farmers do.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> OK, than, just a quick question: How do you feel safe, eating food sprayed with an herbicide toxic enough to kill any (or most) plant?


Since I'm not a plant as long as the directions are followed it really doesn't bother me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> OK, than, just a quick question: How do you feel safe, eating food sprayed with an herbicide toxic enough to kill any (or most) plant?


By the time corn is harvested it's usually been months since it was sprayed with anything at all.

It's as safe as anything you raise


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I am glad to hear that... Except for the many books and tons more websites that say it isn't, most based on scientific observations or stolen data from corporations.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> So... What do you think is sustainable? Modern methods that use loads of gas are obviously not sustainable. And when you say that my farm will use more BTUs per acre, well, as I said, the livestock pretty much do all the work. The garden, though... Now, you realize, I'm converting FOOD into energy, while the tractor is converting OIL, which is a NON renewable resource, into energy.
> You mentioned my farm as not being 'sustainable'... I'd like to know what your definition of sustainable is. The basic word means something that can keep going. In that respect, if herbicides, pesticides, and oil and oil to ship the products, the monoculture mega-farm would crash... And mine would keep going, since I use hand-labor. (when the garden is in, anyways)


The only really sustainable farm is one that does not export any crop or production off of it's borders. Say a famly of 7 or something grew all their own food, and didn't sell any. That would be sutainable as I see the term. They wouldn't need to import anything because they aren't exporting anything. Closed loop.

But, it's not a very useful farm then, as it offers nothing to the rest of the world. Doesn't help feed anyone but itself. So really of no merit to the world.

To be a part of the world, contrributing to it, you need to export some produce to others, and to do so you will need to import some things - energy, nutrients.

What you describe as your farm is just a low producing, under-preforming farm. It is not 'sustainable' in my view. Id doesn't make use of it's assets, you are not making use of all it has to offer.

(I don't mean that as critical of you - you farm any way you want, and you don't need to do anything to satisfy me - just using your place as an abstract example....)

The farm making 220 bu of corn an acre is helping out the world, producing what it can to help in many ways - food prouced, eccomics to keep socio-political stuff going, keeps people fed & working & investing.

Your place - well you feed yourself & a couple extra people, but you are taking up a lot of acres and time to do it - very ineffient. A real waste of resources.

That's where I guess I'm viewing this from.

Again tho, not that I actually am bothered by the way you farm. It's cool. The only part that bugs me is when 'your way' gets described as somehow better than other ways. It is not. In fact it is often much worse than other ways, as far as helping the world, helping others, and being efficeint.

Your way surely is not sustainable. It seems you are just selfish in a way, and you require more than your share of land to produce food for yourself. Very inefficeintly. Anyone can claim however many acres they want, and claim they are sustainably making enough food for themselves. That's what you seem to be saying?

The real test is how are we taking care of the whole world? How are we feeding _everyone_? Every human get's their tiny little bit of farmable land, and a lot of food needs to be grown very effiently on it. _That_ is the test of sustainable to me. The big farm with the 220bu yields is going to be much more sustainable than you are.

You're version of sustainable relates only to you? You are burning up tons of resources with your animal power, this is _not_ an efficient use of resources. Much better to use the oil or whatever imported energy we happen to have.

My version of susainable relates to the globe as a whole.

Again, thanks for the discussion. Don't mean to beat you up as some do, and in any case, I like what you are doing on your farm & think you should have every right to do so. Good for you.

--->Paul


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> OK, than, just a quick question: How do you feel safe, eating food sprayed with an herbicide toxic enough to kill any (or most) plant?


Plants and mammals are built differently, so a chemical toxic to plants don't have to affect humans much.

Many plants are actually toxic to humans. Moreso than the herbicides!

Organic methods of farming expose people to more e. coli and other bad bugs.

Herbicides are used on crops in small amounts, then long periods of time before harvest, and long periods of time before processed into food - more likely the crop is fed to livestock, with more time before turned into food. A lot of stepps and time for the tiny amount of herbicide to break down, go away.

Doesn't seem like much of an issue to most people?

--->Paul


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> if the price of oil triples or quadruples can you continue to farm the way you currently do?


LOL it all ready has and they all ready do.....
do you ever look at the world as a whole or are do you really have tunnel vision that bad?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

rambler said:


> The only really sustainable farm is one that does not export any crop or production off of it's borders. Say a famly of 7 or something grew all their own food, and didn't sell any. That would be sutainable as I see the term. They wouldn't need to import anything because they aren't exporting anything. Closed loop.
> 
> But, it's not a very useful farm then, as it offers nothing to the rest of the world. Doesn't help feed anyone but itself. So really of no merit to the world.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your method of speech...
What I think it boils down to, is a matter of philosophy. E.g., I am content feeding a couple people, and you are content to somehow feed the world, which is not possible - communities are what's supposed to feed the communities. What you call efficient use of resources, is only efficient from the economical standpoint.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> is only efficient from the economical standpoint.


And as someone who relies on a farm to provide a living what other standpoint should be taken?
If it's not economical I have to have another job, and I have less time to devote to my farm, which could lead to cutting corners, animals not receiving the same care as before......


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I was under the impression your farm was 'financially efficient' enough you didn't need an auxiliary job? What DO you do? Just wondering.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Look, you were the one that said Rambler was only sustainable from an economical standpoint, I asked what other standpoint should a farmer use?
You also made a statement earlier that your farm would make more money, shouldn't that be economically sustainable more so than Rambler?


You should be under no impression of my farm as I haven't disclosed any details.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

If I HAD a garden, and I did sell what I didn't need to eat, I could make a couple grand off of every acre or so. Same deal with the animals, and they do all the work, we must move them and take care of them. With low machinery costs (one antique tractor and a couple antique attachments) and almost no fuel costs... I am using almost NO fuel per acre. If my farm was in crops, that'd be different, but you can't plant eroded hills.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I could make a couple grand off of every acre or so


There's a perfect example of why I said many of your thoughts are *unrealistic*.

Unless you're growing something ILLEGAL, you won't make that much per acre no matter how you farm it


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> LOL it all ready has and they all ready do.....
> do you ever look at the world as a whole or are do you really have tunnel vision that bad?


I distinctly remember howls of dismay back when gasoline shot up to $4 a gallon. It has dropped by half, what happens when it goes to $4 or more and stays there? I am not the one with tunnel vision you are because obviously you have forgotten what that did to food prices and farming prices and worst of all trucking prices.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's a perfect example of why I said many of your thoughts are *unrealistic*.
> 
> Unless you're growing something ILLEGAL, you won't make that much per acre no matter how you farm it


According to a USDA survey of farms those with 10 acres or less made an average of $1,400 per acre. So you are the one who is not in reality.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

rambler said:


> Plants and mammals are built differently, so a chemical toxic to plants don't have to affect humans much.
> 
> Many plants are actually toxic to humans. Moreso than the herbicides!
> 
> ...


