378 years of family farming!!!

   / 378 years of family farming!!! #41  
I see where you are coming from. At $0.75/lb it doesn't sound like enough to be more than a hobby. If he had to replace his equipment from that, pay the property taxes, get paid something for his time and buy the supplies, etc.; he may be losing money and not realize it or care.
Dave.

Most of us that farm, very seldom turn a profit. It is something that is in your blood. Something that you will do until you die or until health runs out. Don't feel bad if you don't understand this way of thinking, most don't. Ken Sweet
 
   / 378 years of family farming!!! #42  
Most of us that farm, very seldom turn a profit. It is something that is in your blood. Something that you will do until you die or until health runs out. Don't feel bad if you don't understand this way of thinking, most don't. Ken Sweet

Perhaps he figures everything is paid for and $0.75/lb is 'fair'. I don't know what there is to understand. Would you go to the farmer's market and pass out dollar bills? It's a free country, he can sell his tomatoes or give them away.

I would not want to be the guy who needs to make some income from selling tomatoes at that market, I'll bet he understands less than I do. :laughing:
Dave.
 
   / 378 years of family farming!!! #43  
It's also concerning when GMO seed producers spend a lot of time and money protecting their copyright/patent/intellectual property by bringing suit against anyone who get's in their way - including innocent farmers. The same is true for growth hormone suppliers.

Find me a patent holder who does not defend the rights of their patent when those patents are infringed by "innocent" consumers...Record labels fought it w/ MP3's, movies with copied DVD's. If they were innocent, there would be nothing to hide, and nothing that could be prosecuted. Don't kid yourself though, anyone w/ PVP seed defends their patents. A few years back, Kansas State prosecuted a group of farmers that illegally used seed from the the University

A few years ago, Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy (in Maine) for putting a label on their milk cartons stating the milk is from cows raised without artificial growth hormones.

As I recall those were issues surrounding in claiming that those milk cows produced milk that was better or healthier than milk produced from herds that used the hormone, it went beyond simply stating that it was BST free.

That's a behavior driven by profit rather than one that is primarily concerned with food safety. Their science is questionable but they want to use their financial power (we can afford more lawyers than you) to have things their way. As long as consumers read about these types of things happening, naturally the agri-businesses will be critisized. I hope you can sense that from within the industry.

I absolutely sense this. Sometimes more than others, and it goes both ways...HSUS has more funding behind them than any livestock group could possibly battle directly, and some of their positions are quite questionable.

From the organic grower's view point, the contention is that since organic foods began to command good prices and a consumer following, the agri-businesses have successfully lobbied to adapt the definition of 'organic' and 'sustainable' to something their business/production model can participate in. 'Organic' is a very slippery definition. So are 'free range' and 'natural'.

Yep...my wife grows and sells flowers at farmers' markets. She also subscribes to some market grower trade publications. They're interesting for me to read along the way...there are those that are upset because of a CSA in Colorado has grown quite large, and is competing with other CSA's. Sweet (I think it was) made a comment a post or so back about farmers not turning a profit, and doing it for the for the lifestyle...there may be some in that camp, but there are ALOT more doing it for profit. My FIL's only income comes from the farm...he doesn't do it for the fun of it...he works the land to feed his family, and he only does that by making a profit.

Egg and fryer production is a good issue. To raise chickens in confined cages, my understanding is you need to medicate them to have an acceptable mortality rate. They are stressed and living in what I would consider unhealthy conditions. So, we buy poultry products at prices that are only possible through the application of vetrinary science and chemicals. I am not sure that is the correct choice. Shame on us if we import poultry products raised even worse, I agree.

I admittedly don't know alot about chicken production, my experience is in beef, but my guess is that they apply the same processes that we do in the beef industry. You treat what needs treated, and not more. Think about it this way, if I add medication (money) to my feed ration just because the animals might get sick, what does that do to my profit? That's not to say that sick animals don't get treated, but it's not done just for fun or just because. That's the great advantage of using Vet Sci...in the past those would have died...

I certainly don't see the majority of farmers as the bad guys, they are trying to make a living doing what they love to do. I also don't mean to ignore all the good things achieved by the Ag industry.
Dave.[/QUOTE]

Thanks again for the discussion, I think we may end up agreeing to disagree on several of the topics, but I hope the discussion has triggered some thought on both sides of the issues presented.
 
   / 378 years of family farming!!! #44  
The guy that hays my fields maintains eighty head of beef cattle and told me just a few weeks ago that he uses two local slaughter houses and sells his product through the slaughter house and also, when he can, locally. He also sells some of his young stock to a feed lot.
He cannot bring the meat back to his farm and sell it there legally without getting FDA inspections and meeting their regulations - interpretation - megabucks and hastle. That's not to say your hay maker doesn't sell his meat under the radar. And if he does, more power to him. If he sells his meat through the slaughter house, then he will not get the price that Kroger gets for the meat, probably not even close.

