I really don't want to come off as abrasive so I'm going to try to moderate my words.  If I fail, please accept my apology in advance.

First off, those of you that farm conventionally keep coming in here and saying how sustainable farming can't be done profitably or trying to run a sustainable farm would just be a hobby or whatever.  But there are people that are actually doing it successfully.  Now maybe they aren't farming corn and soybeans.  Maybe the corn and soybean model is part of the problem.  Or maybe that model just isn't particularly well suited to sustainable farming.

Another common thread I see being weaved by the conventional guys is that we can't feed the world without going big and being efficient.  

Fun fact, About 2/3 of the corn grown in the United States isn't used to feed people.  Not directly anyway.  Almost 30% of it is used for ethanol production and nearly 40% is used for feeding livestock.  Making ethanol out of food is just plain stupid and using people food for livestock is a pretty inefficient use of land so the argument that we need conventional farming to feed the world really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  Conventional ag might make it easier but that doesn't mean it would otherwise be impossible.  FYI, I got the stats from WorldOfCorn.com.

Maybe without CAFO's and all the extra grain needed to sustain them, the price of meat and dairy goes up a little.  I'd wager that would actually be a net benefit to society, given all the diet related health problems in this country.  

At this point, you probably think I'm some dope smoking, vegan hipster douche.  I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth.  I eat plenty of beef and chicken but my favorite type of meat is the type I shoot myself.

Another issue I would like to address is the dire financial situation farmers face when everything doesn't go right.  Please note how I mentioned earlier that the sustainable farm is a resilient farm.  If a season of bad weather or a corn earworm infestation or some bovine disease is enough to wipe out a farmer, that farmer is probably doing something wrong IMO.  And before you say it, planting non-GMO corn isn't his problem.

For those of you that farm conventionally, maybe the reason you're so much at the mercy of the markets or the weather or whatever is because the model you're using is flawed.  When you combine very expensive equipment, high debt loads, and razor thin margins, that doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room for the unexpected.

One area that I will agree with you folks on is that labels like organic, free range, grass fed, etc. are mostly gimmicks.  By all means, charge the people dumb enough to buy into that stuff as much as you can get out of them because stupid should hurt.  I'm sorry if that offends anyone but an organic sticker isn't magic and in my opinion it doesn't make an apple worth twice as much as one without the sticker.  If you really want to know where your food comes from and how it was produced, grow it, raise it, and/or kill it yourself.

I hope I haven't run anyone off.  I really do value the input everyone has contributed to this thread, especially the conventional guys.  Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and help educate me on some of the finer details of farming.  I don't know if I'll ever get to put my ideas into practice on a commercial scale, but someday I would sure like to.

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think y'all are idiots.  

One thing I think that has been missing from this thread is situational context.  The context of a farmer near a city that primarily grows vegetables for a farmer's market or CSA is different than that of a farmer in the Midwest growing corn and soybeans.  Ditto for the context of a farmer in southern Arizona versus his counterpart in New England.

Would that be happening in the absence of subsidized farming?  Subsidies disproportionately benefit the bigger producers.

If a farmer averages 150 bu/ac corn, his yields would be more than 5 times higher than the average yield for corn in the US in the thirties.  He would also probably be losing money. That is, if he has conventional cost inputs.  He better hope the subsidies keep flowing or his luck improves because that isn't sustainable.

Now, I guess we could debate the meaning of the word sustainable but I thought the context of this thread made it clear.  

In terms of agriculture, I think the definition "pertaining to a system that maintains its own viability (emphasis mine) by using techniques that allow for continual reuse," is most appropriate.  

I want to quote Gene Logsdon here in his book, Small-Scale Grain Raising:

As in not sustainable?  

I'm all for the free market but agriculture in the US is not a very free market and the barriers to entry will keep getting higher and higher as long as subsidies continue to encourage consolidation.

But the highest subsidiary farmers are the top and the bottom. Bottom being the subsidiary type farmers. There's actually more money set aside for them than the big guy's. Just because there's more of them. The farmers in the middle get scraps, cause they aren't struggling like the bottom or cash flowing like the top.

That's just today's business model.

Welcome to the party!  Nice write up.

