Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 6/15/2017 1:08:40 PM EDT
Or how I just spent two plus hours typing up the following reply only to have the thread locked before I could submit it.

Feel free to (respectfully) add your thoughts to this thread, or don't.  I just couldn't bear putting in all that effort and not getting to post my thoughts.

So many points to make I don't even know where to begin.  

Let's start with tillage.  It has been implied in this thread that organic farmers are all about using processes that destroy the soil.  That may be true for some organic farms but it also applies to non-organic farms.  

Additionally, there are organic farms that minimize or eliminate all tilling just like there are non-organic farms that do the same.

I think this discussion has gotten too wrapped up around corn and soybeans.  As we all know, there are many different types of farms.  

Cotton is big in my area and I always see the farmers out turning the soil in their fields before planting a new crop.  I'm about 99.9% certain they aren't farming organic cotton.

Also, there is a new pistachio farm East of my city.  Now, I don't know if it is organic or not but I kind of doubt that it's organic.  Since the trees are still small and the soil has recently been plowed, there is nothing to hold it in place.

It seems every time the wind blows more than a few miles per hour, ADOT shuts down the stretch of I-10 near this farm because the dust causes dangerous, blackout like conditions.  

Whether this particular pistachio farm is organic or non-organic is irrelevant.  The practices it has employed are destructive, disruptive, and dumb and are in part what lead to a hyper regulatory environment like we were recently rescued from.

And really, what kind of farmer wants to watch his soil blow away?  That's not sustainable, but more on that later.

Another point is that there are methods of working the soil and dealing with weeds organically that minimize the impact on the soil structure.  Tilthers, rotary harrows, flame weeders, and stale seed bed techniques are some examples.  

Now lets talk about chemicals in farming.  Yes, we all know that everything is a chemical and chemicals are the building blocks of life.  Anyone that has taken high school chemistry or has watched Breaking Bad realizes that.

But in the context of this discussion, when we talk about "chemical farming" it's pretty clear that we are referring to things like glyphosate, 2,4-D, carbaryl, and other things that I'm not even familiar with because I'm not in the business.

Also, we are speaking of the synthetic fertilizers that fuel the growth on non-organic farms.

Let me ask a few questions.  How many agriculture chemicals are now banned because they were found to be really bad for people and the environment?  

Where does the emergence of resistant weeds leave us and what kind of consequences might they have on food production in the future?  

How fully do we understand what the longer term impacts of genetically manipulating our food will be?

Is there a possibility that in 20 years we might look back at some of the farming practices in use today and realize that they are responsible for some severe, global consequences that we will have to deal with down the road?

I'm not so much for or against organic or non-organic farming as I am for sustainable farming.  Now, I'm sure there are organic farms that aren't necessarily sustainable.

But I know for certain that conventional (or chemical, or non-organic, or magic pixie dust, or whatever you want to call it) farming isn't very sustainable.  How do I know this?

Well, that type of farming is dependent on things like enormous scale, massive debt, maximum efficiency, large quantities of artificial inputs, petroleum and natural gas, crop insurance, farm subsidies, and probably some other stuff that I'm forgetting.

None of that is sustainable in my view because if there is an interruption in any of those inputs it will likely be disastrous for the farmer.

So what does a sustainable farm look like?  Well, in my opinion, it is probably organic but certainly doesn't need to be certified so.  

It should be well diversified so that any one failure, or even multiple failures, doesn't lead to the farmer's financial ruin.  This also negates the need for artificial support like crop insurance and farm subsidies.

The sustainable farm should probably be worked intensively to reduce weed pressure and minimize the amount of land that must be maintained.

To be manageable, the sustainable farm will need to be smaller in size.  Maybe it's 5 acres or 10 acres or even 20.  Or perhaps it's just half an acre.  

But it isn't hundreds or thousands of acres because a farm of that scale necessarily requires large outside inputs, whether they be diesel fuel or labor or satellite analysis of the soil.

Speaking of inputs, the sustainable farm might import waste products from other industries and sectors for its fertility but it's a broad stream of imports and the farm isn't dependent on any one them.

In fact, the sustainable farm isn't completely dependent on any of those waste products because if push came to shove, it could (and should) produce it's own fertility on site.  That's part of its diversification.

On the sustainable farm, the most important resource is the soil.  Its biology, structure, and fertility are foremost in the farmers mind and he tends to them by using the least destructive practices possible.  

In fact, not only does the sustainable farmer not destroy and deplete the soil but he builds it so that it actually becomes better over time.

The sustainable farmer utilizes compost to feed the soil organisms, he minimizes or eliminates tilling to preserve the soil's structure, and he employs fertilizers that don't leach excessively or buildup damaging salts.

The sustainable farm also uses practices like green manures, mulching, and crop rotation to build the soil, provide habitat for predatory insects, and disrupt destructive pests.

Sustainable farming, at least in my mind, doesn't mean that the farm completely avoids outside inputs.  That's not very practical.

But it means that the farm isn't dependent on those inputs so that if there is a labor shortage, a fuel crisis, out of control inflation, wild swings in commodity prices, high interest rates, bad weather, or any number of other calamities, life goes on for the sustainable farmer with minimal disruption.

The sustainable farm is a resilient farm.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/15/2017 1:41:48 PM EDT
[#1]
You know what I have learned by working on our micro homestead (or how we try to raise as much of our own food as possible)? There are reasons for the way the old 40 acre farm used to be, and those reasons don't necessarily scale up well. 

We have 2 heifers to be bred for dairy production. IN fact, I need to make a phone call this evening about getting our one heifer on a date with a local bull.. Anyway, we have 2 'cows', chickens, and now pigs. In actuality, we need all 3. Yup, almost need. Could get away with just chickens if you that is your primary protein though. Here is how it looks: We import grass (which my brother cuts/bales, and I help as I can) which feeds the cows. The cow manure/bedding is composted. Eventually, the cows produce us with dairy, which we will use to produce cheese, butter, cream, etc. The excess dairy is either sold, or things like whey given to pigs (dairy is an excellent source of proteins for the pigs). No other animal on our farm eats grass in any kind of quantity. Next is the laying chickens. We do import feed for them, but we are working on that. However, during summer they free range and produce eggs for basically zero input. They also get PORK table scraps. The chickens not only produce protein and lysine rich eggs (essential for the pigs' diet) during pork raising months for basically free, they do a good job of dealing with insects. After that is the meat chickens, but those are still not as efficient as they should be. I am working on a 1 heavily wooded run for them so they can forage more, and also increasing our own feed production for them. In the mean time, their feed is imported. However, we are raising birds for about $8 per bird. Since we eat organically, we are saving a large amount of money. Organic chicken in the store is $9 PER POUND. I am getting small turkey sized chickens for about $8. Instead of buying chicken feed for them, I am going to look into grinding and mixing my own, as I can get bulk organic corn at elevator price. I am also looking into growing fodder for them, but I don't yet have a place to do that. Next comes the pigs, which do a wonderful job of cleaning up any non pork table scraps, converting basically waste into meat. They also work on keeping brush down in the grove, which helps with ticks/skeeters. Both the pig and chicken bedding (and what manure is able to be collected) is composted with the cow manure to form a rich fertilizer for our gardens. Gardens then grow food for people AND we are trying to grow more and more animal feed, reducing the amount we import. Everything comes full circle at our homestead. The milk we will be getting is a specialized milk, and if we sell excess, the proceeds could theoretically pay for ALL inputs into our farm, and our only food costs would be anything we cannot make here, such as fruits (my fruit trees are still young and not producing) and specialty items, none of which would actually be necessary for proper nutrition of my family, but we enjoy. 

Since we live on a hill, my gardens are basically terraces, taking maximum advantage of any flatish land we do have and landscaping where I must. Also since we live on a hill, soil erosion/relocation due to water is a constant problem. I've solved this by planting/letting grow low grasses as breaks, so soil that is moved from heavy rains is captured. I also use cover crops, companion crops, and the stale seedbed technique. A lot of it has been learned through trial and error. I currently have a pea/oat mixture going that was intended as a spring cover crop, but I may let most of it go to full harvest as animal feed. Still haven't figured out how to harvest it all though .

Anyway, everything I've done here seemed to naturally lead to another aspect until I got where I am, which is interestingly close to what farms used to be. My soil has gotten better than when I started, as a good mix of composted manure works wonders for soil. I've also learned that rotary tilling is HELL on soil, but unfortunately I learned that too late. That multi-year mistake I will be fighting for a number of years yet I'm sure.
Link Posted: 6/15/2017 10:11:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:

How many agriculture chemicals are now banned because they were found to be really bad for people and the environment?

None that I know of.  Gramoxone is still available although it is almost never used.  It is dangerous to handle.

Where does the emergence of resistant weeds leave us and what kind of consequences might they have on food production in the future?

It requires the use of multiple chemistry applications to control.  Instead of a full rate of roundup, which will not kill marestail, you use  roundup, 1/2 rate of sharpen or 2,4D, 1/4 rate of metribuzen, and crop oil.  They have also developed dicamba and mesotrione resistant soybeans that will allow us additional new chemistry with very good activity.

How fully do we understand what the longer term impacts of genetically manipulating our food will be?

http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31


Fumosin Levels in BT corn

http://raf.the.beast.free.fr/Dworkin/ogm/corn.pdf



From Harvard:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/


When the Cry protein reaches the gut, it is partially degraded, releasing a smaller and potentially toxic part of the protein [6]. But this toxin will only be active if it finds the right matching protein receptor sticking off the cells lining the gut of a larval insect. This is the most important aspect of the Cry toxin mechanism. Much in the same way that a certain key will only open a certain lock, the Cry toxin can only exert its toxic effect on a particular cell receptor. Consequently, the toxin tends to only impact insects within a particular taxonomic order.

