• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"Loss of US Farms".....aka......The Sky is Falling

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Location
SD
From the Economic Research Service. Structure and Finance of U. S. Farms: 2005 Family Farm Report at www.ers.usda.gov.

About 717,000 farms in the US wentout of business between 1992 and 1997.

HOWEVER, the total number of FARMS declined by just 13,400 BECAUSE the number of entries into farming (707,700 farms) nearly equalled the exits. Further, the farm count has remained fairly stable since the 1974 census and we still have a bout 2,000,000 of them.

There is considerable turnover in farms. Older farmers getting out. Younger ones getting in, etc. Exit rates are 9-10 percent per year which is within 1 percentage point of the nonfarm small businesses (self employed-no employees).

All small businesses, not just farming, have a high exit (failure) rate. US farms and small businesses have not disappeared because the ENTRY rates, as well as the exit rates are high, too. The exit rates are highest for farmers age 65 or older.

Does this surprise anyone???? Can you say "retirement"? Does anyone wonder why these 'scare' stories never mention the fact that there are new, young people starting in farming at only slightly less than the retirement rate , and at more than the exit rates for all farmers?

Farms with product sales of $1,000.00 a year are considered a "small farm" and sales of $250,000.00 or more is considered a "large farm". "Newer" farms were more likely to go out of business than older ones, and "larger" farms were less likely to exit than were "smaller" farms.

98% of US farms are "family farms", defined as structured as proprietorships, partnerships, or family operations that do not have hired managers.

61% of US farms did not participate in any farm program in 2003, the point being that only a minority of farmers receive agricultural subsidies

Small farm households typically have substantial off-farm income and large and very large farms averaged off farm income of $30,000.00. I take the implication to be that the smaller farms had more than $30,000.00 annual off farm income. What do you think?

Those who attempt to incite "gloom and doom" over 'loss' of farmers or farms don't seem to consider that family farms could appear to be going out of business when the elder generation turns the operation over to the next, which/who also may not fit the definition of "young". Point: the farm generally is still being operated by someone, and is not necessarily a foreclosure of 'loss' of the farm, whether it continues, or it becomes part of another farm whose owners want to grow in size, possibly to accomodate additional family member/s. Larger point: many of those inciting such "gloom and doom" are doing so to promote their own political agenda. That agenda often includes loss of freedom to make sound business decisions or inflicts burdensome regulations, or both, and more difficulty making for family farmers in the guise of reining in "corporate" farmers.

BTW, The share of total agricultural production under contract (what some on this site refer to as being "serfs on your own land") grew by only 5% between 1994 and 2003, resulting in 2% total (that amount not considered "family farms", but it didn't seem clear to me).

mrj
 
MRJ, "BTW, The share of total agricultural production under contract (what some on this site refer to as being "serfs on your own land") grew by only 5% between 1994 and 2003, resulting in 2% total (that amount not considered "family farms", but it didn't seem clear to me). "

What is the share of poultry and pork?
 
I don't know the total for those two products, but it obviously is LESS than you have insinuated and that poultry and pork production is NOT under TOTAL corporate control as some of you imply, nor are all those under producers contract losing their shirts and working for nothing.

Obviously, success depends upon the ability, competance and knowledge of the person entering the contracts as a producer o hogs or chickens.

I'm off to a meeting. Goodnight.

mrj
 
mrj said:
I don't know the total for those two products, but it obviously is LESS than you have insinuated and that poultry and pork production is NOT under TOTAL corporate control as some of you imply, nor are all those under producers contract losing their shirts and working for nothing.

Obviously, success depends upon the ability, competance and knowledge of the person entering the contracts as a producer o hogs or chickens.

I'm off to a meeting. Goodnight.

mrj

OK, as long as they're not under TOTAL corporate control and they're working for something greater than nothing, everything is hunky-dory - absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
 
MRJ wrote: I don't know the total for those two products, but it obviously is LESS than you have insinuated and that poultry and pork production is NOT under TOTAL corporate control as some of you imply, nor are all those under producers contract losing their shirts and working for nothing.

There are ZERO independent hog and poultry producers in Alabama now except the ones who have hogs and quail for hunting.




