Some times things are going on that I have no way of relating to people who aren't in the agricultural business. This story about rising prices for agricultural producers is one of those things. It very clearly explains how rising production costs are really eating into any money we might be able to make in the business. The real scary thing is what is going to happen when commodity prices crash.
Believe me, this is going to happen. With wheat prices up the way they are, everybody and their dog is planting wheat or going to plant wheat. Then there will be an overproduction scenario if not next year, the year after and then the wheat farmer will be in trouble again. Not only wheat, but other commodities can, and will, see the same scenario playing out in the next few years. The article points out more than once the production cost increase/commodity price drop of the 1980's and how we might be going to see a replay of that scenario. It won't be pretty out here if that happens.
So far the rancher hasn't been tempted by this production increase for some reason. I've talked about it a couple of times that the US whole herd numbers aren't going up like you would expect them too with cattle prices fairly high like they are. I'm not sure if the drought is the cause of that or that ranchers are brighter than the normal producer and don't want to get in an over production/price drop scenario. I just hope ranchers stay out of the big expansion scenario. I actually think they might because while prices are up some for livestock, they aren't up as big as the increases for other commodities so the desire to expand big isn't as great.
All I know is that things aren't getting any cheaper out there. Hell, I really note grocery prices going up along with every thing else causing a squeeze on cash flow around here. Over the years I have instituted a few things to lower my production costs but I am at an end of that for now. I'm out of ideas on how to lower costs and become more efficient. Trying to move to an organic, grass fed or any other specialty type operation might, I repeat might, bring more money in, but I guarantee that my costs will go up more than any money I bring in so they aren't worth it.
All I can do is struggle along. Keep fighting the good fight and making a living here on the prairie. It gets real tiring sometimes. I can't tell if that's the reason I am in a funk or if it is my normal fall funk. We'll see. All I know is don't blame the farmer and rancher for higher food prices at the store. We might be getting a little more money for our products, but our costs are up as well so we are in the same boat as everybody else. Our heads are barly above water and we are struggling too.
We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sunday, October 14. 2007
So True
Friday, March 9. 2007
Disaster Aid Try
We all knew it was coming, the Democrats are adding agricultural disaster aid into a "supplemental spending bill." When I first saw this headline it looked like maybe Congress was finally going to get somewhere with Disaster aid for those who need it. It turns out I was wrong.
The Democrats are attaching this disaster aid to legislation that would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next year. This is a sure way to get the disaster aid vetoed by the President if they can even get it through Congress. Reports are that the chances of getting this through the House are slim the way it is and the Senate isn't even considering anything remotly the same. Are the Democrats hoping to garner a few votes for their political Iraq agenda in the House by attaching disaster aid to it? I would say yes, that's what they are trying to do and it's wrong.
I was hoping the Democrats would be above such political games as the Republicans used to play. It appears they aren't Would it be so difficult for the Democrats to allow a vote on Disaster aid in a package all by itself that isn't attached to such an emotionally charged issue as a mandatory troop withdrawal from Iraq? Obviously it is for them.
The disaster aid needs to be severed from this bill. Even if the House passes it, it will be vetoed and they don't have enough votes to get a veto overridden. How like politicians, get desperate people's hope up that you are going to help them then play a game to insure that it will be killed so you don't have to do it. That way you can claim you support the desperate people when you really don't. They were just the pawns in a power struggle for the 2008 elections. I hope farmers and ranchers recognize how they are being used here and why. The Congress doesn't want to help them, just use their pain in a game and laugh the whole time. What a mess, thanks to Politicians.
For he who has health has hope; and he who has hope, has everything. Owen Arthur
The Democrats are attaching this disaster aid to legislation that would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next year. This is a sure way to get the disaster aid vetoed by the President if they can even get it through Congress. Reports are that the chances of getting this through the House are slim the way it is and the Senate isn't even considering anything remotly the same. Are the Democrats hoping to garner a few votes for their political Iraq agenda in the House by attaching disaster aid to it? I would say yes, that's what they are trying to do and it's wrong.