I'll ask this:

How do you start a farm today. Say you had the knowledge, but how do you do start a farm from scratch? 

You don't.

Well, you don't unless you borrow more money than you can possibly every expect on paying back in anything resembling a reasonable time frame, or a have millions to invest. 

Because you can't start a 200 acre farm. Unless you are in a niche market, you don't. You cannot every possibly fathom competing with the huge corporate farms. There are certain truths, and in industry, the "economics of scale" play a huge role. 

I'm going to take numbers from back when I was still farming, which was on approx 800 acres, depending on if any land was rented that year. So these numbers may be different than today, forgive me. The farm made about $100/acre profit every good year. That didn't consider new equipment or infrastructure needs, or other such "unexpected" expenses. It wasn't gross profit, but you could say net from cost of input to that acre, but included normal maintenance and such "normal" expenses. That was with land that was paid off. The farm was on all the available programs of the time, and made a fair amount from the grain storage program.

How do you buy into that? Land at the time was about $2k/acre. How can you possibly consider trying? At the grain profit of the time, dumping 100% of that grain profit would take you 30 years to pay off the land loan. Then you need all the equipment, equipment supporting equipment, all from scratch.  Then the buildings, sheds, workshops, etc. At the time, subsidies made farming profitable enough to continue doing it.

So you don't buy into it. Farms back then were dropping left and right. Since there was more money to be made working in the city, farm kids were not interested in the farm and left. Once the old man retired, the farm was sold. Guess who bought it: other farms. They didn't need to re-invest in equipment and sheds, workshops, or need to establish a home to live on. They needed bare land. I know there were tax incentives and tax breaks to buy/rent land (basically, not own it outright either through rental or bank loans). Truthfully, the accountant ran all that, and advised the farm of the best financial options.

At that point, which was many years ago, I felt like farming was almost like a pyramid scheme. You either got in early, or you didn't. You inherited the farm or you didn't. If you didn't, you had to be a mega farm already to acquire more land since prices were sky high (or so I thought at the time. Cheap compared to today). Sure, that $100/acre profit may have shrunk down to $50, but the economics of scale meant you still made more money. You had to be more financially savvy to know the in/outs/loopholes/right programs to make the money than a good farmer. Odds are, being owner of a large corporate type farm, you didn't work the land anyway. You were a business manager.

On that last note, near us a feedlot was bought out buy a couple brothers from the city (very wealthy) who wanted to be farmers. They had NO working idea how to farm, but they had money. They bought the running operation, and hired on some farm hands that knew how to make stuff work, and a farm "consultant" to tell them EXACTLY what to do and when to do it. Seriously, they wrote the checks, but were almost employees to the consultant. Granted they make money, but for what they paid for the operation, they can never pay it back. They are currently trying to sell the operation, hopefully for more than they paid, and take the years of working the farm as the main of the "profit" from the business adventure. They were businessmen who wanted and were willing to get their hands dirty. They had no intention of doing this for ever. Truthfully, I think they were bored and wanted something to do.

I guess to say in all that is current farming is the Wal-Mart model. Get as big as you can and play the games or struggle. Now, I have no shame, and cast no stones, about farms taking any subsidies, grants, etc. We can all only play the game. Currently, the game is as mixed with business and politics as any other mega industry. Its not about farming anymore, its just another industry like coal or oil. I'd like to see ALL subsidies across ALL business <slowly> eliminated, but that won't happen. I'm also in favor of eliminating the income tax completely and having a VAT tax on luxury items, but that is another discussion.

My wife and I want to start a small organic dairy farm. Why? A few reasons. Organic because that is what we believe in, but its also business. Organic direct-to-consumer is THE niche market right now. In my observations, its about the only way to make a decent living from smaller acreage. Honestly, I'd be modeling the farm off of a couple local organic farmers who do just what we want to do at about the size we want to do it. Its 100% dependent on location though, as you have to be close enough to consumers to actually sell anything to them though. If we have an organic farm on 200 acres, we can make decent profits. Conversely, 200 acres conventionally isn't much of an income. The other reason is our 3 year old is "special needs", and while he has many years ahead of him to grow and hopefully thrive, its highly likely he will not be able to hold a meaningful job in the fast paced world of the future. The outdoors is what he knows, even here with everything we do in miniature. He thrives in it. We bring him to town, he desperately seeks out any spot of grass or trees he can find to stand in it. If we can give him a working farm, our farm, to live out his days on, we will. My wife and I would likely never see "profit" from the farm, as we would spend our lives paying it off. Luckily, I have other streams of revenue to pay the bills. But, once the farm is free and clear, he could keep it going and make a living. And there are financial programs for organic as well. Again, while we don't like it, we pay the taxes and the money is allocated already. All you can do is play the game.