Once the toxin is bound, the process is fairly straightforward. The toxin recruits other Cry toxins to the same cell and together they form a hole in cell’s membrane that ultimately causes the cell to burst [6]. The cumulative effect of this happening to many cells is the irreversible destruction to the midgut membrane, compromising the barrier between the body cavity and gut. Without this barrier, Bt spores and other native gut bacteria can infiltrate and grow within the nutrient-rich body of the insect [4-5].

What makes Bt such a great candidate for pesticide and GM applications is that while these Cry toxins are highly effective against insects, they have been shown to be safe for consumption by mammals. Tests by the EPA have demonstrated that Cry proteins, like any other benign dietary protein, are very unstable in the acidic stomach environment. Furthermore, an oral toxicity test, which involves giving mice exceptionally high doses of purified toxic Bt proteins, showed no significant health impacts. In their 2001 reassessment of several Bt Cry proteins, the EPA concluded from these findings that “there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to the Cry1AB and Cry1F proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production.” Similar conclusions were drawn about the Cry1Ac protein of Bt cotton [7]. Other mouse studies on have shown that even high doses of truncated Cry proteins, such that only the toxic region is conserved, have no deleterious effects . A paper in Annual Review of Entomology from 2002 also makes the strong point that, in addition to no demonstrated toxicity of Bt toxins, their use provides important health benefits to livestock and humans by preventing certain insect-caused crop diseases that produce toxic and carcinogenic compounds [13].
View Quote
Is there a possibility that in 20 years we might look back at some of the farming practices in use today and realize that they are responsible for some severe, global consequences that we will have to deal with down the road?


Like what?
View Quote
How many agriculture chemicals are now banned because they were found to be really bad for people and the environment?

None that I know of.  Gramoxone is still available although it is almost never used.  It is dangerous to handle.

Where does the emergence of resistant weeds leave us and what kind of consequences might they have on food production in the future?

It requires the use of multiple chemistry applications to control.  Instead of a full rate of roundup, which will not kill marestail, you use  roundup, 1/2 rate of sharpen or 2,4D, 1/4 rate of metribuzen, and crop oil.  They have also developed dicamba and mesotrione resistant soybeans that will allow us additional new chemistry with very good activity.

How fully do we understand what the longer term impacts of genetically manipulating our food will be?

http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31


Fumosin Levels in BT corn

http://raf.the.beast.free.fr/Dworkin/ogm/corn.pdf



From Harvard:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/


When the Cry protein reaches the gut, it is partially degraded, releasing a smaller and potentially toxic part of the protein [6]. But this toxin will only be active if it finds the right matching protein receptor sticking off the cells lining the gut of a larval insect. This is the most important aspect of the Cry toxin mechanism. Much in the same way that a certain key will only open a certain lock, the Cry toxin can only exert its toxic effect on a particular cell receptor. Consequently, the toxin tends to only impact insects within a particular taxonomic order.

Once the toxin is bound, the process is fairly straightforward. The toxin recruits other Cry toxins to the same cell and together they form a hole in cell’s membrane that ultimately causes the cell to burst [6]. The cumulative effect of this happening to many cells is the irreversible destruction to the midgut membrane, compromising the barrier between the body cavity and gut. Without this barrier, Bt spores and other native gut bacteria can infiltrate and grow within the nutrient-rich body of the insect [4-5].

What makes Bt such a great candidate for pesticide and GM applications is that while these Cry toxins are highly effective against insects, they have been shown to be safe for consumption by mammals. Tests by the EPA have demonstrated that Cry proteins, like any other benign dietary protein, are very unstable in the acidic stomach environment. Furthermore, an oral toxicity test, which involves giving mice exceptionally high doses of purified toxic Bt proteins, showed no significant health impacts. In their 2001 reassessment of several Bt Cry proteins, the EPA concluded from these findings that “there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to the Cry1AB and Cry1F proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production.” Similar conclusions were drawn about the Cry1Ac protein of Bt cotton [7]. Other mouse studies on have shown that even high doses of truncated Cry proteins, such that only the toxic region is conserved, have no deleterious effects . A paper in Annual Review of Entomology from 2002 also makes the strong point that, in addition to no demonstrated toxicity of Bt toxins, their use provides important health benefits to livestock and humans by preventing certain insect-caused crop diseases that produce toxic and carcinogenic compounds [13].
View Quote
Is there a possibility that in 20 years we might look back at some of the farming practices in use today and realize that they are responsible for some severe, global consequences that we will have to deal with down the road?


Like what?
Link Posted: 6/15/2017 10:18:25 PM EDT
[#3]
I think a combination of animal agriculture for manure, row crops to feed the animals, rotating to pasture, and putting erodable ground into production of things like apples, peaches, nuts, etc..... might be heading down the right path.

We have made great strides in the last 20 years or so on filter strips and no-till to keep soil on the farm and not in the stream.


As farms have grown in size and lost some diversity, we have lost a lot of things like having a field put to pasture/hay for 2-3 years.  In some parts of the country where everyone used to run enough cattle for 20-60 acres of pasture, most of those people don't have cattle anymore.  Hence no more pasture.  So you have fields that are always row cropped.  That doesn't mean it is unsustainable, but it is probably less ideal from a soil building standpoint.


It is a reality that we sell a tremendous quantity of starch and protein to poor people in the third world.  I think that is an important consideration.
Link Posted: 6/15/2017 11:14:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Link Posted: 6/15/2017 11:44:44 PM EDT
[#5]
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 12:16:35 AM EDT
[#6]
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 12:30:13 AM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You are apparently too young to remember DDT.  I helped my dad spray that on tobacco.  I still remember the smell of it.  

There is a list of chemicals which have been banned for Ag use.  DDT is only the most well-known one.

Some of those are soft bans--agreed discontinuance of production by the company based on overwhelming evidence.  Smart of them to do this instead of forcing an actual ban, I think.


OP:  I had a post all typed, following up on some of your really good questions.   I apparently held my mouth wrong because POOF. Gone.  Into the ether.

I don't have the energy to re-type.  Not tonight anyhow.
View Quote
I did consider DDT, I was thinking mostly along the lines of mosquito control, but I'm sure it was used on crops at times as well.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 12:41:42 AM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You are apparently too young to remember DDT.  I helped my dad spray that on tobacco.  I still remember the smell of it.  

There is a list of chemicals which have been banned for Ag use.  DDT is only the most well-known one.

Some of those are soft bans--agreed discontinuance of production by the company based on overwhelming evidence.  Smart of them to do this instead of forcing an actual ban, I think.


OP:  I had a post all typed, following up on some of your really good questions.   I apparently held my mouth wrong because POOF. Gone.  Into the ether.

I don't have the energy to re-type.  Not tonight anyhow.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

<snip>

How many agriculture chemicals are now banned because they were found to be really bad for people and the environment?

None that I know of.  Gramoxone is still available although it is almost never used.  It is dangerous to handle.

<snip>
You are apparently too young to remember DDT.  I helped my dad spray that on tobacco.  I still remember the smell of it.  

There is a list of chemicals which have been banned for Ag use.  DDT is only the most well-known one.

Some of those are soft bans--agreed discontinuance of production by the company based on overwhelming evidence.  Smart of them to do this instead of forcing an actual ban, I think.


OP:  I had a post all typed, following up on some of your really good questions.   I apparently held my mouth wrong because POOF. Gone.  Into the ether.

I don't have the energy to re-type.  Not tonight anyhow.
First, DDT saved millions of lives worldwide -- and continues to do so since the WHO re-authorized its use in 2006.

Banning DDT probably killed millions of people, for no reason at all.  Silent Spring was a scam, and one that had no basis in fact.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636426/

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259

These facts are well-known, in spite of left-wing environmentalist groupthink.

BTW, my Grandfather was a dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist & conservationist.  He used DDT all the time, even long after it was banned, because nothing else did the job like it did, and he recognized the absurdity of Carson's work of fiction.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 12:42:43 AM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I did consider DDT, I was thinking mostly along the lines of mosquito control, but I'm sure it was used on crops at times as well.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


You are apparently too young to remember DDT.  I helped my dad spray that on tobacco.  I still remember the smell of it.  

There is a list of chemicals which have been banned for Ag use.  DDT is only the most well-known one.

Some of those are soft bans--agreed discontinuance of production by the company based on overwhelming evidence.  Smart of them to do this instead of forcing an actual ban, I think.


OP:  I had a post all typed, following up on some of your really good questions.   I apparently held my mouth wrong because POOF. Gone.  Into the ether.

I don't have the energy to re-type.  Not tonight anyhow.
I did consider DDT, I was thinking mostly along the lines of mosquito control, but I'm sure it was used on crops at times as well.
I'm sure there are examples out there, but DDT is the singular worst example possible to support that position.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 1:05:17 AM EDT
[#10]
Temporary Lock
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 11:14:46 AM EDT
[#11]
Problem addressed
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 11:34:40 AM EDT
[#12]
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 11:45:45 AM EDT
[#13]
As a farmer rancher that derives 80% of my income from agriculture I can tell you this. There are basically 2 ways to make money from the farm. 1 is specialized farming where you do just enough to get by. You kiss the public's ass. 2 is you industrialize. You grow more in a smaller space you split cost by trying to cut labor costs.
Less than two percent of the American population feeds clothes and builds around sixty-three percent of the world population. Timber is under the department of agricultural. Fisheries is also in the same group.

