Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

While Michigan pantries are bare, farmers forced to dump bumper crops

page: 1
54
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+19 more 
posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Anyone with half a brain already knows that the USDA's Farm Subsidies program is beyond borked. To protect Farmers when there is a bumper or surplus crop from the market collapsing on that foodstuff, they are paid to destroy their crops to protect the price/value of that commodity.

Michigan farmers aren't taking this practice too well when all of their neighbors have empty pantries.

Cherry Farmer Dumps His Frustration



Ligon, and many other tart cherry growers in northwest Michigan who produced a bumper crop this summer, will leave millions of pounds of cherries on the ground to rot. A federal marketing order will divert 42 percent the estimated 300 million-plus pound tart cherry harvest from going to the primary domestic market this year.


Farmers in New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin are also being affected by this USDA Subsidy of tart cherry crops.

Sure, this is good for the farmers. It protects them. But why must they DESTROY their crop when there are needy families, not just overseas, but here in the U.S. of A.! Why not allow these farmers to donate their subsidized crops to local community pantries or other non-profit charitable organizations that feed the hungry?

It's no wonder the farmers are mad!

Oat, Barley and Corn farmers have been having to do this for decades. So have Wheat farmers. The USDA orchestrates "controlled" shortages to increase demand and value, hurting consumers and starving many. There is another thread here on ATS www.abovetopsecret.com... about the US being entirely out of Wheat because of USDA Farm Subsidies.

This practice has to stop...especially in an Economic Depression!




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Nice find bro. Definite flag from me in your future.


 

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
This may be a stupid question, but......

Why not give the food to food banks.

Don't sell it, mind you, just give it.

In this way it has no effect on market prices.

We can maintain the economy and feed the hungry and take care of our farmers.

Sure seems like win/win/win.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Thats because...

www.cnbc.com...


Federal Reserve says Midwest farm economy strong
(AP) - The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City says the farm economy remained solid and farmland values held steady during the second quarter in some Midwest and Western states.

The Fed's survey of banks in its 10th District says the outlook for farm income improved during the quarter as crop prices increased in the spring.



THEY NEED MONEY!!!!

[edit on 14-8-2009 by TrainDispatcher]

mod edit, to fix quote tags and add link to quote
 

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.





[edit on 14-8-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
This is assinine, if farmers want to destroy crops to protect a perceived price point allow them to do so individually, rewarding them by paying them off to destroy their crops so that food is in shorter supply, particularly when food costs are continually rising and increasing food shortages globally, aggh. Just more evidence of the insanity of centralized government.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Are you guys talking about giving surplus food to starving people. You are a bunch of socialists. Honestly. Next you'll be wanting health care.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by really
Are you guys talking about giving surplus food to starving people. You are a bunch of socialists. Honestly. Next you'll be wanting health care.



..... Do you have surplus cash you can give me????



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by really
 


It may be similar to socialism, but to give the food to charity is also quite logical in this situation.

Hard-line capitalists like to spout off how the "free market" keeps itself in check, yet they have to pull stunts like this in order for it to work.

Anyone in their right mind can see how this "socialism" would actually boost the economy because more Americans would be able to spend on more diverse products, as their most basic necessity(food) is less of a burden. They could then spend that money on services and goods produced by American workers...

That's why the American people should be outraged over this manufactured recession. This is still a land of opportunity and bounty. The people just need to not be prevented from being able to utilize it effectively by the marketplace gangsters.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nasdack24k
reply to post by really
 


It may be similar to socialism, but to give the food to charity is also quite logical in this situation.

Hard-line capitalists like to spout off how the "free market" keeps itself in check, yet they have to pull stunts like this in order for it to work.

Anyone in their right mind can see how this "socialism" would actually boost the economy because more Americans would be able to spend on more diverse products, as their most basic necessity(food) is less of a burden. They could then spend that money on services and goods produced by American workers...