I'm currently on page 3 of your thread. IDK if you want this in your thread or not so I wont link to it, but it seems you're a good example of what OP thinks can work and you being able to tell the reality.

If your goal is to get this thread locked, insults like the one I removed will do it, and they add no useful information.

Please keep in mind that this is a tech forum. It is not General Discussion, and posters are held to a higher standard.  Several posters have commented that this is a great thread.  You may not agree, and your opinion is welcome, as is your knowledge, but please be respectful.
~~Kitties

Again, I agree subsidies are bad, but I don't think removing subsidies will make smaller farms more efficient nor will it result in more small family farming operations.

Sorry if I was unclear about where I saw the "rock throwing". It was in the locked thread and I'm glad to see a much more reasonable approach here.

I'm sorry you felt the two words you removed were considered an insult. I'll refrain from using them going forward.  I was merely attempting to encourage the OP and Rat into a discussion because his farm/homesteading style seems relevant to the OP's interests.

I would be curious to know how phosphorous run-off compares to habitat loss in terms of negative environmental impacts of farming.  It would also be interesting to know what percentage of farm land sits un-utilized for more than a season.  I have found areas while hunting that clearly used to be fields but just as clearly haven't been planted in years.

I'm not going to keep hitting on the subsidies because in principle we seem to agree they are bad for the long term health of ag.  We might not be on the same page as to the finer points of it, but we're close enough.

I would like to touch on some of the environmental aspects you mentioned.  In an ideal world, lower yields, if that is what organic processes delivered, would not need to be made up by more habitat loss because the grain being grown today is being used inefficiently.  

I've already pointed out how most of the corn grown in the United States today isn't used to feed people.  If anything, in an ideal system, land would be taken out of production (or used for a purpose it is most suited for) because we would have more efficient utilization.  Some land is good for growing row crops.  Other land is more appropriate for pasture.  If you are a farmer that owns or rents both types of land and have invested $300,000-$400,000 into a combine, it's going to be awfully tempting to put marginal land into grain to try to get the most out of your investment, even if in the long run doing so causes more harm than good.

Now, having said that, we don't live in an ideal world and I don't see anyway of getting to there from here short of regulation (i.e. force) and I do not support that.  It would be nice to see farmers, especially grain farmers (since grain farming uses so much land and therefore has a larger impact), adopt more sustainable practices and I think over time they do and will continue to.  

The past has already demonstrated that as we learn more about the impacts of our actions we make changes to minimize those impacts.  No-till, crop rotation, strip farming, and leaving residue on the surface are some examples of more sustainable practices that have been adopted by conventional farmers.  I think more extensive use of cover crops is another positive change slowly finding its way into conventional ag.

Much of my first post in this thread was about detailing my definition of what a sustainable farm is.  I also included a dictionary definition on this page of what I believe sustainable agriculture is.  Now, I'm not Webster's so I don't claim any authority to define words but I think it's a good start.

One change I would like to make to my original posts pertains to the size of what I believe a sustainable farm is.  I didn't specifically define size but I did mention that a sustainable farm isn't hundreds or thousands of acres.  I think that is incorrect.  A sustainable farm is whatever size sustainable practices can be appropriately scaled to.  

If I could go out and start my own farm today, for my context, it would likely consist of a half to one acre of intensively cultivated vegetables.  There would probably be a small to medium size greenhouse.  

I would plant a few acres of fruit trees and berry bushes.  Since direct to customer sales would be my primary outlet for fruits and vegetables, I would choose varieties that would offer income throughout the year.

I would also maintain a flock of egg laying chickens that would be suited to foraging for themselves on pasture.  Like the fruits and vegetables, my eggs would be marketed directly to customers.