My wife and I provide about 1.2 million high protein meals from poultry. That's not counting our beaf. We use the litter on 625 acres of land to cut fertilizer cost.  Each batch we receive around 96,600 chickens. We turn them around every six to seven weeks for an average of 6 to 7 flocks a year. Our integrator has went to most antibiotics free meat so our mortality has risen. When we started growing birds we had a 75,000 bird flock on a 7 to 8 week turn around with 5 to 6 flocks a year.

We no longer sell vegetables cause of the litter application. Ecole and listeria are just too risky.

But most of what hurts agriculture is the voting public and their ease of using food from countries with far less food safety rules. Food has to be cheap enough the lowest income people can afford it. And yet foreign governments subsidiary programs leave us in the dust.

Applications of manure are what's going to kill organic agricultural all because of listeria and Ecole. People don't practice food safety like they did growing up on the farm and seeing animals defecate on their vegetables and fruits.

I wasn't going to post cause it seems like you can't reason with the public. But I changed my mind and if I get one person to research better ways maybe they will come up with a breakthrough the rest of us have missed.
Good luck!
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 12:11:40 PM EDT
[#14]
One thing about tillage and sustainability: 

I am fighting a lot of issues at work (first world issues, have vital equipment that is acting up in a way that makes no sense), so I'm running on little sleep at night. My last post in this subject didn't completely convey some points I wanted to make when I started typing, so please excuse that and likely this rambling....

One of the reasons that I said that the sustainable small scale farm doesn't scale up well is mostly due to weather. Keep with me a minute on this one. There is only a weather window that is X long in any given year to prepare, plant, cultivate (or spray, lets call it weed control), harvest, ready for winter (or next crop for you folks in the deep south). Rinse, repeat. Labor comes into this a bit, but weather is really the determining factor. So what? Well, the more acres your run, the more acres you run. The weather window stays the same. What is the solution: there are only two options. You either get bigger equipment to reduce the amount of time each field takes, or you get an army of small tractors (and an army of operators and support equipment/supplies/and operators for the support). Since labor is a HUGE cost, the option of larger and larger equipment is the most logical. Even though we are not in IA where they have MONSTER equipment, we have darn big stuff around here. The field immediately around us is 56 acres. They have the field cultivated in the spring in half a day, if that. Planted in an afternoon. 

So what? Well, the larger equipment you have the more compaction you have on the soil. The more compaction you have on the soil the deeper you need to dig to break up the compaction. The more you break up the compaction, the more you compact the soil when you drive over it again. The more compact the soil becomes, the bigger equipment you need to pull your implements (as a smaller implement isn't a popular option). Now, this will change with different soil types, so I can only speak from experience of the type of soils we have around here, which is a black top soil with moderate clay and high organic matter, typically.

Now, this IS an issue that modern farming is trying to address, see the new crawler track tractors and no-till farming methods. I'm not sure how crawler track tractors compare on overall compaction, but obviously have a lower PSI on the soil. Issue with that is it will probably take another 50 years to convert ALL equipment that goes on the fields to tracks, if that is the solution anyway.

So what is the solution: I don't know if its a solution, but smaller tractors that have less of a soil compaction factor can help a lot. The farmer we get some of our beef from plows his fields with the equivalent of a John Deere 4020. With a 4 bottom plow. My brother tried to plow up some old pasture land to re-seed with our 4020 and he could not drag a 2 bottom, had to use the 1 bottom. This farmer's fields have never seen anything bigger for a tractor.

Also, why plow so deep? If you don't compact your soil, you don't have to. I plow my gardens (which grow corn, grains) to about 3 to 4 inches deep max. That is all. I don't disturb past that. The corn root balls break down fine, the manure is turned in well. I can drop my plow into soil anywhere on my property (which was all plowed under in the 40's) and plow up sod, provided there aren't tree roots which stop me dead. Last fall I decided to drop the plow in the field around us in a spot they didn't plow, as a tree had fallen and they just went around the down tree. I could not BUDGE that plow for anything. I was going nowhere. The soil was hard as a friggin rock.

Now, these are just observations. The farmer that plows with a 4020 farms in basically the same way I grow: organically, using manure as fertilizer and the smallest equipment possible to do the job in a reasonable amount of time. I can't tell you 100% if its the large tractors causing compaction, deep plowing, I've heard that anhydrous causes hardening of the soil (not sure if true), but something is causing the soil to get harder and harder from some issue that seems to be avoidable.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 12:15:17 PM EDT
[#15]
tag, I'm busy today but VERY interested in the topic!
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 12:34:35 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
As a farmer rancher that derives 80% of my income from agriculture I can tell you this. There are basically 2 ways to make money from the farm. 1 is specialized farming where you do just enough to get by. You kiss the public's ass. 2 is you industrialize. You grow more in a smaller space you split cost by trying to cut labor costs.
Less than two percent of the American population feeds clothes and builds around sixty-three percent of the world population. Timber is under the department of agricultural. Fisheries is also in the same group.

My wife and I provide about 1.2 million high protein meals from poultry. That's not counting our beaf. We use the litter on 625 acres of land to cut fertilizer cost.  Each batch we receive around 96,600 chickens. We turn them around every six to seven weeks for an average of 6 to 7 flocks a year. Our integrator has went to most antibiotics free meat so our mortality has risen. When we started growing birds we had a 75,000 bird flock on a 7 to 8 week turn around with 5 to 6 flocks a year.

We no longer sell vegetables cause of the litter application. Ecole and listeria are just too risky.

But most of what hurts agriculture is the voting public and their ease of using food from countries with far less food safety rules. Food has to be cheap enough the lowest income people can afford it. And yet foreign governments subsidiary programs leave us in the dust.

Applications of manure are what's going to kill organic agricultural all because of listeria and Ecole. People don't practice food safety like they did growing up on the farm and seeing animals defecate on their vegetables and fruits.

I wasn't going to post cause it seems like you can't reason with the public. But I changed my mind and if I get one person to research better ways maybe they will come up with a breakthrough the rest of us have missed.
Good luck!
View Quote
I wanted to touch on a few points on this.

As far as mortality rate with your chickens due to no longer using antibiotics (which are banned from use in poultry in the US, but I believe in another post you mentioned you had been growing for overseas markets, maybe not you?), I'm curious if there are other factors that lead to increased mortality. Without knowing your setup specifically, I imagine you have huge barns that have a metric shit ton of chickens in them, like the poultry farms around here (MN is one of if no the top producing poultry state). I raise my own chickens for meat and eggs, and I firmly believe that poultry are one of those things that don't really scale up well. Now, I'm not ragging on what you do, but shoving any animal in those numbers into such concentration always breeds illness, since its extremely hard to teach a chicken to shit in a running water toilet . You used to combat those sanitation issues with antibiotics, but no longer and now see the increase in mortality rates because the bacteria isn't under control in the birds themselves. For my flocks, of which I have 1 MAYBE 2 per year (but they always get intermixed), if I get through the first 3 weeks, I'm typically home free and don't loose birds. Death within those first 3 weeks are almost always farmer error or retarded chickens that commit mass suicide by stupidity. I can only think of a couple birds that seemed to die for no reason. I also grow Freedom Rangers, no Cornish X. An good acquaintance of mine decided to try meat chickens this year, so I took him under my wing so to speak about what to do and advise. He bought 20 some Cornish X and some of my freedom rangers. The Cornish X kept dying of random stuff, but he never lost a more heritage type Freedom Ranger. The flip side is Freedom Rangers take twice as long to grow, and are less feed efficient if they are fed on ration 100% and not allowed to forage.

As far as bacteria in the soil, hot composting manure kills any pathogens present. It is a delicate science, more than just making a giant manure pile. All waste should be properly composted before putting on soil. But yes, people no longer take food safety seriously and most issues are from mistakes/carelessness in the kitchen.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 2:07:18 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I wanted to touch on a few points on this.

As far as mortality rate with your chickens due to no longer using antibiotics (which are banned from use in poultry in the US, but I believe in another post you mentioned you had been growing for overseas markets, maybe not you?), I'm curious if there are other factors that lead to increased mortality. Without knowing your setup specifically, I imagine you have huge barns that have a metric shit ton of chickens in them, like the poultry farms around here (MN is one of if no the top producing poultry state). I raise my own chickens for meat and eggs, and I firmly believe that poultry are one of those things that don't really scale up well. Now, I'm not ragging on what you do, but shoving any animal in those numbers into such concentration always breeds illness, since its extremely hard to teach a chicken to shit in a running water toilet . You used to combat those sanitation issues with antibiotics, but no longer and now see the increase in mortality rates because the bacteria isn't under control in the birds themselves. For my flocks, of which I have 1 MAYBE 2 per year (but they always get intermixed), if I get through the first 3 weeks, I'm typically home free and don't loose birds. Death within those first 3 weeks are almost always farmer error or retarded chickens that commit mass suicide by stupidity. I can only think of a couple birds that seemed to die for no reason. I also grow Freedom Rangers, no Cornish X. An good acquaintance of mine decided to try meat chickens this year, so I took him under my wing so to speak about what to do and advise. He bought 20 some Cornish X and some of my freedom rangers. The Cornish X kept dying of random stuff, but he never lost a more heritage type Freedom Ranger. The flip side is Freedom Rangers take twice as long to grow, and are less feed efficient if they are fed on ration 100% and not allowed to forage.

As far as bacteria in the soil, hot composting manure kills any pathogens present. It is a delicate science, more than just making a giant manure pile. All waste should be properly composted before putting on soil. But yes, people no longer take food safety seriously and most issues are from mistakes/carelessness in the kitchen.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
As a farmer rancher that derives 80% of my income from agriculture I can tell you this. There are basically 2 ways to make money from the farm. 1 is specialized farming where you do just enough to get by. You kiss the public's ass. 2 is you industrialize. You grow more in a smaller space you split cost by trying to cut labor costs.
Less than two percent of the American population feeds clothes and builds around sixty-three percent of the world population. Timber is under the department of agricultural. Fisheries is also in the same group.