That's why the American people should be outraged over this manufactured recession. This is still a land of opportunity and bounty. The people just need to not be prevented from being able to utilize it effectively by the marketplace gangsters.



another thing that fits in with the capitalist ideas: Donations can be written off, 7% i think. IF they are worried about the Aholes who would sue the farm because they got sick off free food, the food banks could get insurance policies on it?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
If somebody could figure out how to keep food prices steady by NOT doing this practice and the CRP (crop rotation plan - which pays farmers to NOT grow) I'm all for it.

The CRP is essential. Anyone who knows anything about agriculture knows you can't harvest crops year after year. Eventually, their soil loses nutrients and produces sparser and sparser yeilds until it falls off to virtually nothing at all. You have to let them go feral again for several years to regenerate.

But before the CRP, many farmers couldn't afford to do this and the crisis hit a peak in the 1930s with the dust bowl and lots of poor people who couldn't afford food (they had to rely on largely handouts and soup kitchens). So the solution became the CRP: pay the farmers to not grow designated fields for several years on a rotating basis. It has actually been very successful, and compared to the 1930s, we have very low food prices.

So the CRP actually keeps the fields viable and a reliable food source. What often frustrates people about it is that many of the farm feilds today are owned by corporations (including some VERY BIG corporations). The problem is, the basic principles of basic agricultural economics don't change just because a corporations owns the field. Yes, it's definitely corporate wellfare, but we'd be in worse shape without it.

And I'm definitely not a right winger. I consider myself center-left and have many issues with large corporations. But this isn't one of them.

Now I know the OP wasn't about the CRP, but rather paying farmers to dump crops. But like the CRP, it keeps the price reasonably stable when there is a bumper crop. Without it, prices on that particular commodity could crash, financially ruining the farmers. Prices will still go down, but not by nearly as much.

I wish there was something else we could do with the harvest as well besides just dumping it. And I think there is. Food shelters have been suggested and even shipping some overseas, especially to African countries, which are still hungering from famine and food shortages.

The problem is that someone needs to organize the whole operation and distribution, and that costs money (especially distribution). Years ago, people would have had no problem with public funding for such an operation.

But we're not the same nation any more.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by nasdack24k
reply to post by really
 


It may be similar to socialism, but to give the food to charity is also quite logical in this situation.



Socialism is not giving. Socialism is taking and redistributing according to arbitrary guidelines.

These farmers want to GIVE of their own accord to help others.

It is not the same thing as being a socialist.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
How about a "you pick it, you take it home" program for those who are in need of food.

With unemployment as high as it is, people could just come out with any kind of containers to pick the fruits and veggies. Whole families could spend a day and have enough for a month.

Far better than just plowing perfectly good food into the ground.

In this time of need for so many people, we need to get back to our waste not, want not roots.

Farmers should get a fair price for their crops but to simply waste the food when there is so much real need in every community is just wrong.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
back in high school i used to work in a all you can eat buffet/restaurant and it made me sick the amount of food that was wasted there on a daily basis. there is so much waste in this country its absurd.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
They could turn this stuff into juice, and put it in those cartons that are not to be sold, but given to those in need.
I love that tart Cherry juice, but it cost to much now.

Supid Government let ants and bugs have it.

Yea, I'm eating Cherries right now in Michigan there cheap, I like the dried Cherries also.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by googolplex]


MBF

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
One year, I left my entire squash crop in the field. The year before, it was sold for $1.76/box. The box cost me $.75, labor to harvest was $2.89/box, cooling cost $.50/box and commissions was $.18. See where this went in a hurry? This doesn't include seed, fertilizer, chemicals, irrigation, machinery, land, repairs or even my labor. The bad thing is, it was over a month between the time I carried the squash to the buyer and the time I got my check. The next year, I went in about a week before I needed to gather and asked what the price was. They told me that they were cheap. I just went home and turned the cows on the field. About a week later they called me and wanted to know when I was going to start gathering. I told them that I was already and they got quiet on the other end of the phone. Then they said that they didn't see where I had brought any in yet. I told them that my cows were gathering them right then. They were upset. I told them that I was tired of having to pay for the privileged of growing squash for a loss and I would not grow any more until I could make money.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 





Why not give the food to food banks. Don't sell it, mind you, just give it.