If my land had access to affordable water (which believe it or not does exist in some places in southern Arizona), I would like a few dozen acres of pasture to run beef cattle on.  I would use a system of managed intensive rotational grazing for the cattle as long as I had the water to support it.  The cattle operation would be cow/calf to finish and most of the finished cattle would be sold at the sales barn.  I would sale some direct to customers if it proved to be a viable market.

If I grew any grains, it would be at a very small scale and essentially for fun.  Basically an experiment that could be used to supplement my animals but that doesn't really impact my bottom line in a big way regardless of its success or failure.

Since the barriers to entry for hay are lower than grains and there is a ready market of horse owners around my region, I would want some hay fields equal to about a quarter to a third of my pasture in size.

I would consider adding pigs into the mix but I don't know enough about pig farming yet to say how I would go about doing it.

I would expand my operation as experience and opportunity allowed but I would want to keep it to a size where it could be managed by myself and maybe one or two part time hired hands.

I think for my context (a ready market of a million plus people and over 300 days of sunshine a year) I could make a decent living on a farm like that.  I don't necessarily expect that to be true for someone in the Midwest or elsewhere.

I'm not sure that it is a problem in my area; there's not too much water around here to pollute in the first place.  Nitrate and phosphorous runoff from the Midwest into the Mississippi seems to be a problem though.

Honestly, I would buy as many acres as I could afford just because I don't like being around other people.  The size and whether or not the land has been improved would depend entirely on budget.  For me, sufficient access to water is more important than any of those other considerations.  

It would also be something I eased into while working full time off farm.

Vegetables and eggs is likely where I would start.  Just as a personal preference, I would want to grow a wide variety of vegetables and I think that could work well with selling at farmer's markets and/or CSA boxes.  Specializing in selling salad mixes to restaurants is where the real money is though.  Local supermarkets are another potential outlet.  Building a CSA clientele and earning restaurant and grocer business would take time though so the easiest place to start would be the farmer's market and maybe a farm stand.

Trees and bushes are a long term investment so I would plant them as soon as possible but wouldn't expect any meaningful return for several years.

The point at which I would get into cattle would depend a lot on the land I ended up with.  Let's say I had 50 acres of unimproved land.  In theory, I could fence off the market garden and the fruit orchard and range cattle on the rest while I worked on converting it into pasture.  Most cattle around here are free ranged.  It's low management but the trade off is that they can't be run very densely because well, I live in a desert.  It would be a good way to earn experience though if the pasture was going to take awhile to develop.  

I'm not rich and I don't come from a farming background so I think "growing into it" would be the logical approach from both a financial and experience point of view.

Yes, but there are ways to mitigate that.  High planting densities, mulches, tarps, and stale seedbeds are all very practical weed management techniques that reduce labor and are particularly applicable to a vegetable operation.  Keeping things at a manageable size is also important.  Half an acre of densely planted vegetables in 30" beds is easier to keep weeded without chemicals than 2 or 3 acres of row cropped vegetables.

I'll be the first to admit that to me, marketing is the least desirable aspect of farming.  If anything ever keeps me from pursuing farming, marketing will be it.

On the vegetable side, I envision the farmer's market -> CSA -> restaurants -> local grocery stores.  Aggregators could also probably play a role.  I know there are a lot of produce buyers in Nogales (which isn't far away) that could be another outlet but then that becomes a race to the bottom price wise so I can only envision excess going to something like that.

Chefs shop at farmer's markets and so do the type of people that would be interested in CSA boxes so the farmer's market could be used to establish a foot hold with those more reliable customers.  If restaurants and grocery stores became a dependable enough market, the farmer's market and/or CSA boxes would probably eventually get dropped as the farm matured.

One advantage for a small farmer in southern Arizona is that it is the liberal bastion of the state.  That tends to be my least favorite part of living here but those folks are all about being local and trendy so it can work to the farmer's advantage.

No offense taken.  Growing stuff is only part of the equation.  I doubt it's the part of the equation that is most likely to cause a farmer to fail.