Koch Industries just bought out a local chicken processor here. They have made a lot of chicken feeders happy by -#1 actually letting them read their contract before signing it and -#2 guaranteeing them to have chicks as long as their $250,000.00 chicken houses are still mortgaged. (It used to be when you built a house, they would only guarantee you one (1) crop of chicks to feed.) :roll: :roll:

Tyson and Cargill still have complete control over producers in North Alabama.
 
I bet if one of the distilleries started controlling gin prices............she would sing a differnt tune.
good luck
 
I don't know mrj, First off that data was figured from 1992 until 1997, it is 10 years old.

You can make statistics say about what ever you want just by the way they are presented. It is an old trick to try to lead a person on to accept your way of thinking. We have to remember to use our own knowledge and our own common sense, and to keep our eyes open.

There is a trend for smaller farms to go out of business and others get much larger. No one can brain wash me or blind me from seeing that.

Back in the 1940's and 1950's and in the 60's and 70's too, there were many farms that just provided a sustainable living for the operator's family, it is probably proper and expected that these would go out of business. Today I am not sure.

In my area there are fewer people who make their living off produce from the farm and ranch and they are always getting fewer. While some argue that those of us here are still making a living off the same agriculture base, I see many businesses in towns closing down. It looks to me like our ecomonic base is begining to be government money.

Look about your area, What has happened to the people who once ran the John Deere agencies in Phillip and in Pierre? Here in Valentine, it is hard to believe, but the automobile francise for Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors are all owned by the same people. A more or less a new commer named MO Tehrani. We no longer have a John Deere dealer here. I have to go 75 or 80 miles to a John Deere dealer.

I realize change is inevitable, we can not buck the trends, but how to find the way to follow the flow.
 
USDA buys $50 million of pork to aid farmers
By MEGGIE I. FOSTER
Assistant Editor

WASHINGTON, D.C. — USDA Secretary Ed Schafer recently announced the department's plan to purchase nearly $50 million worth of pork products in a move to lend a helping hand to struggling American pork producers.

"The action by USDA to buy additional pork will benefit America's pork producers, the U.S. economy and the people who rely on the government's various food programs," said National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) President Bryan Black, a pork producer from Canal Winchester, Ohio. "It will help our industry reduce the herd and thereby bring supply and demand back into balance and allow producers to continue to provide consumers with economical, nutritious pork."

The grand supply of pork will be donated to child nutrition and other domestic food assistance programs, the USDA reported in its announcement on May 1.

"We provide food assistance to one in every five Americans," Schafer explained.

"We are working to increase benefits due to rising costs and to ensure we have full funding for our food assistance programs."
The announcement was made following a series of meetings initiated by National Pork Producers Council officers and top staff with the USDA ag chief to urge him to take immediate action in addressing a serious crisis in the pork industry.

NPPC officials reported that over the past seven months, the financial crisis faced by producers has cost the hog industry more than $2.1 billion.

The primary culprit, they said, is the doubling of feed costs, causing producers to lose $30-$50 per hog marketed over the last 30 days.
During their meeting with Schafer, the NPPC requested that the USDA purchase 50.5 million pounds of pork – in 2007, the agency bought 43 million pounds – for various federal food programs.
According to NPPC, this in total would help reduce the U.S. sow herd by nearly 163,600 animals.

The NPPC also asked Schafer to implement emergency programs and loan guarantees to help producers purchase feed, consider allowing early release without penalty of non-environmentally sensitive Conservation Reserve Program acres back into traditional crop production and support pork exports through USDA's Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program. While not all requests were granted, the NPPC, as well as the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) both have strongly commended the Bush administration for its decision to lend assistance to U.S. pork producers to help them weather the current economic storm in the hog business.

Economists have estimated that the industry will need to reduce production by at least 10 percent – meaning a reduction of 600,000 sows – to restore profitability.

Such a cutback, however, could result in less-efficient packing plants closing, less manure for crop fertilizer and correspondingly a need for more man-made, foreign-produced fertilizer, as well as a hike in retail pork prices because of a smaller supply and lost jobs.
"Prices for live market hogs have plunged to levels not seen in nearly a decade" said AFBF President Bob Stallman.

"Experts have predicted that 2008 will likely be the worst financial year for pork producers in modern history. USDA's help could not have come at a more critical time.

Pork contributes
to national food programs

USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) purchases a variety of high-quality food products each year for distribution by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) for the national school lunch program, the school breakfast program, the summer food service program, the food distribution program on Native American reservations, the nutrition program for the elderly, the commodity supplemental food program and the emergency food assistance program.