It is an issue for a lot of people hence the fact that organic sales continue to grow every year as do the number of Farmer's Markets. People do care what is in their food and who grows it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> According to a USDA survey of farms those with 10 acres or less made an average of $1,400 per acre. So you are the one who is not in reality.


None of the surveys I can find say that at all.

In fact , they all say smaller farms are LESS profitable:



> Average small-farm *financial performance lags well behind *that of large farms





> *Larger farms realize higher profits*, on average


http://www2.grist.org/gristmill/images/user/2988/EB6.pdf




> Low profitability of small commercial farms contributed to their declining shares of farms and production. Nearly* 60 percent of small commercial farms had negative operating profits* in both 1991 and 2007


http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September10/Features/USFarm.htm


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I appreciate your method of speech...
> What I think it boils down to, is a matter of philosophy. E.g., I am content feeding a couple people, and you are content to somehow feed the world, which is not possible - communities are what's supposed to feed the communities. What you call efficient use of resources, is only efficient from the economical standpoint.


You have no idea how badly I wish it were true. I want local to be both more profitable and waste less of our valuable resources. It pains me to admit that the fuel and other energy to provide a mounded table of vegetables at the Farmers Market uses more fuel per pound than the established methods. 

While I struggle with the fact that WalMart can sell an Acorn squash from a thousand miles away for less than it costs to produce it locally, I have to throw my hands up when I discover it gets there in a more fuel efficient manner than can be replicated locally.

In my mindâs eye, the locally grown, organic fruits and vegetables taste better and look better than âstore boughtâ. Often the Hobby Farmerâs dreams of how it can be, fall far short, supplying at best, average produce.

I truly wish for a local network of small farms that could produce all our food needs, year around and do it with more efficiency so the mega farm system would wilt on the vine. But facts get in my way.

Heck, in most areas the attendance at Farmers Markets is sparse and most people donât care where their food comes from.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

Does this chart seem about right for those of you that farm?









Sounds like a lot of work for the return you get


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of the surveys I can find say that at all.
> 
> In fact , they all say smaller farms are LESS profitable:
> 
> ...


http://monthlyreview.org/090810altieri.php


> By managing fewer resources more intensively, small farmers are able to make more profit per unit of output, and thus, make more total profits â even if production of each commodity is less.12 In overall output, the diversified farm produces much more food. In the United States the smallest two-hectare farms produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per hectare. The largest farms, averaging 15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare. Not only do small- to medium-sized farms exhibit higher yields than conventional larger-scale farms, but they do this with much lower negative impacts on the environment, as research shows that small farmers take better care of natural resources, including reducing soil erosion and conserving biodiversity. However, an important part of the higher per hectare income of small farms in the United States is that they tend to by-pass middlemen and sell directly to the public, restaurants, or markets. They also tend to receive a premium for their local, and frequently organic, products.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> You have no idea how badly I wish it were true. I want local to be both more profitable and waste less of our valuable resources. It pains me to admit that the fuel and other energy to provide a mounded table of vegetables at the Farmers Market uses more fuel per pound than the established methods.
> 
> While I struggle with the fact that WalMart can sell an Acorn squash from a thousand miles away for less than it costs to produce it locally, I have to throw my hands up when I discover it gets there in a more fuel efficient manner than can be replicated locally.
> 
> ...


The only gas I plan on spending will be taking the food to farmers markets - 2 gallons. Otherwise... You speak, mostly, the truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> http://monthlyreview.org/090810altieri.php


LOL One more BIASED *opinion* site by a professor at Berkeley.

Where is the *USDA survey *that was referred to?

The *USDA* stats I've found don't match those claims


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I notice you didn't give a place without an agenda, aside from Dictionary or encyclopedia. You also say BIASED instead AGENDA. Word screw.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Patt said:


> I distinctly remember howls of dismay back when gasoline shot up to $4 a gallon. It has dropped by half, what happens when it goes to $4 or more and stays there? I am not the one with tunnel vision you are because obviously you have forgotten what that did to food prices and farming prices and worst of all trucking prices.


Since 1980 gas prices have increased almost fourfold.
Farmers are still farming, bigger than ever as a matter of fact.
Yes gas prices took a rise a while back but did it stop any of the big guys?

Nope no tunnel vision here..I can see backwards, forwards and way beyond my fenceline.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Look let's just be honest here y'all aren't interested in the realities of small farming so why are we bothering with this? I make several thousand per acre here every year. Our closest friend has a 1.5 acre organically certified market garden and he pulls in $1,000.00 per week in peak season. Simple fact is you guys don't know diddly squat about small farms and all you want to do is heap crap on us. Whatever, I have better things to do with my time than argue with y'all.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/o...ssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin



> In fact, small farms are the most productive on earth. A four-acre farm in the United States nets, on average, $1,400 per acre; a 1,364-acre farm nets $39 an acre. Big farms have long compensated for the disequilibrium with sheer quantity. But their economies of scale come from mass distribution, and with diesel fuel costing more than $4 per gallon in many locations, it&#8217;s no longer efficient to transport food 1,500 miles from where it&#8217;s grown.


That is from the 1992 US agricultural census:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_h...EwBw#v=onepage&q=four acre farm $1400&f=false


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

A 4 acre farm netting $1400/acre or a 1364 acre farm netting $39 acre.... which one provides a decent living for a family again, and which one is a hobby?

Never mind that they're producing vastly different things, and if the farmers of those 1364 acre farms were to dedicate just a small corner of the farm to the same crops as the 4 acre farms, the 4 acre farms would never be able to compete.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

The point here is that small farms are perfectly capable of feeding people and they do produce enough income to support us without any outside income. Keep in mind those stats are almost 20 years old and it is possible to make far more, that is just an average.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Once upon a time this "sustainable" dream existed. People got all of their food within a few miles of their home. Good, wholesome, nutritious, food.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, except, what would happen in a bad year? A drought, a flood, early or late frosts, hail, fire, locusts, crop disease, you name it. Remember now, everyone is living this sustainable dream, all food is local. I guess we just don't eat this year. Import food? Nope, all food is local, remember? Everyone else just has enough to feed them selves (if they are lucky). It's easy to be arrogant about food when you know you will not go hungry no matter what happens on your farm, but what about facing the prospects of the babies dying if your crop fails (or your neighbors)?