They shut most of the chicken houses down in the North East part of the state due to phosphorus fears. Well they had a big spoon bill catfish fishery. Well guess what the spoon bill's are decreasing in numbers and now the state is having to fertilize the water. Another subsidies program. I think the phosphorus scare is more control than anything. Plus it's another way to subsidize corn farmers to buy chicken litter.

P.S. subsidiary programs always create far more taxes and jobs than most of you realize.

Ethanol takes natural gas. Natural gas is taxed at the wellhead then the seller pays taxes. Then the mineral owner pays taxes and finally the the buyer pays taxes at the pump. Not to mention all the jobs it creates to get it to the pump. It's sneaky pyramid scheme that we would go to jail for but. .government gets away with.

My issue with subsidies "making jobs" is that its just another re-distribution of wealth scheme. Not to mention how much is lost between the taxes and and subsidies out for "administrative" costs.

No subsidies means EVERYBODY has more money to spend on what they want and need, which means the suppliers of those wants and needs have more income to spend on their wants/needs, etc., etc. 

That is all super hypothetical anyway. The subsidies are here to stay, just like we WILL end up with single payer healthcare. There is no going back, too many people get used to .gov bennies.

We had an 11 acre homestead....

5 acres of timber
3 acres of new growth
3 acres of tillable

1.5 story house with full walk-out basement (1300sf main level, 325sf loft)
Propane (water heater, stove / oven, and furnace)
Electric (lights, blower motors, etc)

30x40 barn with 8x30 attached Porch / Lean-To

Electric well water (300+ feet deep)
Septic system

We had...

30+ Chickens
20+ Fruit Trees
30+ Brambles (blueberry, raspberry, blackberry)
10+ Grapes
1/3 Acre Vegetable Garden

We built...

Chicken tractors
Chicken coops
Fencing, more fencing and yet more fencing (I installed over 300 fix foot t-posts and over 7,000 feet of electric wire)
Wood sheds
Rainwater collection system
Canning storage system
Shelter in basement
Composting systems
Firewood processing
Animal paddocks
Pasture paddocks
Much more

What we learned ...

1) Traditional rural farming families had a lot of children, because homesteads need a lot of labor / hands.  There is NEVER time to take off.  Even those rare moments where you're resting something will happen.  
2) You must start small and grow with your homestead.
3) Organic farming methods require a crap-ton of physical labor.
4) Livestock is essential for homesteading.  We never added a milking cow or beef steer, but should of done so.  When we finally sold the homestead we had spent a lot of time researching (books, online, our other homesteading friend's animals, etc) goats, sheep, pigs, and cattle.

Our conclusions ...

STEP 1 - Decide how self-sufficient you want to become.

A) Livestock are essential for a homestead (meat, eggs, milk, manure, grass management).  True self-sufficiency means you wouldn't buy hay - so you need acreage for animal rotation, and winter overstock production.
B) Larger properties require more maintenance and development.
C) Larger properties cost more and therefore require more "outside income" because it is highly unlikely your homestead will make enough cash to pay your bills (utilities if you have them, property taxes, diesel, gasoline, insurance, etc).

STEP 2 - Start small

A) After you purchase your land spend some time figuring out how you want to use it before putting a spade in the ground.  Its hard to "undo" something you vested your time and money in later.
B) Plant your first round of long term food producers (fruit and nut trees).  I said first round because you'll want to stagger plantings over years to account for productive life span issues (study this).
C) Build a proper garden 1/4 the size you think you need.  Fence the entire area, but only use 1/4.  This will also help with plant rotation.  Later you can add fencing between your garden paddocks...let your chickens clean last year's.  Rotate yearly...never in the same space two year in a row.
D) Plant your perennials.  Blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, grapes (if you're a sadomasochist), strawberries, and asparagus.
E) Build a small compost system.

FOLLOWING YEAR

F) Build a mobile chicken coop and add 3 hens
G) Build wood shed
H) Improve garden

FOLLOWING YEAR

I) Add more fruit trees
J) Add livestock (goats if you're on small property / cattle if you you have 3 acres per animal to spare).  Sheep if you want to find out they are constantly looking for ways to die unexpectedly.
K) Add rain water collection / distribution system

FOLLOWING YEAR

L) Evaluate what is working and what is not.  Implement improvements.
M) Expand vegetable garden.