To the extent government regulation exists to keep our food supply safe, as a consumer, I welcome it. Blaming ones misfortunes in the meat industry on government regulation and bureaucrats is misdirected IMO. Beef is a global market and prices are what they are.
I'm afraid that that's a little bit too BIG BROTHER for me. The government has regulated the small meat farmer out of the market. The reason the industrial meat industry needs the regulation is they raise their meat in over-crowded closed environments that encourage the spread of disease among the animals. That's not the case in a non-industrialized small farm where the animals can roam outside. The industrialized meat industry fills their animals full of antibiotics because the environments are so unhealthy. Once again, that's not necessary on a small farm.

I'm not arguing that a hog house should not have some government oversight because when a pig in that environment has a disease, the disease can be easily and quickly transmitted to hundreds of other pigs because they are packed in the place like sardines. However, its ridiculous to make a small farmer comply with the same beaurocracy because his animals are not subjected to the same conditions as the industrial meat houses. Unfortunately, government agencies are not known for using common sense.

I'm not here to rant against those in the ag-business. They do what is necessary to stay in business, and it's a very hard business. My beef, pardon the pun, is with the government's putting up roadblocks that make making a living as a small farmer difficult or impossible for many. I should be able to raise and sell eggs, broilers, pork, and beef to my next door neighbor if I raise the animals in a natural setting. Now if I choose to raise the animals cooped up inside closed quarters, that's my choice and that's when the beaurocrats can do their job.

Obed
 
Last edited:
   / 378 years of family farming!!! #45  
A few years ago, Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy (in Maine) for putting a label on their milk cartons stating the milk is from cows raised without artificial growth hormones.

As I recall those were issues surrounding in claiming that those milk cows produced milk that was better or healthier than milk produced from herds that used the hormone, it went beyond simply stating that it was BST free.

Monsanto v. Oakhurst - Reclaim Democracy.org

Updates. April 3, 2007: Monsanto Inc. filed a complaint to the US Food and drug Administration, asking it to ban labels identifying products as coming from cows not injected with artificial hormones.

Dec. 24, 2003: Monsanto Inc. and Oakhurst Dairy settled Monsanto's lawsuit out of court today. Under the agreement, Oakhurst will use labels that read, "Our Farmersエ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormone Used." Its previous label did not have the word "used." But the labels also will note that the FDA claims there is no significant difference in milk from cows treated with growth hormones.

In a prepared statement, the companies said the conditions and terms of their agreement are confidential. Company officials declined further comment
.

What Monsanto didn't like, was the 'implication' that growth hormones somehow resulted in unsafe milk. Oakhurst Dairy didn't imply anything, just made a business judgement to not use them in response their local market, personal feelings and experiences.

Human medical science would back up that choice as being healthier for people - to not have growth hormones occuring in the environment where they were never intended. Nor were growth hormones ever tested for 'downstream' effects in this regard by Monsanto or anyone else apparently. If they did testing on this area, the results were not made public.

It seems clear to me that Monsanto used whatever means available to it to try to prevent consumers from knowing or being aware of growth hormone use in food production. They had to have a reason for taking that stance.

According to Oakhurst, in 2008, Monsanto got out of the growth hormone supply business for dairy cows.

I hope I have represented the facts of case accurately.
Dave.
 
   / 378 years of family farming!!! #46  
He cannot bring the meat back to his farm and sell it there legally without getting FDA inspections and meeting their regulations - interpretation - megabucks and hastle. That's not to say your hay maker doesn't sell his meat under the radar. And if he does, more power to him. If he sells his meat through the slaughter house, then he will not get the price that Kroger gets for the meat, probably not even close.

I'm afraid that that's a little bit too BIG BROTHER for me. The government has regulated the small meat farmer out of the market. The reason the industrial meat industry needs the regulation is they raise their meat in over-crowded closed environments that encourage the spread of disease among the animals. That's not the case in a non-industrialized small farm where the animals can roam outside. The industrialized meat industry fills their animals full of antibiotics because the environments are so unhealthy. Once again, that's not necessary on a small farm.

I'm not arguing that a hog house should not have some government oversight because when a pig in that environment has a disease, the disease can be easily and quickly transmitted to hundreds of other pigs because they are packed in the place like sardines. However, its ridiculous to make a small farmer comply with the same beaurocracy because his animals are not subjected to the same conditions as the industrial meat houses. Unfortunately, government agencies are not known for using common sense.