My wife and I provide about 1.2 million high protein meals from poultry. That's not counting our beaf. We use the litter on 625 acres of land to cut fertilizer cost.  Each batch we receive around 96,600 chickens. We turn them around every six to seven weeks for an average of 6 to 7 flocks a year. Our integrator has went to most antibiotics free meat so our mortality has risen. When we started growing birds we had a 75,000 bird flock on a 7 to 8 week turn around with 5 to 6 flocks a year.

We no longer sell vegetables cause of the litter application. Ecole and listeria are just too risky.

But most of what hurts agriculture is the voting public and their ease of using food from countries with far less food safety rules. Food has to be cheap enough the lowest income people can afford it. And yet foreign governments subsidiary programs leave us in the dust.

Applications of manure are what's going to kill organic agricultural all because of listeria and Ecole. People don't practice food safety like they did growing up on the farm and seeing animals defecate on their vegetables and fruits.

I wasn't going to post cause it seems like you can't reason with the public. But I changed my mind and if I get one person to research better ways maybe they will come up with a breakthrough the rest of us have missed.
Good luck!
I wanted to touch on a few points on this.

As far as mortality rate with your chickens due to no longer using antibiotics (which are banned from use in poultry in the US, but I believe in another post you mentioned you had been growing for overseas markets, maybe not you?), I'm curious if there are other factors that lead to increased mortality. Without knowing your setup specifically, I imagine you have huge barns that have a metric shit ton of chickens in them, like the poultry farms around here (MN is one of if no the top producing poultry state). I raise my own chickens for meat and eggs, and I firmly believe that poultry are one of those things that don't really scale up well. Now, I'm not ragging on what you do, but shoving any animal in those numbers into such concentration always breeds illness, since its extremely hard to teach a chicken to shit in a running water toilet . You used to combat those sanitation issues with antibiotics, but no longer and now see the increase in mortality rates because the bacteria isn't under control in the birds themselves. For my flocks, of which I have 1 MAYBE 2 per year (but they always get intermixed), if I get through the first 3 weeks, I'm typically home free and don't loose birds. Death within those first 3 weeks are almost always farmer error or retarded chickens that commit mass suicide by stupidity. I can only think of a couple birds that seemed to die for no reason. I also grow Freedom Rangers, no Cornish X. An good acquaintance of mine decided to try meat chickens this year, so I took him under my wing so to speak about what to do and advise. He bought 20 some Cornish X and some of my freedom rangers. The Cornish X kept dying of random stuff, but he never lost a more heritage type Freedom Ranger. The flip side is Freedom Rangers take twice as long to grow, and are less feed efficient if they are fed on ration 100% and not allowed to forage.

As far as bacteria in the soil, hot composting manure kills any pathogens present. It is a delicate science, more than just making a giant manure pile. All waste should be properly composted before putting on soil. But yes, people no longer take food safety seriously and most issues are from mistakes/carelessness in the kitchen.
we went from less than 2% to right around 5%. Mainly due to density. But nobody knows more about farming than scientists and rural voting people.

And I don't care what anyone says there's no person as cruel to animals as an animal rights activist. The big bird growers get Antibiotics I'm on the little bird market. We were even gap certified for a number of years. Which was the tier one market until our integrator changed hands and the Mexican company Bacho bought them out.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 2:15:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 2:25:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
we went from less than 2% to right around 5%. Mainly due to density. But nobody knows more about farming than scientists and rural voting people.

And I don't care what anyone says there's no person as cruel to animals as an animal rights activist. The big bird growers get Antibiotics I'm on the little bird market. We were even gap certified for a number of years. Which was the tier one market until our integrator changed hands and the Mexican company Bacho bought them out.
View Quote
I believe you may be right with the density causing mortality rate. Without looking back, you were at 75k per flock before, now at 96k per flock? High density always causes issues, with anything. Just look at London pre flushing toilet. Disease was running rampant before modern sanitation tech.

If you could explain this "big bird" and "little bird" to me/us, I would appreciate that. It was to my understanding that all USDA poultry CANNOT use ABs. 
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 2:33:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
One thing about tillage and sustainability: 


So what? Well, the larger equipment you have the more compaction you have on the soil. The more compaction you have on the soil the deeper you need to dig to break up the compaction. The more you break up the compaction, the more you compact the soil when you drive over it again. The more compact the soil becomes, the bigger equipment you need to pull your implements (as a smaller implement isn't a popular option). Now, this will change with different soil types, so I can only speak from experience of the type of soils we have around here, which is a black top soil with moderate clay and high organic matter, typically.

.
View Quote
Not exactly accurate.  Large equipment is heavier, yes, but it also has much more rubber on the ground.


Working ground does not create compaction (except for the shear layer if you are plowing or using a disc or field cultivator.).  Working ground WHILE WET creates compaction.  If you can make a ball of soil that holds together and doesn't crumble when you roll it between your hands, it is too wet and you will do more harm than good by working soil when it is that wet.

God didn't make any dirt clods.  Man made them all.  By working ground wet.


Many farmers have gone to vertical tillage tools to eliminate the shear layer and reduce compaction further still.  Bigger tractors usually have correspondingly larger tires and more surface area on the ground.  I can get across a wet patch better with a heavier 4 wheel drive tractor and a large tillage implement than I could with our old H tractor and a 2 bottom plow.  

It's not really accurate that larger equipment is harmful to soil.  Whatever size your are farming, patience is important.  Jump the gun and work/plant into mud, it's not going to turn out well.  I just walked a bean field this morning that is heavy clay.  Think modeling clay.  I planted half of it that is a gentle swell and have a beautiful stand.  The flat was wet, and stayed wet for more than a week after the initial planting.  Those beans are coming because I waited until it was dry (dry enough but not perfect), to plant them.


Some guys around here have gone to Cat tractors and they are fine, but not without some drawbacks.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 2:36:26 PM EDT
[#21]
As a big proponent of small scale agriculture, I think one of the most profound things I've heard in the talks and things I've gone to over the years was from Daniel Salatin talking about raising rabbits on grass. He said just because you can doesn't mean it's what's best for the animal, the farmer, or the consumer. They're at a point where their land lease is ending on a huge portion of their farmed property. Who knows what next year will bring for Polyface and if they fall I think a lot of the guys like Suskovich and others are set to fall like blocks behind them. I have a lot of issues with the way food is raised in this industrial society, I take what Jefferson said, when he talked about a nation Yeoman farmers. There is way too much separation between where our food comes from and our tables. People have no idea what they're eating a lot of the time and they just don't care.

People should hold themselves accountable for their nutrition. If you have a yes in a region of the word where farming is possible there's no excuse not to have a garden. Same with chickens and rabbits, I can provide for my wife and I with a 30x30 plot for eggs and enough lean meat to feed us. Problem is you have to feed those animals and you're not doing rotational grazing or even growing your own hay or grass on a city lot. The centralization of living in the cities has created this monster and with a booming population I don't feel secure in the industrialized food system. I know that if the trucks stopped running things would break down in days.

That's why the wife and I are looking for 20-30 acres. Enough room that we can manage it but also enough tool that we can produce a sustainable system of both plants and livestock production.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 2:45:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Not exactly accurate.  Large equipment is heavier, yes, but it also has much more rubber on the ground.


Working ground does not create compaction (except for the shear layer if you are plowing or using a disc or field cultivator.).  Working ground WHILE WET creates compaction.  If you can make a ball of soil that holds together and doesn't crumble when you roll it between your hands, it is too wet and you will do more harm than good by working soil when it is that wet.

God didn't make any dirt clods.  Man made them all.  By working ground wet.


Many farmers have gone to vertical tillage tools to eliminate the shear layer and reduce compaction further still.  Bigger tractors usually have correspondingly larger tires and more surface area on the ground.  I can get across a wet patch better with a heavier 4 wheel drive tractor and a large tillage implement than I could with our old H tractor and a 2 bottom plow.  

It's not really accurate that larger equipment is harmful to soil.  Whatever size your are farming, patience is important.  Jump the gun and work/plant into mud, it's not going to turn out well.  I just walked a bean field this morning that is heavy clay.  Think modeling clay.  I planted half of it that is a gentle swell and have a beautiful stand.  The flat was wet, and stayed wet for more than a week after the initial planting.  Those beans are coming because I waited until it was dry (dry enough but not perfect), to plant them.


Some guys around here have gone to Cat tractors and they are fine, but not without some drawbacks.
View Quote
Last time I was at JD, I was taking a look at the lot. Tire footprint didn't really change much if you went bigger, only the number of tires could significantly reduce PSI under the rubber, which generally means articulating with at least 8 tires on the ground. Extremely true about working too wet and making things worse. I think a lot of that has to do with the amount of acreage to be done and the limited time/manpower to do it. "If its doable, do it" is the battle cry. 

Sort of a funny story that is somewhat relevant:  Years back when the crawler track tractors first came out, another farmer right around us got one. He was talking that thing up something fierce. Best thing since sliced bread. He could be out and going when it was too wet for other tractors to be in the field. He would boast about that thing every chance he got. One spring was particularly wet, but he was out and proud with his crawler track when our 8630's were still in the shed. Well, he got stuck. Bad. Right next to the MAIN county road for all to see . Tried getting it out, wasn't going anywhere. It stayed wet, and that tractor sat there, half buried in mud, for a few months. They may go through more, but when they get stuck, they get STUCK.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 2:58:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

How many agriculture chemicals are now banned because they were found to be really bad for people and the environment?

