God Made A Farmer commercial = EPIC!

[Tre4ISU]

Everybody realizes this commericial was trying to sell you a pickup truck right? You're being manipulated. I love farmers and farming but it's just like that Jeep USO commericial with queen Oprah...pull on the heart strings = sell product. I don't care to be manipulated like that. I also don't now a single farmer that thinks they should be worshiped for doing their job. Most farmers I know over 40 are already millionaires.

Are they? I doubt it. That's not to mention how fast that money can go.

[cowgirl836]

Early 2000s even. People don't realize what the hard times are like. There is no guaranteed paycheck. Yes, right now the insurance set up has mitigated the vast majority of risk. The issue is that can change very quick. I would urge you to do a breakeven on raising a crop with today's inputs. A bad month in the markets, which would, in turn, influence future insurance guarantees, could still place a pretty heavy burden on 2013. I don't think people get how quickly it can turn. Factor in you have rental rates and other inputs that aren't likely to fall at the same rate as inputs could and you have issues.

early 2000s where bad times in my family. I did a report in 2009 about ag, and the suicide risk for a dairy farmer was several times the national average. A lot of farms went out of business because of the drought last year, and if we don't get rain this year, they'll be a whole lot more. A lot of them used up all their stores to get through 2012, so it won't take much in 2013 to put them out.

[Bret44]

Look at livestock farmers right now. How excited are they about $7.30 corn? As JFK said "The farmer is the only man in our economy who buys everything at retail, sells everything at wholesale, and pays the freight both ways."
'Merica

[DistrictCyclone]

I'll probably become a pariah for saying this, and please don't confuse this stance with a belief that agriculture is not important, but I just don't buy the notion that agriculture is cripplingly persecuted or unable to defend itself. Agriculture has an extremely powerful and influential organization working on its behalf with the Farm Bureau and other advocacy associations. Rural states have been overrepresented in the Senate since the country's founding. Agriculture has benefited greatly from price supports, subsidies, and government insurance programs that are unavailable to most industries. There's an entire department of the Federal government that exists to protect the interests of agriculture.

I'm not attacking these things--I believe they're part of a vital support network--but I'm having a hard time thinking of any other industry that has this level of support going for it.

[Tre4ISU]

I'll probably become a pariah for saying this, and please don't confuse this stance with a belief that agriculture is not important, but I just don't buy the notion that agriculture is cripplingly persecuted or unable to defend itself. Agriculture has an extremely powerful and influential organization working on its behalf with the Farm Bureau and other advocacy associations. Rural states have been overrepresented in the Senate since the country's founding. Agriculture has benefited greatly from price supports, subsidies, and government insurance programs that are unavailable to most industries. There's an entire department of the Federal government that exists to protect the interests of agriculture.

I'm not attacking these things--I believe they're part of a vital support network--but I'm having a hard time thinking of any other industry that has this level of support going for it.

I see what you're saying and I somewhat agree but the government is involved to try and keep farming from becoming even more corporate. What happens as the number of farmers goes down? All of a sudden you have less people controlling more of the output. Then all of a sudden, they have much more market control. Farmers have very little input on what they buy inputs for or sell output for. Yes, you have different discount decisions and market decisions but the farmer controls very little of the difference between high and low. The less farmers there are, the more likely they are to collude. That sounds ridiculous due to the number of people involved, but it really isn't. Not only do farmers not control the prices, they are also controlled primarily by mother nature. While other industries may not have as much support, there are very few that are not in control to the extent a farmer is. There is an extent of control, obviously but sometimes, like in the 80s it's the difference between just saving the business and not rather than being comfortable and being filthy rich.

I don't say this to complain as there is really nothing to complain about right now, but it won't be like this forever and with the direction things are moving I don't see support from government increasing. I don't want this to go to the cave but that's really just the facts.

[DistrictCyclone]

I see what you're saying and I somewhat agree but the government is involved to try and keep farming from becoming even more corporate. What happens as the number of farmers goes down? All of a sudden you have less people controlling more of the output. Then all of a sudden, they have much more market control. Farmers have very little input on what they buy inputs for or sell output for. Yes, you have different discount decisions and market decisions but the farmer controls very little of the difference between high and low. The less farmers there are, the more likely they are to collude. That sounds ridiculous due to the number of people involved, but it really isn't. Not only do farmers not control the prices, they are also controlled primarily by mother nature. While other industries may not have as much support, there are very few that are not in control to the extent a farmer is. There is an extent of control, obviously but sometimes, like in the 80s it's the difference between just saving the business and not rather than being comfortable and being filthy rich.

