It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iowa Doesn't Only Control Politics, It Controls How We Eat

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: [post=24496016]Boadicea[/post

Farmers in this area like to pretend they grow food, but that is highly debatable. I think the closest they come anymore is growing feed for livestock that is considered actual food. Corn and Soybeans...sure, pull the other lever.


Ditto. Including every other state.

75%+ of food humans eat comes from California alone, The Delmarva peninsula is second or third. Mexico is included. The rest of the country grows nothing but cash crops, unsuitable for human consumption.


edit on 19-7-2019 by 38181 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That reminds me of something that happened a couple of years ago...

My cousin, as it turns out, has a little land that isn't very good for crops, but which makes pretty good pasture. So he raises a few cattle almost as a sideline. i was over at his house and he asked me if I wanted some meat. Of course! Then he tells me to make sure... because this isn't normal beef.

He doesn't go through all that to finish his beef. I'm not sure what he does, but that was some of the best beef I have ever tasted! but it's not available for sale... he will not sell his beef commercially because it doesn't have the right look and buyers won't pay much for it.

People would rather have purty stuff than good stuff. That's where the problem truly lies.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Soylent beef is people.

2nd.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Acknowledged loud and clear. It is a very interesting situation. There are countless families tied into the farming lifestyle and community. Very down to earth people that are trying to sustain themselves. I probably am not very accurate in my criticisms. It just seems there is a lot of poor me stories out there that go beyond simple market forces of supply and demand. I have run across many small time farmers with livestock and pasture land that are working with older equipment, no subsidies and seem to be doing just fine. They go through the additional burden for state regulation of obtaining a grass fed organic beef certification. It is the larger independent farmers that mainly deals with grains that are struggling, the ones that are arguably dealing with a pure commodity versus dealing with food.

These independent farmers dealing with mainly corn, soybeans and maybe to some extent wheat, appear to be hurting the most. It seems like they are pretending to grow food and expect the full recognition of that status, but they are really dealing with a finalization of that sector. They are forced to have more acres and newer equipment to keep their yields up and it turns into one massive losing cycle. Then once they are past the means of sustainability, a large conglomerate comes in and scoops up the land. Then we get those wonderful massive animal concentration camps, instead of the small farmer carefully tending their livestock.

Oh well, I guess at the rate we are going, those farmers growing real food will be the last ones standing, surrounded by massive corporate farms growing poison. We sure aren't going to think of new practices or even question if 50% of the corn being grown for inferior fuel is very intelligent. Could the mainly grain farmer today even survive without the government subsidies? How soon until the average farmer isn't even able to work on their own equipment anymore due to it being so technologically advanced?
edit on 19-7-2019 by ClovenSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Why not?

That's about all he did.

If he wants to discuss problems, then you talk problems, and you talk about it with people as though they are rational, capable adults. You don't come in as if you know better than they do and tell them what the problems are as if they are too stupid to understand everything and then leave shaking your head because they don't seem to care in your opinion.

And it's one thing to say -- I think this, this and this are the problem, but his attitude heavily implies it's only a problem because these farmers let it be one. And he offers no alternatives.

For example, how are the farmers supposed to fix the food market where corn syrup spiked food is so dominant on most people's pallets? A farmer could grow healthy food all he wants, but without a market for his product, he's doomed.

Government mandates that gasoline blends contain a certain percentage of ethanol. Someone has to grow the biomass for that. That mandate isn't the fault of farmers themselves.

And why seed the whole article with snide references to Republicans in Congress and white supremacy. Are those the reasons for corn syrup and ethanol mandates?



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky


There are countless families tied into the farming lifestyle and community. Very down to earth people that are trying to sustain themselves.

Yes, there are.


I probably am not very accurate in my criticisms. It just seems there is a lot of poor me stories out there that go beyond simple market forces of supply and demand.

No, you're not accurate. There are many aspects to farming today that you don't understand.

For instance, the subsidies. Our government (I believe through the FDA) pays farmers subsidies to try and equalize food production. Just imagine if one year, farmers grew only wheat. The price of corn would skyrocket and there would be shortages and rationing! now consider that planting the same crop year after year on the same soil will wear out that soil so it isn't suitable for growing that crop for many years after that. That's why we have subsidies, to prevent food shortages and price spikes.

And remember, market forces work slow in farming. If we run out of lettuce, you can't just work overtime and have more lettuce in a week. It takes a few months to get lettuce, and lettuce is a fast-growing crop. For corn, it would be several months.

This doesn't work perfectly (like anything the government does ever works perfectly), but it's better than nothing.