None that I know of.  Gramoxone is still available although it is almost never used.  It is dangerous to handle.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

How many agriculture chemicals are now banned because they were found to be really bad for people and the environment?

None that I know of.  Gramoxone is still available although it is almost never used.  It is dangerous to handle.
Perhaps I should have said banned or heavily restricted.  And I'm not just talking about in the US either.  DDT is one that stands out big time.  Kitties already addressed this, but we are talking about DDT in an agricultural application; DDT as a control for a disease vector is another discussion.  

Quoted:

Where does the emergence of resistant weeds leave us and what kind of consequences might they have on food production in the future?

It requires the use of multiple chemistry applications to control.  Instead of a full rate of roundup, which will not kill marestail, you use  roundup, 1/2 rate of sharpen or 2,4D, 1/4 rate of metribuzen, and crop oil.  They have also developed dicamba and mesotrione resistant soybeans that will allow us additional new chemistry with very good activity.
So the solution is more chemicals?  That's great for Monsanto and DuPont, but is it in the best interests of the farmer?

Quoted:

Is there a possibility that in 20 years we might look back at some of the farming practices in use today and realize that they are responsible for some severe, global consequences that we will have to deal with down the road?

Like what?
Part of the problem with GMO's and "chemical" ag is that we simply don't know what we don't know.  There are thousands of years of organic agricultural experience to inform us on what works and what doesn't.  We don't have that experience with GMO's, pesticides, herbicides, etc. especially as patents expire and the companies develop new breakthroughs to continue fueling their bottom lines.

There are plenty of examples where new developments in agricultural technology that seemed great at the time came back to bite us in the ass.  Mechanization and DDT are but two.

I'm sounding a bit like a Bernie supporter here and I hate that because it's not representative of my beliefs.  To be clear, I don't have any problem with profits, innovation, or the existence of companies like Monsanto.  

As a free marketeer, I believe the solution to most problems is the free market, education/information, and grass root efforts, not government regulation.

Quoted:

It is a reality that we sell a tremendous quantity of starch and protein to poor people in the third world.  I think that is an important consideration.
That's a valid point.  That, along with the fact that staple crops scale better than vegetable crops has no doubt contributed to the industrial form of agriculture so popular in the US.

It's also true though that growing corn and other staples to feed livestock isn't a very efficient way to feed the world.  And that's from a dyed-in-the-wool meat eater.

Likewise, growing corn for ethanol (yes, I know there are other, more efficient ethanol crops) doesn't really help feed anyone.  It might help the farmers bottom line, but it also makes the farmer dependent on lobbyist.  

From my perspective, the industrial farmer, especially as it relates to things like corn and soybeans, is heavily dependent on the lobbying industry.  That might mean more money into the farmer's pocket but it is also another expense.

And before anyone else says it, I'm sure that organic ag is also very dependent on lobbyist.

With that in mind, the sustainable farm does not depend on lawyers and politicians for its profits and growth.

Quoted:

OP:  I had a post all typed, following up on some of your really good questions.   I apparently held my mouth wrong because POOF. Gone.  Into the ether.

I don't have the energy to re-type.  Not tonight anyhow.
That's a bummer.  You seem to have a lot of experience with the farming industry so I would like to hear your opinions on the subject.  Hopefully you will feel motivated to try again at some point.

Quoted:

As a farmer rancher that derives 80% of my income from agriculture I can tell you this. There are basically 2 ways to make money from the farm. 1 is specialized farming where you do just enough to get by. You kiss the public's ass. 2 is you industrialize. You grow more in a smaller space you split cost by trying to cut labor costs.
I'm not clear on your definitions of specialization and industrialization.  To me, specialization would be a green house that grows tomatoes year round.  Or a chicken farmer that buys in poults, raises them to slaughter weight, and then sells live birds to a processor.

I would categorize industrialization as being in the same vein.  The two go hand in hand.  Specialization, as defined above, practically requires industrialization because the margins are so low.

I submit that another model for a profitable farm, and in my opinion it is the model of choice for the sustainable farm, is selling directly to the targeted market, a la Joel Salatin, Eliot Coleman, Jean-Martin Fortier, etc.  

Farm stands, farmer's markets, CSA's, and direct to restaurant sales can all be used to increase margins for many types of farms.  Grocery stores and aggregators would be good outlets for surpluses.  

Quoted:

We no longer sell vegetables cause of the litter application. Ecole and listeria are just too risky.

But most of what hurts agriculture is the voting public and their ease of using food from countries with far less food safety rules. Food has to be cheap enough the lowest income people can afford it. And yet foreign governments subsidiary programs leave us in the dust.

Applications of manure are what's going to kill organic agricultural all because of listeria and Ecole. People don't practice food safety like they did growing up on the farm and seeing animals defecate on their vegetables and fruits.
I don't know how well it would translate to farming applications but my solution to harmful bacteria in the garden is multifaceted.  

Before I describe it, it's worth noting that I use cow manure because that's what is free and most readily available to me.  If/when I have chickens, I will use their manure in the same way.

First, I only apply un-composted manure to certain crops.  I use three main criteria for determining which crops get manured.  

1)  The crops must be heavy feeders; 2)  The edible portions must not be in direct contact or close contact with the soil; and 3)  If the edible portions are in direct or close contact with the soil, it has to be something that I don't eat raw (i.e. potatoes).

It's not really part of my criteria but coincidentally, the crops I fertilize with manure tend to be longer duration crops (3+ months in the ground before maturity).

Next, for crops that I don't fertilize with manure (lettuce, spinach), I just use thermophilic compost.  Cow manure is one of the ingredients of my compost.  I'm confident that my composting process adequately neutralizes anything harmful.

Finally, I like to follow up a manured crop with something that has low nutrient requirements and will be in the ground for several months.  

Carrots would be an example of a follow on crop.  They are in direct contact with the soil and I eat carrots raw but depending on what proceeded the carrots, 7-12 months will likely have elapsed since the area was last fertilized with manure and when I start eating the carrots.

Aside from the composting, I can't really attest to the science behind my method but I can say that I've never gotten sick from eating out of my garden.

Quoted:

I wasn't going to post cause it seems like you can't reason with the public. But I changed my mind and if I get one person to research better ways maybe they will come up with a breakthrough the rest of us have missed.
Good luck!
I hope you and the other farmers stick around and continue to contribute to this thread.  As much as it might seem like it, I didn't intend this to be an assault on your livelihood.  All perspectives are welcome here.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 3:05:50 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Part of the problem with GMO's and "chemical" ag is that we simply don't know what we don't know. There are thousands of years of organic agricultural experience to inform us on what works and what doesn't. We don't have that experience with GMO's, pesticides, herbicides, etc. especially as patents expire and the companies develop new breakthroughs to continue fueling their bottom lines.

There are plenty of examples where new developments in agricultural technology that seemed great at the time came back to bite us in the ass. Mechanization and DDT are but two.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Part of the problem with GMO's and "chemical" ag is that we simply don't know what we don't know. There are thousands of years of organic agricultural experience to inform us on what works and what doesn't. We don't have that experience with GMO's, pesticides, herbicides, etc. especially as patents expire and the companies develop new breakthroughs to continue fueling their bottom lines.

There are plenty of examples where new developments in agricultural technology that seemed great at the time came back to bite us in the ass. Mechanization and DDT are but two.
I posted a link from Harvard that specifically described the testing protocols for GMO corn.  And how it was SAFER than non-GMO corn because earworm feeding causes ear molds that grow toxins and carcinogens.


How in the world has mechanization bit us in the ass?



Quoted:

So the solution is more chemicals? That's great for Monsanto and DuPont, but is it in the best interests of the farmer?
You gonna cover 2000 acres with a hoe?
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 3:09:45 PM EDT
[#25]
When the Cry protein reaches the gut, it is partially degraded, releasing a smaller and potentially toxic part of the protein [6]. But this toxin will only be active if it finds the right matching protein receptor sticking off the cells lining the gut of a larval insect. This is the most important aspect of the Cry toxin mechanism. Much in the same way that a certain key will only open a certain lock, the Cry toxin can only exert its toxic effect on a particular cell receptor. Consequently, the toxin tends to only impact insects within a particular taxonomic order.

Once the toxin is bound, the process is fairly straightforward. The toxin recruits other Cry toxins to the same cell and together they form a hole in cell’s membrane that ultimately causes the cell to burst [6]. The cumulative effect of this happening to many cells is the irreversible destruction to the midgut membrane, compromising the barrier between the body cavity and gut. Without this barrier, Bt spores and other native gut bacteria can infiltrate and grow within the nutrient-rich body of the insect [4-5].

What makes Bt such a great candidate for pesticide and GM applications is that while these Cry toxins are highly effective against insects, they have been shown to be safe for consumption by mammals. Tests by the EPA have demonstrated that Cry proteins, like any other benign dietary protein, are very unstable in the acidic stomach environment. Furthermore, an oral toxicity test, which involves giving mice exceptionally high doses of purified toxic Bt proteins, showed no significant health impacts. In their 2001 reassessment of several Bt Cry proteins, the EPA concluded from these findings that “there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to the Cry1AB and Cry1F proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production.” Similar conclusions were drawn about the Cry1Ac protein of Bt cotton [7]. Other mouse studies on have shown that even high doses of truncated Cry proteins, such that only the toxic region is conserved, have no deleterious effects . A paper in Annual Review of Entomology from 2002 also makes the strong point that, in addition to no demonstrated toxicity of Bt toxins, their use provides important health benefits to livestock and humans by preventing certain insect-caused crop diseases that produce toxic and carcinogenic compounds [13].