Do you think that if you have enough food for you, but no one else, your neighbors who are starving will sit idly by? The villagers will show up at night with pitchforks and torches.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Simple fact is you guys don't know diddly squat about small farms .


If you really make that much, it's because your selling to a FEW people willing to buy *overpriced *food because it's "organic".



> The point here is that small farms are perfectly capable of feeding people


You're not producing enough to feed more than *a relative few *people for a month or so a year.

I'd still like to see *the survey *youmentioned, and NOT some authors interpretation of a census from almost 20 years ago


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> At the expense of everyone's health. Isn't anyone getting a little worried over the obesity and cancer epidemics?


I'm with you on this. IMO it's just like the pharmaceutical (sp) companies. They don't take enough time researching long term affects, then all of a sudden we see tv lawyers telling us if we used so and so we may be due a settlement. No one knows what effects all these chemicals are going to have on people or livestock. I think God knew what He was doing and anything that man does to try to improve is bound to backfire.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL Your sources are :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I don't understand is that so many people don't trust the government in very many areas, yet they are going to take the government's word that this is safe???


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What I don't understand is that so many people don't trust the government in very many areas, yet they are going to take the government's word that this is safe???


The "Govt" in this case is a group of scientists who have done the research

But this thread has taken so many tangents that it's all become pointless.

The sources given to "prove" points have been largely OPINIONS EXCEPT for the Govt sources, although some have made* claims *about what a Govt source supposedly said, but didn't actually show *that report*.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

The only people trying to heap crap are the small guys.
None of the people that are "pro" big have said anything about shutting the small guys down and at least one has directly said that he wishes them well.

No one has answered the question of how to make small farms really work in large population centers.
No one has said how their little garden plats are going to provide everything a family would need year in and year out.
Yeah selling a bunch of veggies to some folks is cool but how many people could you really supply 365 days? How much grain do you grow in your garden? How much meat do you raise in your garden?
How many pounds of grass fed beef do you turn out a year?
How many places would be needed to supply the 18 million or so in NYC?
How would a single mom working 2 jobs just to keep a roof overhead and relying on food stamps be able to afford your extravagant organic food?
How do you propose we store all this food to keep the people happy?

Small places can be great and selling some fresh veggies to local folks or tourists is a nice way to make a few bucks. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty of feeding millions of folks I don't think you stand a chance. 
I don't advocate shutting you down because of that and I don't think any less of folks that do that but you really need to look at the overall picture and understand.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you really make that much, it's because your selling to a FEW people willing to buy *overpriced *food because it's "organic".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have fun finding it, I looked on the govt site and didn't see it on their list of documents. And I really doubt they publish anything but stats from the survey. 

But like I said originally if you don't already know that what can be made from a good sized market garden, orchard and diversified small farm then you really don't have any business trying to take pokes at us. You don't know what you are talking about. We don't feed people for a month, we can provide all the meat and vegetables for several families for a whole year.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Y'all boggle my mind sometimes you really do. Look at the nice graph that was provided a couple of pages back in this thread. It's not rocket science. In 1935 we had both the highest number of farms (approx 7 million) and they had the lowest average number of acres per farm (approx 150 acres per farm). Nobody starved nor was the American diet as grain based as it is today. Nor was there as much food related illness: diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. Funny how that all worked out to the average Americans good. People also paid a higher percentage of their income for their higher quality food and Farmers were also far more prosperous, they could actually make 100% of their living and feed themselves and their families from their own farms. 

So silly me I would like to see us return to that win/win system. On top of all the benefits I just mentioned in 1935 they also were not trucking anywhere near the level of food all over the country nor were they using chemical or petroleum based fertilisers and pesticides/herbicides. Now I understand that most farmers have bought into the propaganda that the current system is the only way to feed a hungry world and trust me both the big ag industry that has made you a slave to them for your equipment and seeds and chemicals and loans and the food production system that has also left you making practically nothing for the food that they then sell for exorbitant profits are thrilled that you have bought the lie. 

But some of us are waking up to reality here in America. Consumers who don't want to live the current American reality of retirements filled with chronic avoidable illnesses and children who are obese and will have shorter life spans than their parents. They don't want to live on fake foods anymore. Then you have small farms that are rising up to meet those needs. You have kids going into farming today and not only doing it without inheriting a family farm but doing it and making a real living at it and with no debt and no off farm jobs. Kids who have one goal in mind and that is getting real foods, chemical free and grown as conscientiously as possible to real customers.


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

Patt said:


> Y'all boggle my mind sometimes you really do. Look at the nice graph that was provided a couple of pages back in this thread. It's not rocket science. In 1935 we had both the highest number of farms (approx 7 million) and they had the lowest average number of acres per farm (approx 150 acres per farm). Nobody starved nor was the American diet as grain based as it is today. Nor was there as much food related illness: diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. Funny how that all worked out to the average Americans good. People also paid a higher percentage of their income for their higher quality food and Farmers were also far more prosperous, they could actually make 100% of their living and feed themselves and their families from their own farms.
> 
> So silly me I would like to see us return to that win/win system. On top of all the benefits I just mentioned in 1935 they also were not trucking anywhere near the level of food all over the country nor were they using chemical or petroleum based fertilisers and pesticides/herbicides. Now I understand that most farmers have bought into the propaganda that the current system is the only way to feed a hungry world and trust me both the big ag industry that has made you a slave to them for your equipment and seeds and chemicals and loans and the food production system that has also left you making practically nothing for the food that they then sell for exorbitant profits are thrilled that you have bought the lie.
> 
> But some of us are waking up to reality here in America. Consumers who don't want to live the current American reality of retirements filled with chronic avoidable illnesses and children who are obese and will have shorter life spans than their parents. They don't want to live on fake foods anymore. Then you have small farms that are rising up to meet those needs. You have kids going into farming today and not only doing it without inheriting a family farm but doing it and making a real living at it and with no debt and no off farm jobs. Kids who have one goal in mind and that is getting real foods, chemical free and grown as conscientiously as possible to real customers.


looking back when there were thousands of acres farmed by thousands of family farmers and comparing those figures to today's acres vs family farmers; you are not getting the whole picture. 
back in the 1970's farm families didn't have to compete with off the farm jobs. My husband graduated in the 70's and most of his classmates are farming or have farm related jobs. I graduated in the late 80's, at my 25th class reunion - two out of my class were farming and I grew up in a farming community and graduated in a class of 300. Funny thing is, I am one of those two and I grew up in town.
my son, he just graduated from high school, has no intention to farm. He was very active in FFA and there were only three other families who had kids in FFA that actually live on a farm.
SO who is going to take care of the family farm?

the 80's were a hard time for farmers - a lot left the farm for jobs in towns and cities. 
the 90's were hard to be a farmer - high gas prices, impossible land prices and low crop prices.
these past few years have been lean pickings too... who in their right mind would take on a handful of acres, the large start up costs, endless work week and a small paycheck when there are more opportunities out there to apply your hard work and a good back to and get a better return for your effort.