FOLLOWING YEAR

N) Add pig paddock and two pigs.
O) Improve production of animal feed (the cost will be getting to you at this point)



You get the point.




When we buy our next property to re-boot our homesteading experiment it'll likely be:

5 acres of tillable
5-10 acres of timber

HOWEVER ... we could get buy with 2-5 acres.  On two acres we could produce enough vegetables, fruit, eggs and milk (goat) to feed our family.  Easily.

You do realize school lunches are subsidies, along with VA lunches at some of the VA centers in poor communities? Some senior citizen centers get subsidized food too? I have absolutely no problem feeding the youth of this country or the old or the veterans. A lot of the subsidies started out as really good intentions they just got abused just like unions abuse their powers now.

Before .gov subsidies, the churches and communities donated and supplied these things as charity. 

The American people are the most generous people to ever live. We are. What other country can raise millions of dollars in mere hours to bring supplies to some third world country after a natural disaster? When the whole meals-on-wheels thing was going around that the program may loose federal funding (which is a small part of their funding), PRIVATE donations POURED into the program, those donations FAR exceeded the amount of money they received from the fed gov't, and all in something like 48 hours. 

Those who need will still get their needs met by private charity. Grandma won't go without a meal, the kids at school will still get fed. 

Society has pushed this 'somebody else will take care of it, let the gov't handle it' that it makes me sick. 

I don't give to charity much anymore. You know why? When I look into charities, so many have such high "administrative" costs that so little of my donation does actual good. You know what I do instead? When I see somebody in the grocery store trying to decide what they should buy because they don't have enough money to buy both, I give them cash. I see people checking out in front of me who have to put items back because they don't have that much money, I pick up their tab. There was a young woman on Facebook who was asking if there were any charities that help with diapers or other baby supplies. We bought $150 worth of diapers and supplies and dropped them off. 100% direct to those who need it. 

So a school that is struggling in your scenario could fold really quick if the community went through a recession and donations were down?

I would be interested in hearing some feedback/reaction from some of the farmers in this thread regarding the above video.

Yet the subsidies started out as surplus food to schools and the needy. Food surpluses was the first welfare programs.

European farm is small diversified highly subsidized farming all to compete with the less subsidiary American farmers. Most land in Europe is owned by a certain class and farmers are primarily renters.

The true subsidiary farmers are in Russia and China with set food prices where diverse table fare is the rewards instead of money.

It is hard for a farmer to stay subsidiary in this country where capital trade is the goal. Plus bank's are going to kill all subsidiary farmers at some point do to cash flow. Cause unreported cash is the main success key to subsidiary farmers. But then you throw Obama care at a small subsidiary farmer with the 15% self employment tax. He can't show enough income to afford health care. So therefore the farmer will have to have a spouse with health care provider through work. Now the farm is actually less subsidiary.

Actually it won't be long before subsidiary rental farmers will be the main stream in this country when China and Russia step into our niche. Then we will have to fallow the European countries in order to compete. And it's easier to regulate a renter than a landowner.

I look for it not to be long before this country is faced with a common wealth or communist choice.

Here's another question sense we are talking subsidiary programs. What percent are actually government and what are private that the government hands out?

Now your saying we need to compare apples to apples.

How are we going to do this when the department of agricultural actually oversees the food programs along with timber ocean and state fisheries and mining.

And not to mention drugs that fall under the usda.

Agriculture and it's tariffs actually fund so much more than just grain farming. To overhaul it alone would probably destroy this countries own economy. I would honestly love to see more small farmers supporting our voting base. Because now that the actual number of farmers is under 2% of the population we no longer have enough voting power to protect ourselves let alone decide what we want or need from the government.

Just some more food for thought on y'alls little discussion.

As I have stated in the past my subside is so small it's not worth talking about but if they are going to regulate my land I should at least get some compensation for it.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! The land owner population in all other countries is the ruling class. This is a welfare states way of control. They will not level the market so they have to keep prices low through subsidiary programs. And the ag programs are tied directly to the welfare ebd  cards. It insurance for the liberals as well as the conservative representatives. It's a way of not entirely going communist because nationalized farmers would lead to war or bankruptcy.  Not to mention most people just aren't going to work hard enough to provide cheap food from small acreages.