I was hoping the Democrats would be above such political games as the Republicans used to play. It appears they aren't Would it be so difficult for the Democrats to allow a vote on Disaster aid in a package all by itself that isn't attached to such an emotionally charged issue as a mandatory troop withdrawal from Iraq? Obviously it is for them.
The disaster aid needs to be severed from this bill. Even if the House passes it, it will be vetoed and they don't have enough votes to get a veto overridden. How like politicians, get desperate people's hope up that you are going to help them then play a game to insure that it will be killed so you don't have to do it. That way you can claim you support the desperate people when you really don't. They were just the pawns in a power struggle for the 2008 elections. I hope farmers and ranchers recognize how they are being used here and why. The Congress doesn't want to help them, just use their pain in a game and laugh the whole time. What a mess, thanks to Politicians.
For he who has health has hope; and he who has hope, has everything. Owen Arthur
Posted by
in Disasters
at
07:02
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: congress, disaster aid, farmers, hostage, iraq, politics, ranchers, troop withdrawal
Saturday, December 16. 2006
Quite A Change
In epochal shift, half humanity to become urban
I've always been in the minority living where I do in the US but now I will be in the minority compared to the world. It doesn't bother me at all but it sure is interesting how the demographics are changing. It also underscores to me the importance the remaining rural people have.
Most of humanity's food is grown in rural areas and by concentrating people in cites they become ever more dependent on us rural folks to provide them with the basic necessity of life, food. Mentioning the basic necessities brings the thought of water to mind. With more and more people clustering in cities, what is going to happen to the fresh water of the planet in these areas? Is that going to be a problem that needs dealt with?
I'm not taking a stand one way or the other on this issue, just find it interesting and thinking of the implications for farmers and ranchers. We have been losing status for quite a while now but maybe it will start changing when people realize how dependent they are on us rural people for food. I doubt it but what the hell, one can hope.
With the world poised to enter an urban age when more people will live in cities than in the countryside, Josiah Tobiko sees no need to move from his cow dung-covered hut in rural Kenya.
"You can choose city life with televisions and mobile phones but I prefer living here," said Tobiko, a Maasai teacher who lives in a settlement of 125 cattle and goat herders with no electricity or piped water at the foot of Mount Kilimanjaro.
Tobiko, 35, moved into a new one-storey home this year -- made of tree branches tied with sisal and coated with about six inches (15 cms) of cow dung and mud.
Here in Amboseli, lions and elephants are residents' most pressing concerns, not road accidents or muggers.
"People go and live in the towns but most come back because they feel there's no culture there," Tobiko said.
He may be right but for now, more and more people are moving to the world's cities and this population shift promises to usher in an urban age -- 6,000 years after the first cities emerged in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley.
According to U.N. data, the world's urban population is poised to surpass the rural total for the first time in history.
I've always been in the minority living where I do in the US but now I will be in the minority compared to the world. It doesn't bother me at all but it sure is interesting how the demographics are changing. It also underscores to me the importance the remaining rural people have.
Most of humanity's food is grown in rural areas and by concentrating people in cites they become ever more dependent on us rural folks to provide them with the basic necessity of life, food. Mentioning the basic necessities brings the thought of water to mind. With more and more people clustering in cities, what is going to happen to the fresh water of the planet in these areas? Is that going to be a problem that needs dealt with?
I'm not taking a stand one way or the other on this issue, just find it interesting and thinking of the implications for farmers and ranchers. We have been losing status for quite a while now but maybe it will start changing when people realize how dependent they are on us rural people for food. I doubt it but what the hell, one can hope.
Friday, November 10. 2006
Beet Farmers
I've mentioned before the problems the beet farmers are having getting the sugar beets in and now it has come to my attention how much worse it got. Last week on Monday and Tuesday it got really cold and froze the beets. Once the beets freeze like this the farmers have lots of trouble.