> http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/lif...3d7d846-a7d4-57ee-95a0-d34b531a7ade.htmlWhile the number of farms in Northwest Iowa and the number of farmers have dropped the past two decades, there's been an increase in FFA involvement. In the past, Earll didn't have any girls in the program. He also might not have had many "town kids" involved. Now? Forty percent of his students reside in towns; another 20 percent on acreages. Just 20 percent come directly off the farm to his classroom.
> The numbers are similar for Witten, who predicts he'll have zero students go directly from high school into a farming operation. There may be a few who attend college before coming home to farm.
> "Ninety percent of our kids won't work on a traditional farm," Witten said.


the dream of the family farm is over. it doesn't exist and I really wonder if it ever did. today, family farming is a bunch of cousins, brothers, and neighbors working together under a corporation. consolidating resources, management, and experiences while spreading the risk over a larger area.
ask me how I know - I live and work on a family farm - my husband, his sister, their dad. that's how we are sustainable, that's how we are competitive, that is simply how we roll in the heartland these days


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

honestly speaking, I have no problem with truck, market, or small produce farmers but as a collective you folks have a problem with grain producers. From the way the livestock is raised to how the fields are managed, your battle cry is return to a time before technology and science. That's my problem. Live and let live... you do what's best for yours and I will mine. My job/my family's job is to produce commodities for wholesale to ADM, Cargil, Land O'Lakes etc... places that want truck loads of raw product to make their products from. We have a market for what we grow in the manner we grow it in. When their needs change, we will change our crops to accommodate the market. Us grain producers are the small folks in a large chain. You are a consumer - you make the choices of things as simple as canned peaches or fresh peaches. No one is forcing you to buy the processed peaches over fresh so don't blame the farmer for putting it on a shelf because some people actually prefer the can peaches over the fresh. Same with your produce vs large farms produce -- people need to be able to choose between your $5 produce and the mega-markets $1 produce.
stop being a food terrorist - large producers are NOT the enemy. There is room for everyone IF we live and let live.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Lilandra said:


> honestly speaking, I have no problem with truck, market, or small produce farmers but as a collective you folks have a problem with grain producers. From the way the livestock is raised to how the fields are managed, your battle cry is return to a time before technology and science. That's my problem. Live and let live... you do what's best for yours and I will mine. My job/my family's job is to produce commodities for wholesale to ADM, Cargil, Land O'Lakes etc... places that want truck loads of raw product to make their products from. We have a market for what we grow in the manner we grow it in. When their needs change, we will change our crops to accommodate the market. Us grain producers are the small folks in a large chain. You are a consumer - you make the choices of things as simple as canned peaches or fresh peaches. No one is forcing you to buy the processed peaches over fresh so don't blame the farmer for putting it on a shelf because some people actually prefer the can peaches over the fresh. Same with your produce vs large farms produce -- people need to be able to choose between your $5 produce and the mega-markets $1 produce.
> stop being a food terrorist - large producers are NOT the enemy. There is room for everyone IF we live and let live.


You really just can't see what you yourself are saying can you? It isn't about being food terrorists or anything of the sort. You just said farming is dying where you are, do you ever wonder why? Farming is growing here where I am. Why is that? I gave you the answer in my post above but I think you guys are going to have think through all that has been said here, seriously think about it and then once the light blinks on for you personally maybe you can finally understand where we are coming from.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Patt, you just don't get it. EVERYONE here supports your choices. Bless you, enjoy yourself, live long and prosper. 

Just try offering everyone else the same consideration.


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

Patt said:


> You really just can't see what you yourself are saying can you? It isn't about being food terrorists or anything of the sort. You just said farming is dying where you are, do you ever wonder why? Farming is growing here where I am. Why is that? I gave you the answer in my post above but I think you guys are going to have think through all that has been said here, seriously think about it and then once the light blinks on for you personally maybe you can finally understand where we are coming from.


first: I didn't say farming is dying - I am saying your idealistic view of the family farm is DEAD. Farmers who raise crops and livestock for the wholesale market are doing things different than they did in the story books. Hobby farms exist, market/truck/specialty farms exist BUT generally the family farm is different than you want us family farmers to be.

second: you and others like you are terrorizing us with your views that your way is the only way. I am saying there is room for both and the market will bare both. What I wish you and folks like you would understand is simply that not everyone has the time or money to do things your way and there are proven safe methods of large scale production that is supplying the world with affordable food choices.

the vast amount of skewed information is scaring people to make choices based on emotion even if it means its unaffordable. you probably got folks that choose packaged food vs fresh food because they don't know how to tell the difference in what folks like you call franken foods. how is that helping in the big picture?

round-up ready sugar beets, corn, cotton etc are proven safe for the environment and for the consumer. These crops collectively have been on the market for over 30 years. The increases in the diseases you mention could also be caused by the fact more people are working inside vs outside, could be people are less active in their free time, it could also be people stop immunizing their children... could be all of the above. You can't blame large scale farming or technology for what ails you all the time.

I think with your passions and knowledge, you should be lobbying for the regulation of the words "organic" and "farm fresh".... now that would make a difference.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

tinknal said:


> Patt, you just don't get it. EVERYONE here supports your choices. Bless you, enjoy yourself, live long and prosper.
> 
> Just try offering everyone else the same consideration.


The thing is where do you draw the line at that? Because my choices in no way shape or form affect you, the environment or other people in any serious way. A farmer in Iowa pouring tons of nitrogen on his 1,000 acres of corn on the other hand impacts a whole lot of people. He impacts the fishermen in Louisiana because he destroys the habitat for their fish with the kill zone created every year in the Gulf. He pours an over load of cheap corn into the market that sets off a whole string of bad events like cheap processed foods for people, animals crammed full of corn they were never meant to eat, HFCS in everything we eat today.