The problem is the only way to end subsidiary programs is to shut off world trade. Which is not going to happen. People will never allow it. They are to used to paying the least amount for their food and using the rest for nonessential items.  

Sense we started growing chickens we endured a 500% gas increase from 0.89 to $5.00 gal propane, then back down to a $1.20 average.
Average electric bill went from  $500.00 a month to  $1000.00.
Insurance rates for property doubled.
Health insurance well that tripled.
Cost of living on average tripled.

Our pay went up one and one half penny per pound. That equals out to a little less than  $2500 per batch. That's about  $1200 a month.
Now how do you ask a kid to barrow that much money so they can still cash flow and not have to go to subsidiary farming?
Those numbers sure make subsidized farming look good don't they?
Now remember if you research there are more subsidiary programs available for the small business owners if you just research. Because then you overlap into the small business sector and there's grants plus low interest loans available.
I have been wondering what the pot subsidies will be?

Sorry for shitting on y'alls thread. I am just so tired of the petty jealousy and divisions. The saying United We Stand Divided We Fall. Well that's how the ag industry is controlled.

So why is hemp valuable? I admit I know almost nothing about it.

Rope and textiles are produced from it. It grows wild in some parts of the country. It's getting more and more uses as cotton replacement.

Conventional guys only know one way.  And think that's the only way there can be.  They're right if you're going to get into the commodity game.  The "sustainable" guys can't play in that area but there are endless areas you can as you've already seen.

Found this link on sustainable weed management. Thought it would be relevant here. 

http://www.johnnyseeds.com/growers-library/tools-supplies/weed-management-basics-eric-gallandt.html?trk_msg=LNAQGUQ0G50KD5MN5S75MQ4QMO&trk_contact=5MRFR8K301C3J91G5R5K0QL1K0&trk_sid=PIMLJFG7LNRF3JVKI6PSDLUTGS&utm_source=Listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Weed+Management+for+Sustainable+Agriculture&utm_campaign=JSS-Adv-08-2017-HG

The marijuana farms around here seem to be sustainable, both economically and environmentally, based on my limited exposure.  

I think this is an interesting perspective on government involvement compared to conventional agricultural.

In my (admittedly antique) viewpoint & experience Raider14 has the same experience/viewpoint that I do.  I grew up in the "wintergarden" area of Texas (Crystal City, Batesville, Uvalde area). I am not from a farming family, but our family had 150 ac or so for horses & cattle.  I have been working farms/ranches all my life.  A small farmer /rancher needing a large family for the "labor" is no joke.  My summer "vacations" from school were spent driving tractors for grandparents trying to get hay in the barn . . . starting at 7 or 8 yrs old pulling hay wagons in first gear.

Large commercial farming was & still is a huge thing there.  And they do grow garden crops.  I have worked on farms that were growing 1k ac of cabbage, 1.5k ac of pickles, 5-600 ac of tomatos, along with corn and milo all on the same farm.  Most of those guys have gotten even bigger since then.

I really thought about getting into farming when I was in high school in the early 70's.  After putting a sharp pencil to it, even at that time it would be almost impossible starting from scratch.  It is even worse now.  THAT is why farm families are dwindling, Most of the single family farms that were successful (i.e.: were still in business at the end of 10 yrs), had property that had been in the family for generations (or grew a damm good crop of oil wells).  Even then, most of the farms would not support more than 1 possibly 2 families.  We/I had neither of those, So i looked elsewhere for a way to make a living.

From what I have seen, in order to get into large commercial farming starting from scratch, and survive 10 yrs, you almost need to be independently wealthy to start with.  And large farming to me is 1000 ac or more self supporting (i.e.: no outside jobs), and the equipment to work it.

And I know that everyone is upset about GMO corn.  If you really want to see the amount of GMO corn production drop, decrease the price of it.  Guaranteed action.  If a farmer gets more for wheat that corn & he can grow wheat, guess what . . . .  He will be the biggest grower of wheat he can be.

Joke

Do you want to know how to make a small fortune farming?




Start with a large fortune. :)

When asked what he would do with his mega lottery winnings the farmer replied,


"I guess I'll just keep farming until I lose it all"