The factory now only allows the farmers to pull 1% of their beets on a daily basis since the frozen beets have to go straight to the factory and be processed and storage can't happen. This has slowed harvest to a crawl and while I was in yesterday I was told it would take another 90 days to get all the beets out at the rate it is going. Believe me, that will never happen so some of the crop is going to be lost.
Most of the guys have insurance but that doesn't even cover the costs of the crop so it is a money losing deal for the farmers. On top of that, to keep the sugar beet factory open a few years ago the farmers had to buy the plant and run it themselves. Without all the sugar beets that are contracted the factory is going to lose money too. So not only are the farmers losing money on the beets in the field, they are losing money on the factory too for a double whammy. Damn, it's got to be tough.
Then the equipment dealers and bankers and fertilizer suppliers and all the other assorted business that deal with beet farmers are sweating the situation because they don't know if they are going to get their money or what is going to happen. The trickle down effect of the failure in the beets could run a long ways and it could hurt a lot of people starting with the farmers themselves.
Damn I feel for these guys. We needed the moisture earlier but it sure screwed them up. I sure am glad I am not a beet farmer right now, I would be crying in my beer that's for sure.
Tough times never last, but tough people do. Robert H. Schuller
The factory now only allows the farmers to pull 1% of their beets on a daily basis since the frozen beets have to go straight to the factory and be processed and storage can't happen. This has slowed harvest to a crawl and while I was in yesterday I was told it would take another 90 days to get all the beets out at the rate it is going. Believe me, that will never happen so some of the crop is going to be lost.
Most of the guys have insurance but that doesn't even cover the costs of the crop so it is a money losing deal for the farmers. On top of that, to keep the sugar beet factory open a few years ago the farmers had to buy the plant and run it themselves. Without all the sugar beets that are contracted the factory is going to lose money too. So not only are the farmers losing money on the beets in the field, they are losing money on the factory too for a double whammy. Damn, it's got to be tough.
Then the equipment dealers and bankers and fertilizer suppliers and all the other assorted business that deal with beet farmers are sweating the situation because they don't know if they are going to get their money or what is going to happen. The trickle down effect of the failure in the beets could run a long ways and it could hurt a lot of people starting with the farmers themselves.
Damn I feel for these guys. We needed the moisture earlier but it sure screwed them up. I sure am glad I am not a beet farmer right now, I would be crying in my beer that's for sure.
Tough times never last, but tough people do. Robert H. Schuller
Monday, October 30. 2006
Pulling Beets
Wednesday, September 13. 2006
Disaster Aid Update
The Democrats in the House are coming out swinging full guns on this one.
It looks like the Democrats are coming out swinging on this issue. What do you want to bet they are trying to buy off farmers and ranchers for a few more votes to get a few more seats in Congress? No takers huh. This is a bribe pure and simple. The question is will it work and will the Republicans respond in kind. If they do there is a good chance disaster relief will happen. Interesting times. We will wait and see.
In most economic situations outcome and the payoff depend on each participant's own strategy and the strategy of other participants. John Harsanyi
September 12, 2006
The Honorable Dennis Hastert The Honorable John Boehner
Speaker Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515 Washington DC 20515
Dear Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner:
We are writing to ask that you schedule time in the U.S. House of Representatives to debate and vote on emergency agricultural disaster assistance for 2005 and 2006 before the House leaves for its announced October recess.
Very limited and in some cases inadequate disaster assistance has been provided to some parts of the country, while other regions continue to be ignored. Farmers and ranchers are still struggling to recover from disastrous floods, droughts and other natural disasters in 2005, only to face another bad year in 2006, so the time to act is now.
Democrats have sought to provide disaster relief several times in the House. Last fall, Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee proposed emergency disaster assistance measures that were defeated by party-line votes. Democrats have offered similar proposals in the Appropriations Committee that were also defeated by House Republicans last fall and early this year. The Senate included agriculture disaster assistance in both of their emergency supplemental bills. Unfortunately, earlier this year, under pressure from President Bush's veto threat, House Republicans failed to stand up for disaster assistance in the conference committee, once again abandoning the pressing needs of our rural communities. Now, the Senate has included disaster assistance in its agriculture appropriations bill. However, since it is not likely that this bill will be completed before Congress recesses, this is another lost opportunity to provide this needed relief.