All our best data shows they are safe.   Should we stop using them... just in case?  What other modern technology should we do away with because it might cause unforseen problems?
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 3:19:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

How in the world has mechanization bit us in the ass?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

How in the world has mechanization bit us in the ass?
The dust bowl?

Quoted:

You gonna cover 2000 acres with a hoe?
Nope, because a sustainable farm likely isn't 2000 acres in size.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 4:08:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You have good education to offer, but I know it takes your time.

I don't know about the bird growing market. It's around here, but I have no experience with commercial birds.  

Can you explain a little more in depth how the "flow" works from producer to consumer....and how big bird vs little bird and gap certification work, and what an integrator is?

Stuff like that?

It may be too much trouble.  It's okay if it is.
View Quote
Okay integrator is the contact company we grow for.
We grow on a batch contract competing in a weeks kill. Which is between 10 and 16 growers. Decided by the cost to grow that flock. The lowest cost flock is the number one going down from there based on feed conversion and mortality.
Gap was a global criteria set by the world poultry federation. Antibiotics free humanely raised at lower density. Along with the use of toys and roosting structure.
The integrator furnishes the feed we furnished the houses electric and gas along with labor. They catch the birds and haul them to the kill plants.

Little bird vs big bird. Little bird is the domestic market. Like Wendy's and KFC these are usually more tender with less fat content. Big bird goes to Mexico and China etc. That aren't as worried about antibiotics plus it's cheaper products because less mortality.

The integrator takes care of the marketing and sales. Retailers contract what size bird and what cut the bird's will utilized as.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 4:17:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I believe you may be right with the density causing mortality rate. Without looking back, you were at 75k per flock before, now at 96k per flock? High density always causes issues, with anything. Just look at London pre flushing toilet. Disease was running rampant before modern sanitation tech.

If you could explain this "big bird" and "little bird" to me/us, I would appreciate that. It was to my understanding that all USDA poultry CANNOT use ABs. 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
we went from less than 2% to right around 5%. Mainly due to density. But nobody knows more about farming than scientists and rural voting people.

And I don't care what anyone says there's no person as cruel to animals as an animal rights activist. The big bird growers get Antibiotics I'm on the little bird market. We were even gap certified for a number of years. Which was the tier one market until our integrator changed hands and the Mexican company Bacho bought them out.
I believe you may be right with the density causing mortality rate. Without looking back, you were at 75k per flock before, now at 96k per flock? High density always causes issues, with anything. Just look at London pre flushing toilet. Disease was running rampant before modern sanitation tech.

If you could explain this "big bird" and "little bird" to me/us, I would appreciate that. It was to my understanding that all USDA poultry CANNOT use ABs. 
Antibiotics depends on the contract country. China has a contract for an eight pound birds with certain approved antibiotics. And they are promoting the use of certain antibiotics to prevent bird flu. Little bird's are the domestic market and they have to be antibiotics free confirmed by blood test and fat test.
Then there's the medium big bird market that's antibiotics free it's a six pound soup and pieces and parts bird for larger breast and leg quarters. So each market contract has different end users.

Restrictions are what's going to nail agriculture.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 4:17:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 4:18:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Okay integrator is the contact company we grow for.
We grow on a batch contract competing in a weeks kill. Which is between 10 and 16 growers. Decided by the cost to grow that flock. The lowest cost flock is the number one going down from there based on feed conversion and mortality.
Gap was a global criteria set by the world poultry federation. Antibiotics free humanely raised at lower density. Along with the use of toys and roosting structure.
The integrator furnishes the feed we furnished the houses electric and gas along with labor. They catch the birds and haul them to the kill plants.

Little bird vs big bird. Little bird is the domestic market. Like Wendy's and KFC these are usually more tender with less fat content. Big bird goes to Mexico and China etc. That aren't as worried about antibiotics plus it's cheaper products because less mortality.

The integrator takes care of the marketing and sales. Retailers contract what size bird and what cut the bird's will utilized as.
View Quote
I believe all the issues you have with chickens making you any money is the exact reason that chicken used to be a food of primarily the wealthy. That and all chickens used to be heritage and grow slower....

Hard to make money in chickens.

I've had many folks ask to buy my meat chickens off of me instead of raising their own. I have to then explain to them that I may be willing to sell them a live bird, but when they find out that my birds cost ME more than buying a ready-to-bake Gold-n-Plump, not to mention any profit for my time/investment, most folks aren't too interested anymore. Then there is the butchering, which is the suckiest part of the whole deal, which would NOT be free. That is where most of the labor is.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 4:24:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Interesting.  Thank you.

Do you get paid more or less for a crop of birds based on where you fall in the cost per flock ranking?
View Quote
Yes it's by pounds meat sold average pay last batch was .068 high pay was.074 and I don't recall last. I think we sold 340,000 pounds of meat. Just a little below middle pay on 16 growers.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 4:45:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The dust bowl?

Nope, because a sustainable farm likely isn't 2000 acres in size.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

How in the world has mechanization bit us in the ass?
The dust bowl?

Quoted:

You gonna cover 2000 acres with a hoe?
Nope, because a sustainable farm likely isn't 2000 acres in size.
Have you traveled through the midwest?  Where are you going to find all the manpower to work all those acres by hand?


How many people in the third world should starve so we can farm like it is 1880?
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 5:09:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

All our best data shows they are safe.   Should we stop using them... just in case?  What other modern technology should we do away with because it might cause unforseen problems?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

When the Cry protein reaches the gut, it is partially degraded, releasing a smaller and potentially toxic part of the protein [6]. But this toxin will only be active if it finds the right matching protein receptor sticking off the cells lining the gut of a larval insect. This is the most important aspect of the Cry toxin mechanism. Much in the same way that a certain key will only open a certain lock, the Cry toxin can only exert its toxic effect on a particular cell receptor. Consequently, the toxin tends to only impact insects within a particular taxonomic order.

Once the toxin is bound, the process is fairly straightforward. The toxin recruits other Cry toxins to the same cell and together they form a hole in cell’s membrane that ultimately causes the cell to burst [6]. The cumulative effect of this happening to many cells is the irreversible destruction to the midgut membrane, compromising the barrier between the body cavity and gut. Without this barrier, Bt spores and other native gut bacteria can infiltrate and grow within the nutrient-rich body of the insect [4-5].

What makes Bt such a great candidate for pesticide and GM applications is that while these Cry toxins are highly effective against insects, they have been shown to be safe for consumption by mammals. Tests by the EPA have demonstrated that Cry proteins, like any other benign dietary protein, are very unstable in the acidic stomach environment. Furthermore, an oral toxicity test, which involves giving mice exceptionally high doses of purified toxic Bt proteins, showed no significant health impacts. In their 2001 reassessment of several Bt Cry proteins, the EPA concluded from these findings that “there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to the Cry1AB and Cry1F proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production.” Similar conclusions were drawn about the Cry1Ac protein of Bt cotton [7]. Other mouse studies on have shown that even high doses of truncated Cry proteins, such that only the toxic region is conserved, have no deleterious effects . A paper in Annual Review of Entomology from 2002 also makes the strong point that, in addition to no demonstrated toxicity of Bt toxins, their use provides important health benefits to livestock and humans by preventing certain insect-caused crop diseases that produce toxic and carcinogenic compounds [13].
All our best data shows they are safe.   Should we stop using them... just in case?  What other modern technology should we do away with because it might cause unforseen problems?
Maybe they are safe for people and the environment. That'd be great.  I'm not sure 20 years is long enough to say for certain but lets assume GMO crops are safe.  Are they sustainable?  

Now, I mentioned in the previous thread that I don't go out of my way to be organic.  

I don't buy organic produce unless it is competitively priced with its conventional counterpart.  I don't try to avoid GMO foods.

Given the prevalence of corn in processed foods and the prevalence of GMO's in corn, there's no doubt I eat my fair share of GMO corn.

Safety aside, lets address the question of how sustainable GMO's are.  

The average corn yield in 2016 was just under 175 bushels per acre.  

Gene Logsdon, in his book Small Scale Grain Raising, states that a good yield of corn in a commercial setting is 200 bushels per acre.  That's from circa 2008-2009 so what qualifies as "good" might have increased since then but I doubt that it has changed drastically given that the average yield has increased by about 6-13% depending on which year we start from.

According to Mr. Logsdon, commercial corn production on good soil aims for about 30,000 plants per acre.  

The price of corn today is $3.84/bushel.  With those numbers, GMO's should buy us about $768 worth of corn at today's prices.

Given the above, what is the seed cost to plant an acre of GMO corn?  Is it around $90-$100 per acre for the seed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the farmer has to buy that seed every time he plants.  Where as with an open pollinated variety, he could save his own seed year in and year out.  

Which is more sustainable, buying in a product year after year or saving a small portion of what is already being grown?

What about all the other costs that goes into producing an acre of GMO-corn?  

Off the top of my head there will be fertilizer costs.  At 25 tons of manure per acre required to support a 30,000 plant density (per Mr. Logsdon) manure is probably impractical to support a GMO corn operation.  

So lets buy our anhydrous ammonia and the equipment to spray it.  

Now, it doesn't really make sense to shell out for GMO seed and not take full advantage of the GMO traits so lets not forget Round-Up in our costs.

We need to spread that Round-Up so lets go buy the equipment for that.

We're going to need a way to efficiently harvest our 2000 acres so lets go out and buy a combine.  Damn, I bet that's going to be expensive.  Maybe we can pay someone else to do it.  Either way, it's going to take a bite out of our margins.

Even with all this efficiency, 2000 acres is a lot of work so lets hire some help.  