I don't say this to complain as there is really nothing to complain about right now, but it won't be like this forever and with the direction things are moving I don't see support from government increasing. I don't want this to go to the cave but that's really just the facts.

You're totally right about the dangers of monopolistic behavior arising from increased consolidation. In every econ class, farmers are the example for a "price taker", which is threatened when production gets more concentrated. I'm not sure that preventing that is USDA's only mission, and it certainly involves things like anti-trust legislation, too, and it's definitely something that other industries have had to deal with.

I'm with you on not wanting this to be caved, also; I think we've all done a good job keeping it civil. I've enjoyed the discussion.

[cowgirl836]

I'll probably become a pariah for saying this, and please don't confuse this stance with a belief that agriculture is not important, but I just don't buy the notion that agriculture is cripplingly persecuted or unable to defend itself. Agriculture has an extremely powerful and influential organization working on its behalf with the Farm Bureau and other advocacy associations. Rural states have been overrepresented in the Senate since the country's founding. Agriculture has benefited greatly from price supports, subsidies, and government insurance programs that are unavailable to most industries. There's an entire department of the Federal government that exists to protect the interests of agriculture.

I'm not attacking these things--I believe they're part of a vital support network--but I'm having a hard time thinking of any other industry that has this level of support going for it.

I agree for the most part, but I would just add one word to the bolded sentence. Yet. Like it was pointed out, HSUS got some regulations (by a direct public vote, I believe, so you had people voting on something they had absolutely no knowledge of) passed in less ag-heavy states that only affected a few producers, but now they have moved to Ohio, Nebraska, - even Iowa, starting to push to those same types of regulations.

[Tre4ISU]

You're totally right about the dangers of monopolistic behavior arising from increased consolidation. In every econ class, farmers are the example for a "price taker", which is threatened when production gets more concentrated. I'm not sure that preventing that is USDA's only mission, and it certainly involves things like anti-trust legislation, too, and it's definitely something that other industries have had to deal with.

I'm with you on not wanting this to be caved, also; I think we've all done a good job keeping it civil. I've enjoyed the discussion.

Oh, certainly not it's sole goal. 20 years ago talking about farmer collusion would have been ridiculous but I can look and see that most of my grandpa's friends were farmers. Half of my dads are farmers. Less of mine are farmers. There are just going to be fewer and fewer. If times stay like this, it will slow that process. The problem is we will run into a time like the late 90s and early 00s where margins get small and people have to get out and find another way to make a living. That's when the cut downs occur.

[DistrictCyclone]

I agree for the most part, but I would just add one word to the bolded sentence. Yet. Like it was pointed out, HSUS got some regulations (by a direct public vote, I believe, so you had people voting on something they had absolutely no knowledge of) passed in less ag-heavy states that only affected a few producers, but now they have moved to Ohio, Nebraska, - even Iowa, starting to push to those same types of regulations.

Were they behind some of the regulations on hog confinements in NC that were passed in the last few years?

[cowgirl836]

Were they behind some of the regulations on hog confinements in NC that were passed in the last few years?

I know very, very little about the swine side - but from this article, it sounds like it was pushed from the companies buying the pork due to public pressure - which would be from the influence of groups like HSUS.

Many N.C. hog facilities switching away from crates - News - NewsObserver.com

Whether or not if they were directly involved, I don't know.

Like I said though - I'm from an organic dairy, so my views on some of the practices/environmental concerns can be very different from others in animal agriculture. There are things that I'm not a fan of and would like to see changed - but for the right reasons, by the right people, if that makes sense? To me there's a difference between Temple Grandin wanting to work with producers and help them vs HSUS - probably because people in Ag know what groups like HSUS's ultimate goal is so they aren't going to trust that they have their best interests at heart.

[cyclonewino]

Interesting that some are complaining about the "attacks" on agriculture, yet really like Paul Harvey.

Dodge Ram Super Bowl Ad Gets Mixed Reviews | BEEF Daily

Paul Harvey just wrote this poem so he could get paid (nothing wrong with that), but he likely donated that money against animal agriculture.

[cowgirl836]

Paul Harvey just wrote this poem so he could get paid (nothing wrong with that), but he likely donated that money against animal agriculture.[/QUOTE]

Well, the article says that he did openly support animal agriculture at one point, so there's no way of knowing what you said there is true or how he felt in 1978. I suppose Ag gets the last laugh then, if he really hated the industry. His speech is being used to make money for the future leaders of agriculture.
The only thing I knew about Paul Harvey is that he was a radio announcer, so I don't "really like" him, though I like the speech.