A coalition of more than 30 farm and allied organizations, including the National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau Federation, Independent Community Bankers of America, Farm Credit Council and others have recognized the critical need for disaster assistance and are urging Congress to act quickly and decisively to provide comprehensive relief before the October recess.
Floods, droughts and other natural disasters have a profound negative economic impact on our small rural communities, impacting the banks, equipment dealers, grocery stores, and other businesses as well as our nation's farmers and ranchers.
The House Democratic Caucus recognizes the pressing, urgent need to provide this assistance in our rural communities, and we ask that you schedule time this month to debate and vote on a comprehensive agriculture disaster package.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer
Democratic Whip
James E. Clyburn
Chairman
Democratic Caucus
John Larson
Vice Chairman
Democratic Caucus
Collin Peterson
Ranking Member
House Agriculture Committee
Rosa DeLauro
Ranking Member
House Ag Appropriations Subcommittee
Bob Etheridge
Co-Chair
Democratic Rural Working Group
Stephanie Herseth
Co-Chair
Democratic Rural Working Group
It looks like the Democrats are coming out swinging on this issue. What do you want to bet they are trying to buy off farmers and ranchers for a few more votes to get a few more seats in Congress? No takers huh. This is a bribe pure and simple. The question is will it work and will the Republicans respond in kind. If they do there is a good chance disaster relief will happen. Interesting times. We will wait and see.
In most economic situations outcome and the payoff depend on each participant's own strategy and the strategy of other participants. John Harsanyi
Monday, September 11. 2006
Disaster Relief Going Nowhere
Billions for drought a tough sell
To start with I will say I am neutral on the whole issue of disaster aid. I take advantage of it when it is offered, but I don't go out and ask or lobby for it. With our spiraling deficits the Federal Government is seeing I am not sure how wise a large disaster bill for agriculture is. I will also say I find the whole concept of farmers and ranchers standing with their hats in hands and begging for disaster aid disgusting. I know to get ahead in our system you have to make some noise, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but to whine and beg for disaster aid from Congress bothers my sensibilities.
Why should agriculture be the only one who takes it in the shorts for money though with the deficit out of control? Is Congress cutting funds elsewhere for this reason? They keep spending money on everything else they can see why punish farmers? I'll tell you why, they make up less than 2% of the population so it's very safe for the House of Representatives to ignore them. With two Senators from every state there is a lot more pressure there to do something but it is always killed in the House.
On to the question, is disaster aid important? For many small farmers and businesses that rely of farmers it is. One would think that the Republicans worried about maintaining control of the House and Senate this election cycle would throw some bones to farm state legislators to help out. I can tell you what is happening there too. They assume the farm states are solidly Republican and will not rock the boat.
How this will all turn out will be interesting. More and more the farmers of the country are losing out in the political process. The small farmer gets hurt and corporate interests take over more and more production. That's what the American people want I guess so when they are paying out the nose to large corporations for food they will get what they deserve.
Americans believe that people should work hard and get ahead on their own, but when disaster strikes and they need help with retirement or disability, Americans as a whole should come to their aid. Jacob Hacker
Penny Altendorf isn't a farmer, but the ongoing drought is affecting her family nonetheless.
She and her husband Richard own an aerial sprayer company, a business that is dependent on the weather in eastern North Dakota where they live. And it's been so dry this year, Altendorf says, struggling farmers in the area are cutting down on expenses by using ground sprayers.
.....
Indeed, farm-state lawmakers are asking for a lot of money when money is scarce. A $4 billion proposal is pending in an agriculture spending bill; Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., introduced a new version last week that would provide $6.5 billion.
Lawmakers aren't optimistic about the chances of the money making it through Congress anytime soon.
Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Republican chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said the House "is probably not going to go along with it."
"It's always been pulled out by the House," he said. "I don't know."
House Republicans pulled the $4 billion package out of a spending bill designed to pay for the Iraq war earlier this year, and leaders have shown no public indication of changing their minds on the issue.
Reps. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., and Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., both say they are frustrated there is not more attention on rural issues as the election nears.
"Things could be very different after the election, and I believe there are rural seats hanging on this disaster bill," Pomeroy said.
North Dakota's Conrad said it would be easiest to push the package before the election, when political pressure is highest.
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., who is in a tight election race, is pushing his own disaster legislation that includes targeted money for fighting wildfires.
But Republican leadership, preoccupied with several defense and national security bills this month, has so far shown little interest in moving agricultural disaster assistance soon.
To start with I will say I am neutral on the whole issue of disaster aid. I take advantage of it when it is offered, but I don't go out and ask or lobby for it. With our spiraling deficits the Federal Government is seeing I am not sure how wise a large disaster bill for agriculture is. I will also say I find the whole concept of farmers and ranchers standing with their hats in hands and begging for disaster aid disgusting. I know to get ahead in our system you have to make some noise, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but to whine and beg for disaster aid from Congress bothers my sensibilities.
Why should agriculture be the only one who takes it in the shorts for money though with the deficit out of control? Is Congress cutting funds elsewhere for this reason? They keep spending money on everything else they can see why punish farmers? I'll tell you why, they make up less than 2% of the population so it's very safe for the House of Representatives to ignore them. With two Senators from every state there is a lot more pressure there to do something but it is always killed in the House.
On to the question, is disaster aid important? For many small farmers and businesses that rely of farmers it is. One would think that the Republicans worried about maintaining control of the House and Senate this election cycle would throw some bones to farm state legislators to help out. I can tell you what is happening there too. They assume the farm states are solidly Republican and will not rock the boat.
How this will all turn out will be interesting. More and more the farmers of the country are losing out in the political process. The small farmer gets hurt and corporate interests take over more and more production. That's what the American people want I guess so when they are paying out the nose to large corporations for food they will get what they deserve.
Americans believe that people should work hard and get ahead on their own, but when disaster strikes and they need help with retirement or disability, Americans as a whole should come to their aid. Jacob Hacker
Posted by
in Agriculture, Disasters
at
06:07
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: disaster aid, farmers
Saturday, March 4. 2006
Nutrition
Fruits, vegetables not as nutritious as 50 years ago
I found this interesting. I understand why farmers use faster growing hybrids but this is the first time I have ever come across information that claims crops grown this way are not as nutritious. This won't stop me from eating my fruits and veggies but does it mean I have to eat more now? I don't know if I could handle that personally. Meat and potatoes are my basic staple but My Darling Wife wants me to live a long time and feeds me fruits and veggies all the time.
Darling, I beg, please don't feed me more because of this, enough is enough.
As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. Oscar Wilde
In spite of what Mother taught you about the benefits of eating broccoli, data collected by the U.S. government show that the nutritional content of America's vegetables and fruits has declined during the past 50 years -- in some cases dramatically.
Donald Davis, a biochemist at the University of Texas, said that of 13 major nutrients in fruits and vegetables tracked by the Agriculture Department from 1950 to 1999, six showed noticeable declines -- protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and vitamin C. The declines ranged from 6 percent for protein, 15 percent for iron, 20 percent for vitamin C, and 38 percent for riboflavin.
I found this interesting. I understand why farmers use faster growing hybrids but this is the first time I have ever come across information that claims crops grown this way are not as nutritious. This won't stop me from eating my fruits and veggies but does it mean I have to eat more now? I don't know if I could handle that personally. Meat and potatoes are my basic staple but My Darling Wife wants me to live a long time and feeds me fruits and veggies all the time.
Darling, I beg, please don't feed me more because of this, enough is enough.
As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. Oscar Wilde
(Page 1 of 1, totaling 8 entries)