I'm not here to rant against those in the ag-business. They do what is necessary to stay in business, and it's a very hard business. My beef, pardon the pun, is with the government's putting up roadblocks that make making a living as a small farmer difficult or impossible for many. I should be able to raise and sell eggs, broilers, pork, and beef to my next door neighbor if I raise the animals in a natural setting. Now if I choose to raise the animals cooped up inside closed quarters, that's my choice and that's when the beaurocrats can do their job.

Obed

I can't speak to what price Keeg's neighbor can get for his beef sold at the slaughter house.

I think your comment on 'carpet bombing' regulations applied across the spectrum - tiny to huge, regardless of conditions or methods, is dead on.

I'd rather not think of it in terms of 'blaming the government' so much as why do people do stupid things that cause the need for government regulations?

Even with regulations, some people would rather hire a team of lawyers to find loopholes than comply with the intent. It's hard to argue against the intent of most regulations. It's also hard to beat back a gaggle of lawyers arguing about equal protection, interstate commerce and the like.
Dave.
 
   / 378 years of family farming!!! #47  
He cannot bring the meat back to his farm and sell it there legally without getting FDA inspections and meeting their regulations - interpretation - megabucks and hastle. That's not to say your hay maker doesn't sell his meat under the radar. And if he does, more power to him. If he sells his meat through the slaughter house, then he will not get the price that Kroger gets for the meat, probably not even close.

I'm afraid that that's a little bit too BIG BROTHER for me. The government has regulated the small meat farmer out of the market. The reason the industrial meat industry needs the regulation is they raise their meat in over-crowded closed environments that encourage the spread of disease among the animals. That's not the case in a non-industrialized small farm where the animals can roam outside. The industrialized meat industry fills their animals full of antibiotics because the environments are so unhealthy. Once again, that's not necessary on a small farm.

I'm not arguing that a hog house should not have some government oversight because when a pig in that environment has a disease, the disease can be easily and quickly transmitted to hundreds of other pigs because they are packed in the place like sardines. However, its ridiculous to make a small farmer comply with the same beaurocracy because his animals are not subjected to the same conditions as the industrial meat houses. Unfortunately, government agencies are not known for using common sense.

I'm not here to rant against those in the ag-business. They do what is necessary to stay in business, and it's a very hard business. My beef, pardon the pun, is with the government's putting up roadblocks that make making a living as a small farmer difficult or impossible for many. I should be able to raise and sell eggs, broilers, pork, and beef to my next door neighbor if I raise the animals in a natural setting. Now if I choose to raise the animals cooped up inside closed quarters, that's my choice and that's when the beaurocrats can do their job.

Obed

OB,

I have a limited, in fact almost no understanding of the issues involved with raising and maintaining beef inventories and as a consumer, I don't expect to have to. And that's in some sense my point.

There's a familiar populist argument in our politics that characterizes government regulation as onerous, expensive, unnecessary, out of touch.... I understand the argument and perhaps much of it is true. But without regulation, as we've seen in recent memory, in corporate accounting, the pharmaceutical industry, financial services, enerygy..... we wind up in a much less desirable place with consumers/taxpayers/investors .....footing the bill.

In order to make it to and through retirement I have to be somewhat of an expert in personal investing, personal health and medal services, insurance actuarials, tax accounting.... as well as maintain (in my case a technical) skill set that will provide an income to myself and to my family.

Don't make me learn the beef industry too!!! :laughing:
 
   / 378 years of family farming!!! #48  
Even with regulations, some people would rather hire a team of lawyers to find loopholes than comply with the intent.
+1 Yeah, even 200+ more years of lawmaking cannot eliminate that.
 
   / 378 years of family farming!!! #49  
+1 Yeah, even 200+ more years of lawmaking cannot eliminate that.

Exactly true. Which means to me the penalties are too lenient or seen as a 'cost of doing business' in some cases. Start seriously fining and locking up more white collar criminals and it may help. They are every bit as destructive to our society as a drug dealer in many respects.
Dave.
 

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

2025 New/Unused Wolverine Hydraulic Skid Steer Pallet Forks (A51573)
2025 New/Unused...
2022 John Deere HD45F Draper Head (A53342)
2022 John Deere...
Super Material Lift MH1000 (A53472)
Super Material...
2012 CHEVROLET SILVERADO SINGLE CAB TRUCK (A51406)
2012 CHEVROLET...
2013 Chevrolet Caprice Sedan (A50324)
2013 Chevrolet...
Manac Walking Floor Trailer (A50322)
Manac Walking...
 
Top