Don't forget the rent and/or mortgage on the land.  2000 acres of premium farm land ain't cheap.

Speaking of not being cheap, we didn't have the money to buy our tractors, combines, implements, etc. out right so we financed it.  So lets add the interests into our costs.

Oh yeah, and lets not forget about the depreciation on all that fancy equipment!

Damn, with all these costs, if something happens to our crop, we'll be ruined.  We better buy some crop insurance.  

All this efficiency has us growing more corn than the market can actually support so if we don't want prices to crater we better hire some lobbyist to persuade the government to mandate people partially fuel their cars with corn.

Now how much of the $768 per acre does the farmer actually get to keep given all of the costs?

No wonder people flock to the cities to make a living.

I'm not saying growing 2000 acres of Reid's Yellow Dent is the answer.  I'm saying that on a smaller, more diversified, more sustainable scale, the farmer doesn't need to work 2000 acres to cover all the costs of industrial farming and still earn a living.  

GMO seed is only one obstacle in the way of sustainable farming.

Something else that Mr. Logsdon relates in his book is how grain farmers in particular have become slaves of sorts to the cycles of debt that fuel their ever increasing efficiencies.  

According to him, the farmers have to keep growing in size and chasing efficiency to stay ahead of the debt that finances that efficiency in the first place.  That doesn't sound very sustainable to me.

Please feel free to correct any of the above numbers if you feel they are out of line.  You're clearly in the business so I'm sure you are far more familiar with the economics of commercial corn production than most of us.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 5:11:01 PM EDT
[#34]
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 5:23:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Have you traveled through the midwest?  Where are you going to find all the manpower to work all those acres by hand?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Have you traveled through the midwest?  Where are you going to find all the manpower to work all those acres by hand?
I never said anything about doing all the work by hand.  If the trend was towards small, sustainable farms, the equipment would follow suit.  

Equipment has advanced for market gardening and I believe small scale mechanization has even made in roads in rice farming, especially in Asia.  There's no reason to believe the same couldn't apply to corn and soybeans.

Seriously, what's the cost of a combine?  How about those ginormous tractors and all the implements used in industrial scale corn production?  

Quoted:

How many people in the third world should starve so we can farm like it is 1880?
My obvious answer would be that we have no more of an obligation to feed them than you have an obligation to feed me.

But if we assume we do have that obligation, we could start by not fueling our cars with food.  And maybe we also use less corn and soybeans for feeding livestock, which isn't very efficient, and use more of it for feeding people
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 5:26:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Oh, subsidies are a BIG part of big farming. The amount that farmers get in subsidies is actually public information, at least up here. We looked up the farmer who rents a lot of land around here (they actually OWN very little land), and in the last 10 years alone, they had some 1.1 MILLION DOLLARS in government programs. 

Subsidies. As in taxpayer money. I always wondered how they had all those brand new, fancy tractors and that pair of identical brand new combines...

So my question is this: Why? My business isn't subsidized by the gov't. 

I was talking to my uncle a couple years ago about all this. He has a cousin that is a GMO farmer. He keeps VERY good books. My uncle reported to me that he spends about $700 per ACRE to plant GMO corn. Most of that is the seed, the rest is the spray. That isn't tractor/labor expenses, just seed and spray. OP was talking a few posts up about saving your own seed to dramatically reduce expenses. With those kinds of numbers, I wonder why anybody started using GMOs at all! Saving your own seed from open pollinated varieties costs basically nothing, at most the cost of the market value of that seed since you didn't sell it.

Big AG is big business. Its become the Wal Mart model. Efficiency through mass production, small margins and lobbyists. Its sustainable through momentum of money flowing from the gov't.



ETA: As far as the gov't being deep into big AG, how do you stop it? Its actually almost comical talking to folks out here. At the local county fairs, you have booths and such for GOP, DFL, etc., and naturally people stop by, and the folks working the booths are always MORE than willing to strike up political talk. I hand out by the GOP booth a lot, and listen to these folks about how gov't is too big, so on and so fourth. I then interject myself into the conversation and ask if we should shut down gov't subsidizing businesses. Absolutely! Everybody agrees to that. I ask if we should shut down farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, and publicly funded crop insurance. I've had some extremely nasty words spoken to me after even suggesting such things.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 5:34:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 5:53:26 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Around here at least (and one thing that's not being said) it's a grant writing game.  I live in the middle of about 6000 acres of exactly this.  Farmer that owns it farms about 10,000 acres of corn, wheat and beans.

I would add that now you have to factor in that most farmers CANNOT make it balance without USDA underwriting.  

I'm sure there are those who can, and maybe that's regional.

That farmer employs a BUNCH of people.  He's feeding families like a right fair size business, and his operation looks a lot like what you've described, but bigger.  His grain bins are four times the size of the old feed mills I used to visit to buy feed.  That pays for him because he can hold the grain until prices are more optimal.

And still...he spends his days doing paperwork.  Doesn't get on a tractor or a combine much.

It is the necessity of those grants that is one of the most problematic factors, to me.    We're kind of dependent on that to eat.  If those grants suddenly disappeared (and farmers all over bank on them being a priority in the US budget every year) for whatever reason, the issue could get serious very quickly.   An awful lot of folks on this very conservative forum would immediately do away with all such government programs if they could, not realizing the effect that would have (or maybe they truly don't care, I don't know.)

It is a hole that I don't believe we can climb out of.  So we have to just do the best we can to tunnel toward the middle ground--and baby steps of improvement-- in any way possible.

"Sustainable" to me means sustainable as an individual farm, but it also means sustainable for the population of people we feed.  

One of the brighter things I see is that in my area, the small farmers, both organic growers and non-organic growers, coexist really well with the thousands of acres of grains around them.  They figure out ways to use their land to avoid what they don't want from the surrounding acreage.   That makes the big farmers happy to have the farm-to-table folks as neighbors, and those big farmers will help if/when they can. (I'm sure there's always the exception, but mostly, it seems to be this way.)  

I don't see a way that we can end up with "one or the other" but "sustainable" is more likely to look like a good mix of both.  

I think we do need MORE folks farming small acreages, because I think there's a market for it.  

But can we ever give up the huge commercial farms?  

I can't see it happening.
View Quote
I'm not as doom and gloom as that.  Maybe I have too much faith in the free market but I personally think it would find a solution and everything would return to equilibrium fairly quickly.  It would be disruptive in the short run no doubt, but eminently survivable.

Now, do I think it will ever happen?  Unfortunately, no.  There's just too much money and too many interests involved in big ag for anything short of some catastrophic, global event to stop it.  

But if I ever get to realize my dream of owning a farm/homestead, I'll do my part to be the change I want to see anyway.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 6:04:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 7:06:00 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I was talking to my uncle a couple years ago about all this. He has a cousin that is a GMO farmer. He keeps VERY good books. My uncle reported to me that he spends about $700 per ACRE to plant GMO corn. Most of that is the seed, the rest is the spray. That isn't tractor/labor expenses, just seed and spray. OP was talking a few posts up about saving your own seed to dramatically reduce expenses. With those kinds of numbers, I wonder why anybody started using GMOs at all! Saving your own seed from open pollinated varieties costs basically nothing, at most the cost of the market value of that seed since you didn't sell it.
View Quote
The numbers you are throwing around don't even begin to represent reality.


https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1-20.pdf



And if subsidies were to go away the market would correct in one year.  


The losses?  Paper losses for landowners on land value, and cash rent losses for landlords.


It's become quite clear that many in this discussion aren't interested in anything beyond the 10 acre or less organic farm.  


Reality on a larger scale isn't welcome, and is in fact maligned.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 7:38:06 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
According to that link, the estimated cost of production for corn following soybeans in 2016 was $3.99 a bushel based on a 180 bushel per acre average yield.  

The average price per bushel was $3.40.

Soybeans following corn tells a similar story.  The estimated cost of production in 2016 was $10.67 per bushel based on a 50 bushel per acre average yield.

The average price per bushel of soybeans was $9.28

Prices received by Iowa Farmers

It sounds like if someone wants to make money as a large scale corn and soybean farmer, being average is out of the question.

Quoted:

It's become quite clear that many in this discussion aren't interested in anything beyond the 10 acre or less organic farm.  

Reality on a larger scale isn't welcome, and is in fact maligned.
Not all.  I for one welcome your input because you represent a side of the debate I'm otherwise not well exposed to.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 7:50:28 PM EDT
[#42]
A question if I may.  You mentioned a 2000 acre farm so I'm going to assume that is a good scale for farming corn and soybeans.  

How many people does it take to work a farm of that size?  Lets assume that the farm is operated at the maximum efficiency that modern technology can deliver.  

What kind of man hours are we talking about over the course of a year?
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 9:05:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Amazing thread.  I started out as a Herdsman on a 60 head string of Milking Shorthorns (milkers plus replacements) and finally ended as the Herdsman on a 950 head CA dairy (small by some standards).  Where "Luis" would drop 1-9 cows at the end of the shift to breed (artificial insemination isn't as much fun as it looks).  That fucker Luis, that's his real name.  I loved filling in on a shift with him.  We brought in a string to a double 12 herringbone, filled big plastic glasses with Mexican Brandy from cows that ran clean on a CMT (favs that had nice tits), add chocolate, sugar and powder coffee.

Run the string out, spray everything down, finish the warm mix, and start over, 200 more to go.

Yea man, I did a dose of Malaria in Honduras.  Running a radar.  Ran insecticides in the house, DDT is not the solution outside.

People took a huge hit when DES was used as a growth hormone in beef.

My favorite dairy bull of all time was Pawnee Farm Arlinda Chief.  