If your decisions impact the environment and other people then yes I will stand up and say something about it. Sorry but all free choices are not equal.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Lilandra said:


> first: I didn't say farming is dying - I am saying your idealistic view of the family farm is DEAD. Farmers who raise crops and livestock for the wholesale market are doing things different than they did in the story books. Hobby farms exist, market/truck/specialty farms exist BUT generally the family farm is different than you want us family farmers to be.
> 
> second: you and others like you are terrorizing us with your views that your way is the only way. I am saying there is room for both and the market will bare both. What I wish you and folks like you would understand is simply that not everyone has the time or money to do things your way and there are proven safe methods of large scale production that is supplying the world with affordable food choices.
> 
> ...


No my idealistic idea isn't dead, I know people both in my extended family and amongst my friends who are living that life. Get out of Iowa and see the rest of the country.  

Sure there is a range of factors for our illnesses and the now contracting life span of our children but in illness after chronic illness you will find one common theme: changing how you eat to organic and fresh, cutting out the processed and the grains helps. How many cases of diabetes alone are cured or gotten under control every year simply through diet? How much heart disease and high blood pressure? How many kids suffering from autism spectrum symptoms or ADHD see a reduction or even cure in those symptoms once their diet is changed?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Patt said:


> If your decisions impact the environment and other people then yes I will stand up and say something about it. Sorry but all free choices are not equal.


OK Patt, I'll play your game. Say enough people go to small scale farming that it affects the world wide food supply. Prices go up and some people are facing crisis because they either cannot afford food, or there is not enough food to go around. Should your land be confiscated and handed over to a large scale farmer who can produce more calories per acre?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Lilandra said:


> honestly speaking, I have no problem with truck, market, or small produce farmers but as a collective you folks have a problem with grain producers. From the way the livestock is raised to how the fields are managed, your battle cry is return to a time before technology and science. That's my problem. Live and let live... you do what's best for yours and I will mine. My job/my family's job is to produce commodities for wholesale to ADM, Cargil, Land O'Lakes etc... places that want truck loads of raw product to make their products from. We have a market for what we grow in the manner we grow it in. When their needs change, we will change our crops to accommodate the market. Us grain producers are the small folks in a large chain. You are a consumer - you make the choices of things as simple as canned peaches or fresh peaches. No one is forcing you to buy the processed peaches over fresh so don't blame the farmer for putting it on a shelf because some people actually prefer the can peaches over the fresh. Same with your produce vs large farms produce -- people need to be able to choose between your $5 produce and the mega-markets $1 produce.
> stop being a food terrorist - large producers are NOT the enemy. There is room for everyone IF we live and let live.


I reserve the right to dislike farming practices that make my water undrinkable. There are of course, many other factors than farming, but chemical warfare farming is indeed a factor. That essentially what it boils down to on my part; as SonShine said, doesn't God know what he was doing? I, for one, think he did.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

tinknal said:


> OK Patt, I'll play your game. Say enough people go to small scale farming that it affects the world wide food supply. Prices go up and some people are facing crisis because they either cannot afford food, or there is not enough food to go around. Should your land be confiscated and handed over to a large scale farmer who can produce more calories per acre?


This is not a game to me and I am sorry you think it is but the reality is that too much is at stake here for me not to take the whole issue very seriously.

We already have far too many calories per capita in America so your scenario is not going to happen anytime soon. Nor will anyone be confiscating land based on number of calories produced. If you would like to come up with a realistic scenario to discuss I will be happy to do so.  

Large scale farms produce cheap and harmful calories. I find it interesting that the argument so frequently used is either that everyone will starve tomorrow if we shut down large scale ag or organic is just too expensive to feed the masses. I never hear anyone on the big ag side show the least bit of concern that the poor only have the option of eating food that will make them chronically ill and will cause them an early death.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Patt said:


> The thing is where do you draw the line at that? Because my choices in no way shape or form affect you, the environment or other people in any serious way. A farmer in Iowa pouring tons of nitrogen on his 1,000 acres of corn on the other hand impacts a whole lot of people. He impacts the fishermen in Louisiana because he destroys the habitat for their fish with the kill zone created every year in the Gulf. He pours an over load of cheap corn into the market that sets off a whole string of bad events like cheap processed foods for people, animals crammed full of corn they were never meant to eat, HFCS in everything we eat today.
> 
> If your decisions impact the environment and other people then yes I will stand up and say something about it. Sorry but all free choices are not equal.




Patt, I like your enthusiasm. I wish the world was really the way it seems to be seen through your eyes. You believe what I wish were true, how I wish things were.

Imagining a big farmer carelessly throwing tons of nitrogen around and much of it leaching into our river systems gets me fired up, too.

But the facts don't support our imagined scenario. The environmental villain isn't the Mega Farmer. It isn't even Mr Greenjeans the Hobby farmer. It is the suburbs that are dumping the pollutants into our streams. Golf courses, etc. All those dark green lawns require high rated of N. Many storm drains along the concrete curbs go directly to our streams and rivers. Same is true of herbicides. No farmer could afford to apply the amount of chemicals that most golf courses use.

The farmers, big and small cannot afford to waste Nitrogen. It gets knifed well into the soil, where it can be absorbed by the crop and not go into the air or water. Many smaller farms don't have the equipment to get their manure into the soil the way the larger farms do. Simply running the manure spreader across your field allows for much loss in N, both by air (volatilization) and by water (runoff).


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Studies have, however, found that crops do much better on manure than chemical fertilizers - because it has all the Good stuff to feed the microbes, which is really what must be fed first. That's probably why raw milk works for fertilizer - the sugars feed the microbes.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Then Patt wrote, "I never hear anyone on the big ag side show the least bit of concern that the poor only have the option of eating food that will make them chronically ill and will cause them an early death."

Please let me try to explain this.
It is not true that the poor, or anyone else, must eat fod that makes them chronicly ill or that they are dying early because of the wide variety of food choices they have.

People may eat over processed foods and people may eat too much and people may not make healthy choices. But that isn't the failt of Big Ag. It is the result of a free society.

Big Ag produces a lot of different foods, but mostly corn and soybeans. Most of that is fed to farm animals. How is that, as you wrote, " cheap and harmful"? Should we control what and how much poor people eat?

Perhaps you need to stand at a cash register and see with your own eyes what kinds of food your tax dollars are providing poor folks. It isn't the big farmer's fault, not by a long shot.

They aren't buying cheap corn meal, cheap wheat flour or cheap GMO fed chicken thighs. They are buying potato chips, frozen pizza and soda. Please tell us how Big Ag is to blame and what can be done to stop it.

If there ever is a big demand for fresh healthy vegetables, expect Big Ag to figure out a way to meet that demand and do it cheaper than the local Farmers Market.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Studies have, however, found that crops do much better on manure than chemical fertilizers - because it has all the Good stuff to feed the microbes, which is really what must be fed first. That's probably why raw milk works for fertilizer - the sugars feed the microbes.