Insurance... yeah, farmers insure their crops. Their crops are all they have! if a crop is destroyed by a sudden drought or deluge, they just lost everything. It's not a problem when someone gets wiped out by a tornado and wants their insurance money quickly because they just lost everything, but with a farmer it is?

Monsanto... here's the biggie! Monsanto crops produce much higher yields than regular crops, which means the crop is worth more. But in order to have access to Monsanto crops, one must sign an agreement with Monsanto. That agreement is quite restrictive and geared toward factory farms. There are cases of Monsanto suing farmers because they tried to save seeds for the next year, something that once was a time-honored tradition. A few years back, we had a thread on here about a small independent farmer who wasn't a signatory with Monsanto being sued because pollen from a field of their crop planted by a signatory blew into his small field! They have the farmers by the short hairs. The next time you drive by a field, look... you'll likely see a small sign at the edge of the field. That identifies the Monsanto crop by number.

Those who do not sign that agreement do not last long... they can't produce enough to compete with those who do. The best they can do is to eek out a subsistence living from farmers markets... which, according to another link in this thread, makes them fascists.

If someone has a solution, I don't mind hearing it. But when that someone prefaces their solution with degradation of those the solution is supposed to help, don't be shocked when I get very, very, very skeptical of their motives and or sensibility to the problem.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'd say a first step might be to start treating special strains of seed crop like we do pharmaceuticals. I can see an argument for the producers reaping some kind of reward for the development much like pharmas do with their name-brand drugs, but given that seed crops are like drugs in the sense that everyone needs them to some degree, perhaps those exclusive patent rights ought to expire after a time and allow competition in the form of generic versions of the seeds in question.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Some sort of regulation as to what can be in those contracts is needed. That's a good start.

I'd also like to see a ban on prohibitions against cross pollination and harvesting for seed.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Make the strains generic and it opens them up to cross breeding to some degree. Those exclusive genes are no longer as exclusive.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I guess I will say one other thing about this piece ... at least one condescending so-called elite on the coast seems to have had the uncomfortable realization that his food is solely dependent on people he hates and can't stand but absolutely needs because he wouldn't dare dirty his own hands.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Kind of an interesting article:

American Farmers Are in Crisis


Dairy and Grain at the Epicenter The first half of this decade was a “golden period” for farmers growing commodity crops like corn and soybeans. Yields were up, prices reached record highs, and many farmers made long-overdue repairs or bought new equipment. For some, this meant accruing debt that weighs heavily now that crop prices have plummeted. And plummet they have: Soybean prices have fallen 19 percent since early May, to a 10-year low, and corn is now down more than 15 percent.



Both grain and dairy farmers rely heavily on loans to operate, borrowing early in the season for seed and other inputs and paying it down when they sell their harvest. The unpredictability of yields and prices can make the whole endeavor feel like a gamble, especially for farmers carrying additional debt. An emergency expense or several years of low prices can be catastrophic.



Farming is inherently a risky business, but it hasn’t always been this precarious. For more than 60 years, federal farm policy controlled commodity production and stabilized prices for both farmers and consumers in a system known as supply management. The arrangement ensured a floor price for farmers—essentially a safety net—and kept them from overproduction that would cause their prices to drop. But moves toward a more free-market approach, exemplified by former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz’ call for planting “fencerow to fencerow,” encouraged farmers to produce as much as possible, relying on direct payments and other government subsidies to make up for the low prices that followed.



“Agriculture is sort of like the rest of the U.S. economy in terms of income and asset inequality—except more so,” he explains. With the focus on production and no safety net, smaller farms have sold out and relatively few big farms have expanded. In 2015, about 65,300 farms making over $1 million in gross income accounted for 51 percent of the value of all U.S. agricultural production. At the other end, the nearly 1 million farms making under $10,000 accounted for just 1 percent of production. As farms have consolidated and turned to technology to replace human labor, jobs have dried up, rural communities have shrunk, and isolation has grown.



Seventy percent of farmers make less than a quarter of their income from farming and only 46 percent have positive net income from their operations.


I have spent most of the afternoon searching for articles that offer solutions and finally gave up after 4 hours of looking. No one is being positive about a turnaround.

Is a completely new paradigm in farming inevitable at this point? Will the independent non-corporation farmer of today share the same fate as the buggy whip makers of the past? What would happen if subsidies were removed? Are subsidies basically welfare?

Does anyone have a more positive outlook on this situation?



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

I think a lot of this got started back during the Depression and was just never unwound. Paying farmers to produce or not to produce to try to help the economy was started then. Telling farmers what they could and could not produce under the commerce clause was also something that started back then.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join