When he had 20 Chief daughters in the herd, Round Oak Rag Apple Elevation was coming on line,  Damn milky heifers, sired by the by Ivanhoe (I've only milked one Ivanhoe daugther, 14 year old cow and straight standing, amazing cow.  But Ivanhoe also did another thing, he introduced a genetic defect (BLAD) into millions of cows.  

This has since been eliminated,   So, I'll take my GMO the old fashined way.

Great post OP.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 9:52:47 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The numbers you are throwing around don't even begin to represent reality.


https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1-20.pdf



And if subsidies were to go away the market would correct in one year.  


The losses?  Paper losses for landowners on land value, and cash rent losses for landlords.


It's become quite clear that many in this discussion aren't interested in anything beyond the 10 acre or less organic farm.  


Reality on a larger scale isn't welcome, and is in fact maligned.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


I was talking to my uncle a couple years ago about all this. He has a cousin that is a GMO farmer. He keeps VERY good books. My uncle reported to me that he spends about $700 per ACRE to plant GMO corn. Most of that is the seed, the rest is the spray. That isn't tractor/labor expenses, just seed and spray. OP was talking a few posts up about saving your own seed to dramatically reduce expenses. With those kinds of numbers, I wonder why anybody started using GMOs at all! Saving your own seed from open pollinated varieties costs basically nothing, at most the cost of the market value of that seed since you didn't sell it.
The numbers you are throwing around don't even begin to represent reality.


https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1-20.pdf



And if subsidies were to go away the market would correct in one year.  


The losses?  Paper losses for landowners on land value, and cash rent losses for landlords.


It's become quite clear that many in this discussion aren't interested in anything beyond the 10 acre or less organic farm.  


Reality on a larger scale isn't welcome, and is in fact maligned.
That link does in fact show an input cost around $700/acre. Its not all seed and spray, so I will concede that (I did mention that those figures were third hand knowledge), but if you look at the numbers, take away seed, fertilizer (you would be using fertilizer from your animal waste), herbicides, and land rent (since you are not trying to rent this 2k acre farm, but a more traditional size farm you would own outright) would bring you down to about $118/acre input costs. Lets be generous and double the labor and fuel you then have an input cost of $166, or $0.83/bushel. 

Now lets multiply that difference over 100 acres tillable and you have an annual savings of $53,400 of input costs over GMO. In your pocket. Lets figure profit from organic corn @ the current LOWEST figure of $7.50/bushel and figure your yield @ 160 bu/acre (the low end of the scale in your link) and you net about $106k if you sold it all at the elevator. Of course you don't sell all that, so say you sell 1/6th of it. Some for seed, the rest for your own dairy/beef operation. That puts about $17,500 profit into the check book. But, maybe you have plenty of pasture land for grass/alfalfa, so you CAN sell more of that corn as a cash crop....

Then add in your dairy/beef operation (or whatever livestock operation you have) profits. I'm not going to compute figures for that kind of theoretical as there are MANY ways to do it, but I know you can make decent money running a 40 head organic dairy operation. Anyway, you get to where you are profitable and sustainable financially with only a couple hundred acres on a farm that supplies its own seed, supplies its own fertilizer, and since it uses older/smaller equipment, equipment costs are low. You provide the vast majority of the labor yourself, so that saves you from having to hire an army.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 10:07:23 PM EDT
[#45]
ETA: This post was supposed to be in my last post above.

I disagree that if you removed all subsidies (crop insurance is also a subsidy) that the market would self correct in a year. BS.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too many farms flat out DEPEND on those subsidies. Just looking Should they loose them, many large farms would go under due to the difference on the balance sheet. I don't think you recover that quickly, and what would be left? Without subsidies, it isn't really profitable (as the figures show in my last post) to pay the cost of GMO seeds/sprays. Who would survive? It would be the century farms running a few hundred acres they own outright. They would have the ability to pivot in. 

Now, the other possibility I see is the big farms taking on big debt to keep going, expecting things to change. Any business would do this. Hire some lobbyist to try and get the gravy flowing again, or hope that the competition drops out, which would lower land rent prices (assuming they aren't locked in more than a few years at a time) to help make up the difference. 

A good case study right now is the dairy farm issue due to Canadian orders being shut down. I don't know of any updates other than Trump was going to "fix it", but if a "fix" is not found and the contracts with a great many dairy farmers DO NOT get renewed, how will thousands of dairy outfits get along? Switch to other farming? Go under? Can they quickly transition to something else? 

In that link you posted, it has input costs of corn @ $3.50/bu. Current IA elevator prices range from about $3.30-$3-60/bu. You really think those farms are doing all this to maybe, MAYBE make 10 cents a bushel? Run 2000 acres for $36k in profits? No, they RELY on subsidies.
Link Posted: 6/17/2017 7:19:44 AM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
ETA: This post was supposed to be in my last post above.

I disagree that if you removed all subsidies (crop insurance is also a subsidy) that the market would self correct in a year. BS.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too many farms flat out DEPEND on those subsidies. Just looking Should they loose them, many large farms would go under due to the difference on the balance sheet. I don't think you recover that quickly, and what would be left? Without subsidies, it isn't really profitable (as the figures show in my last post) to pay the cost of GMO seeds/sprays. Who would survive? It would be the century farms running a few hundred acres they own outright. They would have the ability to pivot in. 

Now, the other possibility I see is the big farms taking on big debt to keep going, expecting things to change. Any business would do this. Hire some lobbyist to try and get the gravy flowing again, or hope that the competition drops out, which would lower land rent prices (assuming they aren't locked in more than a few years at a time) to help make up the difference. 

A good case study right now is the dairy farm issue due to Canadian orders being shut down. I don't know of any updates other than Trump was going to "fix it", but if a "fix" is not found and the contracts with a great many dairy farmers DO NOT get renewed, how will thousands of dairy outfits get along? Switch to other farming? Go under? Can they quickly transition to something else? 

In that link you posted, it has input costs of corn @ $3.50/bu. Current IA elevator prices range from about $3.30-$3-60/bu. You really think those farms are doing all this to maybe, MAYBE make 10 cents a bushel? Run 2000 acres for $36k in profits? No, they RELY on subsidies.
View Quote
What Cidiots never realize is that when a bunch of large bankruptcy's occurs. It drags banks down with them. I remember the oil field bankruptcies of the 80's. Sure was a lot of non oil field people's notes called due at the same time. They just want to see people with more than them suffer and that's all it boils down to. Plain and simple jealousy!

So how are American farmers going to compete with world farmers that are subsidized far more than they are?

How's that market going to correct itself without world desubsidy?
Link Posted: 6/17/2017 9:17:57 AM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That link does in fact show an input cost around $700/acre. Its not all seed and spray, so I will concede that (I did mention that those figures were third hand knowledge), but if you look at the numbers, take away seed, fertilizer (you would be using fertilizer from your animal waste), herbicides, and land rent (since you are not trying to rent this 2k acre farm, but a more traditional size farm you would own outright) would bring you down to about $118/acre input costs. Lets be generous and double the labor and fuel you then have an input cost of $166, or $0.83/bushel. 

Now lets multiply that difference over 100 acres tillable and you have an annual savings of $53,400 of input costs over GMO. In your pocket. Lets figure profit from organic corn @ the current LOWEST figure of $7.50/bushel and figure your yield @ 160 bu/acre (the low end of the scale in your link) and you net about $106k if you sold it all at the elevator. Of course you don't sell all that, so say you sell 1/6th of it. Some for seed, the rest for your own dairy/beef operation. That puts about $17,500 profit into the check book. But, maybe you have plenty of pasture land for grass/alfalfa, so you CAN sell more of that corn as a cash crop....

Then add in your dairy/beef operation (or whatever livestock operation you have) profits. I'm not going to compute figures for that kind of theoretical as there are MANY ways to do it, but I know you can make decent money running a 40 head organic dairy operation. Anyway, you get to where you are profitable and sustainable financially with only a couple hundred acres on a farm that supplies its own seed, supplies its own fertilizer, and since it uses older/smaller equipment, equipment costs are low. You provide the vast majority of the labor yourself, so that saves you from having to hire an army.
View Quote




Theoretical is the best way to describe everything you think you know about modern agriculture.


I'm gonna stick to the beekeeping threads in here, because there is no room for reality in the farming threads.
Link Posted: 6/17/2017 9:23:53 AM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
A question if I may.  You mentioned a 2000 acre farm so I'm going to assume that is a good scale for farming corn and soybeans.  

How many people does it take to work a farm of that size?  Lets assume that the farm is operated at the maximum efficiency that modern technology can deliver.  

What kind of man hours are we talking about over the course of a year?
View Quote
2.


With a few for-hire semi-truck drivers in the fall to truck grain to the bins.

# of man hours depends on entirely too many factors.  Geographic spread of the acreage, avg field size, tillage vs. no till, age and size of equipment.

We have always had hogs so the work never stops.  Many of the grain only farmers around here do other things in the winter when farm work is slower.  But there is always maintenance to do on equipment, grains setups, field tile, etc.

If you have any other questions feel free to PM me.  I'm tired of sharing real information just to watch Rat Patrol spew BS.
Link Posted: 6/17/2017 9:51:52 AM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:







Theoretical is the best way to describe everything you think you know about modern agriculture.


I'm gonna stick to the beekeeping threads in here, because there is no room for reality in the farming threads.
View Quote
So the link you posted as reference isn't a good reference?
Link Posted: 6/17/2017 10:57:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Can someone with experience explain how farm subsidies work?

There is a subsidy for crop insurance and another for yield based on crop and acreage, correct?  Any others?

What kind of money are we talking?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top