Isn't there enough conflict in this thread without you playing the raw milk card?
Yup, manure is better than chemicals, sort of. Problem is that it takes a lot of manure to get enough actual NPK to grow productive crops. Plus, in case you didn't notice, this country's most productive corn and bean ground is far from any sizeable manure supplies.
Ever try to insert ten tons of cattle manure per acre while you are planting 1000 acres of corn?

As a side note, there is as much sugar in pasturized milk. The cream is an oil and raw milk is classified as an environmental hazard.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Patt, I like your enthusiasm. I wish the world was really the way it seems to be seen through your eyes. You believe what I wish were true, how I wish things were.
> 
> Imagining a big farmer carelessly throwing tons of nitrogen around and much of it leaching into our river systems gets me fired up, too.
> 
> ...


You do bring up a good point and I agree with you Chemlawn and all the yard owners in America are not doing us much of a favor either and yes they do use more chemicals per square foot than any farm does. That is an area that definitely needs stricter regulation although I am not a fan of regulation overall. 

But every article I have reads lays the bulk of the blame at the door of agriculture not golf courses. And these aren't partisan articles either, the research is coming from agricultural colleges for the most part. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizer-runoff-overwhelms-streams


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Then Patt wrote, "I never hear anyone on the big ag side show the least bit of concern that the poor only have the option of eating food that will make them chronically ill and will cause them an early death."
> 
> Please let me try to explain this.
> It is not true that the poor, or anyone else, must eat fod that makes them chronicly ill or that they are dying early because of the wide variety of food choices they have.
> ...


Woo boy.....do you know what the majority of the food on the shelves of the average grocery store consists of? Corn, soy and wheat. All of it. 

As for why the poor buy the cookies instead of the bag of apples again it is number of calories per food dollar. You can keep your children from being hungry longer with a dollars worth of cookies then you can with a dollars worth of apples. Why are the cookies so cheap when the apples are so expensive? Because the ingredients in the cookies are subsidised and the apples are not. 

Freedom of choice in our food in America is an illusion pure and simple. So long as grains are subidised and fruits and vegetables are not there is no freedom of choice.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Isn't there enough conflict in this thread without you playing the raw milk card?
> Yup, manure is better than chemicals, sort of. Problem is that it takes a lot of manure to get enough actual NPK to grow productive crops. Plus, in case you didn't notice, this country's most productive corn and bean ground is far from any sizeable manure supplies.
> Ever try to insert ten tons of cattle manure per acre while you are planting 1000 acres of corn?
> 
> As a side note, there is as much sugar in pasturized milk. The cream is an oil and raw milk is classified as an environmental hazard.


You mean you actually believe the EPA classifying milk as an environmental hazard?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Patt said:


> Woo boy.....do you know what the majority of the food on the shelves of the average grocery store consists of? Corn, soy and wheat. All of it.
> 
> As for why the poor buy the cookies instead of the bag of apples again it is number of calories per food dollar. You can keep your children from being hungry longer with a dollars worth of cookies then you can with a dollars worth of apples. Why are the cookies so cheap when the apples are so expensive? Because the ingredients in the cookies are subsidised and the apples are not.
> 
> Freedom of choice in our food in America is an illusion pure and simple. So long as grains are subidised and fruits and vegetables are not there is no freedom of choice.


I know perfectly well-off people who choose to eat badly.


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Isn't there enough conflict in this thread without you playing the raw milk card?
> Yup, manure is better than chemicals, sort of. Problem is that it takes a lot of manure to get enough actual NPK to grow productive crops. Plus, in case you didn't notice, *this country's most productive corn and bean ground is far from any sizeable manure supplies*.
> Ever try to insert ten tons of cattle manure per acre while you are planting 1000 acres of corn?
> 
> As a side note, there is as much sugar in pasturized milk. The cream is an oil and raw milk is classified as an environmental hazard.


 Iowa not only ranks on top for grain production but also in livestock who by nature produce sizable manure supplies. This is a similar trend in Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and Nebraska and Kansas... 


> http://www.agclassroom.org/kids/stats/iowa.pdf
> Iowa ranks 1st in the U.S. in corn and soybean production.
> &#8226; Iowa farmers harvested 13.9 million acres of corn (2.37 billion bushels) in 2007. Iowa corn crop
> values $9.47 billion.
> ...


----------



## oneokie (Aug 14, 2009)

:bdh::bdh::bdh::bdh::bdh::bdh:


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

Patt said:


> Woo boy.....do you know what the majority of the food on the shelves of the average grocery store consists of? Corn, soy and wheat. All of it.
> 
> As for why the poor buy the cookies instead of the bag of apples again it is number of calories per food dollar. You can keep your children from being hungry longer with a dollars worth of cookies then you can with a dollars worth of apples. Why are the cookies so cheap when the apples are so expensive? Because the ingredients in the cookies are subsidised and the apples are not.
> 
> Freedom of choice in our food in America is an illusion pure and simple. *So long as grains are subidised and fruits and vegetables are not* there is no freedom of choice.



but according to you, all large scale farms are subsidized thus fruits and vegetables on the mega market shelf come from mega farms that are paid with your tax dollars to over produce thus the cheap prices. 
Oh wait, you're saying that fruits and vegetables are coming from small farms and are NOT subsidized so they are more expensive than most folks can afford and they have to do without...

you can't have it both ways

when you actually look at an educated consumer you'll see them buying fruits and vegetables that are in season because per serving they are a better value than junk food. the imported or out of season fruits and vegetables are more expensive than junk food so you are partially right.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

it isn't 1935 anymore.
people died a lot earlier then
there are more and far better testing methods today.
To compare the health of then and now and lay it on big ag is a crock.


But I suppose that's what you need to do to market your stuff.



> Because the ingredients in the cookies are subsidised and the apples are not.


LOL
We just had heritagefarm telling us how little the farmer actually makes from a box of cereal now you want us to believe the opposite?

You guys need to get your stories straight.
5 pounds of apples run about 3 bucks, a pound of cookies 3.50.
It isn't about cheap subsidized crops never was and won't be.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> You mean you actually believe the EPA classifying milk as an environmental hazard?


Does it matter what you and I really believe? I do know that whey is a problem to dispose of and some folks believe that wehy is in Ice cream just to cut down on the amount they have to properly dispose of. Bur WE digress......