First the Supreme Court Ruling


Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.

Question:
Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?

Conclusion:
According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" Source


Let me see if I can explain what has happened through chronologically arranged quotes.

But first these two quotes give the attitude of the grain traders:



“In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends..very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008 Source





“Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush Source


1986



Global commodity prices slumped in the mid eighties, triggering a five fold increase in farm subsidies in the USA and the EU subsidy to double. Pressure from commodity exporters inspired a decision to pursue Agricultural Policy reform at Uruguay round of GATT. It was lead by Under Secretary of Agriculture Dan Amstutz. [VP of Cargill] Source


1987



The IPC (International Policy Council on Agriculture, Food and Trade) was created in 1987 explicitly to drive home the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at Uruguay talks. Source


1995
World Trade Organization (WTO) formed. Former Cargill Vice-President, Dan Amstutz, drafts the original text of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.

1996



"Freedom to Farm" legislation of 1996. Cargill played a significant role in pressurising the US government to move away from its farmer support programmes and eventually adopt the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act [note this is the act that did away with stockpiling grain and other comodities] Source


2000



Senate - March 28, 2000 "Freedom to Farm" becomes “freedom to fail” The bill has made sweeping changes in agriculture--it has produced one of the worst economic crises that rural American has ever experienced. tens of thousands of farm families are in jeopardy of losing their livelihoods and life savings. Source


2002



July 26, 2002: Report Finds Fundamental Flaws in WTO's Agreement on Agriculture: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy report argues that the Agreement on Agriculture fails to account for agri-business' monopoly over global agricultural trade. Source





2002 Effect of policies on farmers in USA and Mexico: Between 1995 and 2000, the prices US farmers receive for corn declined 33 percent, 42 percent for wheat, and 34 percent for soybeans. No wonder that since NAFTA went into effect 33,000 small farmers in the US have gone out of business— more than six times the pre-NAFTA rate. In Mexico, the price farmers receive for corn has plummeted 45 percent At least 1.5 million farmers have left their land. 900,000 people leave Mexico's land every year, a U.N. program says. According to a study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico, between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% - from 2.3 million to 575, 000


The final nail in the coffin is the "food safety bills" that will wrap farmers in red tape and make them prey for large fines ($1,000,000) designed to bankrupt them so Agribusiness can take the land.

It has been my feeling for the last couple of years, that the Agribusnesses are setting us up for famine. Unlike a couple of decades ago the USDA no longer keeps stockpiles of food in case of a bad harvest. The grain traders have convienced politicians to put aside money instead of physical food. If there is a food shortage the grain traders will be in the position to reap a windfall in high prices and there will be no physical food supplies to prevent famine. You can't eat gold.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
"Crop rotation" and market price "stabilization" aside... can no one else see just how absurd and decadent throwing away good food is?

If you follow the link to the article, there is a picture of the farmer and his crop dumped on the side of the road... He put a sign up reading "Traverse City, cherry capital of the world." Could he not have contacted a charity service, that could collect his surplus? Could he not have at least put a tarp underneath the roadside cherries so they would stay clean and edible?

There is something seriously wrong with us.

People are dying, everyday, because, in part, they don't have enough food. I am beyond frustration. This group of fractured people we call the human race is about to face its judgement.

If 2012 is some kind of cataclysm, do we really deserve to survive?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
As a raw foodist im definately mad, im mad as hell.



I trully hope people start learning self sustainablity before its too late.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I've heard a lot of talk about the idea that we can't support our country on the land we have. We are actually wasting a large portion of what we grow and using tax dollars to prevent more from being used. It simply protects certain industries profits and screws the rest of us.

It's not about learning sustainability. It's about being allowed to practice it.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints
I've heard a lot of talk about the idea that we can't support our country on the land we have. We are actually wasting a large portion of what we grow and using tax dollars to prevent more from being used. It simply protects certain industries profits and screws the rest of us.

It's not about learning sustainability. It's about being allowed to practice it.


Amen!
There's plenty of land -
There are plenty of people who could survive very well on very little.





new topics

top topics



 
54
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join