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Lilandra said:


> but according to you, all large scale farms are subsidized thus fruits and vegetables on the mega market shelf come from mega farms that are paid with your tax dollars to over produce thus the cheap prices.
> Oh wait, you're saying that fruits and vegetables are coming from small farms and are NOT subsidized so they are more expensive than most folks can afford and they have to do without...
> 
> you can't have it both ways
> ...


Hunh? That doesn't make any sense.....I have never, ever said that fruits and vegetables are subsidised. The farms that raise them do get some government money if there are crop failures or things of that nature but the bulk of the subsidy money that goes to food goes to grains and dairy. Nor have I ever said that all big farms are subsidised. 

In the end yes the fruits and vegetables are the better choice but as you said the person doing the buying needs to be informed and not everyone is nor does everyone have the knowledge needed to process, preserve and make the most out of those raw foods. Which brings us back around to the best calorie bang for our buck which is always subsidised high fat highly processed grains.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sammyd said:


> it isn't 1935 anymore.
> people died a lot earlier then
> there are more and far better testing methods today.
> To compare the health of then and now and lay it on big ag is a crock.
> ...


We're talking about calories.
http://www.peertrainer.com/DFcaloriecounterB.aspx?id=1987&v=3
http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-cookies-sugar-commercially-prepared-regular-i18204


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Does it matter what you and I really believe? I do know that whey is a problem to dispose of and some folks believe that wehy is in Ice cream just to cut down on the amount they have to properly dispose of. Bur WE digress......


Whey is also excellent fertilizer.:dance::dance:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Cookies are cheaper than apples and they are cheaper because wheat is subsidized? Now just you wait a minute, that is so far off the mark, I don't know where to start.

I think you and I agree that there is about a dimes worth of wheat in a box of cookies and about 8 cents worth of corn in a box of Capt. Crunch. Let us exaggerate the farm subsidies to 25% of every farmers income. So, without the government "support" that box of cookies now contains about 13 cents worth of wheat. Big Whoop. That 3 or 4 dollar box of cereal costs General Mills an extra couple pennies to produce.

From these facts, can you really believe there is some underhandedness at work here to trick people into buying junk food? Hardly.

The price of apples is do to a mystical process called "supply and demand" Google it, you'll find it intriguing. Next week we can discuss Capitalism and its place in a free society.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Whey is also excellent fertilizer.:dance::dance:


Did ya miss the part where I said "properly dispose of"? Last I knew it was illegal to dump on fields.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> it isn't 1935 anymore.
> people died a lot earlier then
> there are more and far better testing methods today.
> To compare the health of then and now and lay it on big ag is a crock.
> ...


Don't know where you are shopping but I can buy a lb of store brand cookies for $1.00 and a pound of apples starts at $1.29 here. I just caught 3 pounds of Galas on sale for $4. If you are poor you probably ain't buying the Double stuf Oreos.....

The farmer raising grain according to you guys would take a net loss unless he received a government subsidy. Show me where I said the farmer is making any money off the stuff? I have repeatedly said he is not. It is simple economics: it costs the farmer say $20 to raise a bushel of wheat but he sells it for $15 because that is all the market will pay. The government gives him say another $8 so he can cover his costs and make a little profit. That means the wheat that goes into food production is artificially cheap. The apple grower on the other hand has to sell his apples for what they cost plus a little profit or he goes out of business. Hence the market is now weighted towards the wheat and not the apples. Making the cookies artificially cheaper.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

haypoint said:


> The price of apples is do to a mystical process called "supply and demand" Google it, you'll find it intriguing. Next week we can discuss Capitalism and its place in a free society.


Bingo! The price of apples comes strictly from supply and demand. The price of wheat or corn or soy does not.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Lilandra said:


> but according to you, all large scale farms are subsidized thus fruits and vegetables on the mega market shelf come from mega farms that are paid with your tax dollars to over produce thus the cheap prices.
> Oh wait, you're saying that fruits and vegetables are coming from small farms and are NOT subsidized so they are more expensive than most folks can afford and they have to do without...
> 
> you can't have it both ways
> ...


there are no subsidies for fruit crops whether raised in mega orchards or not


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Patt said:


> Bingo! The price of apples comes strictly from supply and demand. The price of wheat or corn or soy does not.


funny, they are traded as commodities thus the price is set by ......supply and demand


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Did ya miss the part where I said "properly dispose of"? Last I knew it was illegal to dump on fields.


Just out of curiousity why is whey illegal to dump on fields?


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> funny, they are traded as commodities thus the price is set by ......supply and demand


Y'all are going to have to get your stories straight at some point. Why do you need a corn subsidy if you are currently able to sell it for a profit?


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> We're talking about calories.
> http://www.peertrainer.com/DFcaloriecounterB.aspx?id=1987&v=3
> http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-cookies-sugar-commercially-prepared-regular-i18204


Patt is blaming cheap grain for health problems and stating that folks will buy cookies before apples because they are cheaper because the grains are subsidized



whey can be spread on fields and is all the time around here. A plan must be filed with the DNR


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Patt said:


> Y'all are going to have to get your stories straight at some point. Why do you need a corn subsidy if you are currently able to sell it for a profit?


most farmers would like to get rid of subsidies, they raise land rent for the crop guys.

How many farms get subsidies?
What is the average amount?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why do you need a corn subsidy if you are currently able to sell it for a profit?





> It is simple economics: it costs the farmer say $20 to raise a bushel of wheat but he sells it for $15 because that is all the market will pay. The government gives him say another $8 so he can cover his costs and make a little profit


LOL Wheat rarely sells for more than $4 a bushel.
The support price in 2002 was $3.86



> The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002&#8211;03 and 3.92 from 2004&#8211;2007.[16] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference


If you're going to talk about it, you shouldn't fabricate your figures


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Patt said:


> Don't know where you are shopping but I can buy a lb of store brand cookies for $1.00 and a pound of apples starts at $1.29 here. I just caught 3 pounds of Galas on sale for $4. If you are poor you probably ain't buying the Double stuf Oreos.....
> 
> The farmer raising grain according to you guys would take a net loss unless he received a government subsidy. Show me where I said the farmer is making any money off the stuff? I have repeatedly said he is not. It is simple economics: it costs the farmer say $20 to raise a bushel of wheat but he sells it for $15 because that is all the market will pay. The government gives him say another $8 so he can cover his costs and make a little profit. That means the wheat that goes into food production is artificially cheap. The apple grower on the other hand has to sell his apples for what they cost plus a little profit or he goes out of business. Hence the market is now weighted towards the wheat and not the apples. Making the cookies artificially cheaper.


we'd have to quote higher prices since that's where they will head when the mega farms disappear and the small boutique organic places take over.

You really have no idea how subsidies work do you? You just hate them.
Nobody here has ever said they wouldn't make money without a subsidy...
there was a chart earlier showing average costs and returns


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

sammyd said:


> there are no subsidies for fruit crops whether raised in mega orchards or not


:umno: sorta... apples, vegetables and other fruits don't receive the same price supports as grains, but they have their own programs

http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=53025&progcode=apple&regionname=GrantCounty,Washington


> Apple Subsidies in Grant County, Washington, 1995-2009 *Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 326*
> 
> Recipients of *Apple Subsidies* from farms in Grant County, Washington totaled *$20,741,000* in from 1995-2009.


bottom line is farms get aid, smaller farms get aid whether they want to admit it or not... they get tax credits, incentives and rebates to encourage small businesses and home based businesses. It is all government dollars - the only difference is in the paper work used to get it.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

People are argueing two different things here. The small farm people seem to be talking about diverse produce and meats sold directly to the consumer. They will absolutely make more money/acre if the have quality produce and enough demand, than the guy growing wheat in Kansas/acre. Trouble is that guy in small town western Kansas can grow all the produce he wants, but has no customers. What some are hopeing for is there demise. There are only so many tomatoes and peas that can be eaten. If everyone started growing their own, where will you sell yours? To the distributors? Good luck with competeing with california commercial growers. Who is growing to grow the wheat? 
One of the big draw backs of growing multiple crops is equipment cost and the acres needed to make those purchases econmical.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

Patt, Some of your agruments are indeed of value, but your condescending attutude to those who do not see your vision SUCKS. The poor dumb, stupid misguided farmer.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bruce2288 said:


> Patt, Some of your agruments are indeed of value, but your condescending attutude to those who do not see your vision SUCKS. The poor dumb, stupid misguided farmer.


I also don't appreciate the attitude directed towards us: poor, dumb stupid misguided farmers.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL Wheat rarely sells for more than $4 a bushel.
> The support price in 2002 was $3.86
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't interested in the actual price of wheat just the mechanism behind the subsidy but thanks for the info.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

sammyd said:


> most farmers would like to get rid of subsidies, they raise land rent for the crop guys.
> 
> How many farms get subsidies?
> What is the average amount?


So who paid all the lobbyists to make sure there were no changes to this last farm bill? :hrm: I am against subsidies too so if the vast majority of us are against them why do we still have them?


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

bruce2288 said:


> Patt, Some of your agruments are indeed of value, but your condescending attutude to those who do not see your vision SUCKS. The poor dumb, stupid misguided farmer.


Sorry I am not trying to be condescending.  I do employ the occasional bit of sarcasm though. We have been going round on this issue for a few months now so they think I live in some sort of la la land with visions of fairytale farms dancing in my head and I think they have been so inundated by those who want to keep them in bondage with propaganda that they aren't seeing clearly. I am sure both of us are somewhat right and somewhat wrong. 

I think we all occasionally learn something which is good.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Lilandra said:


> :umno: sorta... apples, vegetables and other fruits don't receive the same price supports as grains, but they have their own programs
> 
> http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=53025&progcode=apple&regionname=GrantCounty,Washington
> bottom line is farms get aid, smaller farms get aid whether they want to admit it or not... they get tax credits, incentives and rebates to encourage small businesses and home based businesses. It is all government dollars - the only difference is in the paper work used to get it.


Interesting, according to the EWG website apples only received subsidies for 4 years 2000-2004, but it doesn't say what sort of subsidy. Was there some sort of crop loss there in Washington? 

I agree with you that we all get breaks of one sort or another. I don't have any taxes on what I sell at the Farmer's Market here in AR. But I don't get any sort of a check to actual cover my losses on what I grow every year. Personally I don't think food should be taxed since it is a necessity. But I don't like subsidies of any sort.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Patt said:


> This is not a game to me and I am sorry you think it is but the reality is that too much is at stake here for me not to take the whole issue very seriously.
> 
> We already have far too many calories per capita in America so your scenario is not going to happen anytime soon. Nor will anyone be confiscating land based on number of calories produced. If you would like to come up with a realistic scenario to discuss I will be happy to do so.
> 
> Large scale farms produce cheap and harmful calories. I find it interesting that the argument so frequently used is either that everyone will starve tomorrow if we shut down large scale ag or organic is just too expensive to feed the masses. I never hear anyone on the big ag side show the least bit of concern that the poor only have the option of eating food that will make them chronically ill and will cause them an early death.


The most telling part of your response is that you totally ignored my question.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> I also don't appreciate the attitude directed towards us: poor, dumb stupid misguided farmers.


Good. Then maybe you should mention it to Patt at your next meeting. The rest of us are getting mighty sick of you two.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Time to lock this mule in the barn. It has been a couple pages since the original topic has been mentioned. Also, most threads have one comment to ten viewers. This one is way high on comments and isn't getting much interest by the viewers. That's right folks, nothing to see here, now go on home, supper's on the table........


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

tinknal said:


> The most telling part of your response is that you totally ignored my question.


Unnecessarily rude.



tinknal said:


> Good. Then maybe you should mention it to Patt at your next meeting. The rest of us are getting mighty sick of you two.


Unnecessarily rude.


Enough backstabbing. Posts such as these ones are going to scare viewers off.




haypoint said:


> Time to lock this mule in the barn. It has been a couple pages since the original topic has been mentioned. Also, most threads have one comment to ten viewers. This one is way high on comments and isn't getting much interest by the viewers. That's right folks, nothing to see here, now go on home, supper's on the table........


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

tinknal said:


> The most telling part of your response is that you totally ignored my question.


Might want to brush up on those reading skills:



> We already have far too many calories per capita in America so your scenario is not going to happen anytime soon. Nor will anyone be confiscating land based on number of calories produced. If you would like to come up with a realistic scenario to discuss I will be happy to do so.


I most assuredly did address your question and said since it was an absurd scenario that will never happen how's about we stay in reality.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

tinknal said:


> Good. Then maybe you should mention it to Patt at your next meeting. The rest of us are getting mighty sick of you two.


Have you considered just not coming into threads that we are posting in? Hate to make you sick.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Patt said:


> Have you considered just not coming into threads that we are posting in? Hate to make you sick.


Here is the problem Patt, you seem to think that you own the threads that you participate in. That isn't the way it works in the real world. Now that folks FINALLY got the message that these threads are not welcome in the Homesteading Questions forum people can no longer pitch a hissy fit, get their threads closed down, and then whine to the mods and start threads blaming others.


----------