USDA also makes emergency purchases of commodities for distribution of victims of natural disasters.

Based upon USDA's intent to buy an extra supply of pork products, FNS will survey potential recipients to determine how much product will be accepted for shipping. AMS will seek the lowest overall cost by publicly inviting bids to supply the desired quantity and by awarding contracts to responsible bidders.

"This procurement program offers two important benefits," added Stallman. "It helps farmers facing record-low pork prices, while at the same time providing healthy, nutritious protein to their fellow citizens who are in need. It's a win-win for producers and the public

Isn't great that we are going to bail out Tyson and Cargil? Guess when it comes to this and banning packer ownership if it's good for the packers that's the direction congress is going to go!
 
We provide food assistance to one in five Americans Schafer explained.

Is this the way it should be?

What is the reason for this?

What can we do about it?

Is there any of our politicians offering any plan that might change this?

Should we all just say everything is alright?
 
Clarencen said:
We provide food assistance to one in five Americans Schafer explained.

Is this the way it should be?

What is the reason for this?

What can we do about it?

Is there any of our politicians offering any plan that might change this?

Should we all just say everything is alright?

Sad ain't it.....2 of every 100 of those folks are in prison- which is predicted could be 4 of every 100 by 2010....Then you add in the millions on the reservations, the homeless and senior citizens centers that get commodities...Then you add in the millions of low or non educated that we allow to migrate freely to our country yearly-- add in the welfare folk...Most of the above which all now qualify for food stamps-- doesn't take long to add up....
 
BTW, The share of total agricultural production under contract (what some on this site refer to as being "serfs on your own land") grew by only 5% between 1994 and 2003, resulting in 2% total (that amount not considered "family farms", but it didn't seem clear to me).

mrj

Large-scale farms are more likely than small farms to use contracts.
Less than 10 percent of limited-resource, retirement, residential/lifestyle,
and low-sales farms use production or marketing contracts. Twenty-eight
percent of medium-sales farms have contracts, but this is much less than the
share of large and very large farms that have contracts, 45 percent and 63
percent, respectively. Production under contact is concentrated among very
large family farms, which account for 59 percent of the total production
under marketing or production contracts.

When your head is in the sand, all you see is sand!!!!
 
Sandhusker, are you saying anyone who signs a contract is too stupid to understand it and will agree to work for a pittance??? You make a rather arrogant put-down of people signing such contracts!!!!!

Mike, while having no personal knowledge of your state contract farms, I do know there are farmers in other some other states producing hogs and chickens not under contract.....obviously finding it rewarding.

BTW, knowing people who work for Koch Industries' ranches, that does seem to be a family corporation whose owners have respect for their employees.


Clarence, I believe the data was from 2003, which is relatively recent for such data, isn't it? I'd think it was taken from the 2000 census, which IS the most recent complete census, and I'm not sure when the last Ag census was, or how extensive or comprehensive the information gathered may have been.

When we are "using our own knowledge and our own common sense and keeping our eyes open"......we also need to try VERY hard not to twist that information to fit our own biases.......or we are as guilty of nefarious characters who you hint are doing the same, aren't we?

You surely can acknowledge that it is ALL new/small business start-ups having a high rate of failure, not just agriculture, cant you/ And that many of those getting larger when another "closes" are due to older members of a family turning things over to younger ones. AND it is not all bad that some small businesses 'grow' due to the fact that one man can accomplish much more work, thus is able to farm a larger place these days than even not so far in the past. We may or may not think this is right, but personally, I don't think it is necessarily "right" for a person be be under-employed or even mismanaging a farm, and fussing because he isn't making a good living on his small farm.

Truth be told, there are as many reasons for businesses in small towns failing as for small farms disappearing. People can travel farther faster now than ever before; some owner/managers are not keeping up with modern farming/ranching needs so their customers must find businesses better able to accomodate their needs; some don't want to work the long hours and serve farm customers on the weekend when the farmer must work; and some just plain would rather play the 'blame game' and close their doors.......as do some farmers who cannot make a living in todays' business climate.

Yes, it is sad to see our small towns deteriorating as we lose population, yet I'm glad that the better businessmen among them find ways of staying and improving their business even if it means several car 'brands' are in the same dealership, just as we in agriculture must get better at what we do to survive and thrive.

The sad part in all this is losing school student numbers because families have only one or two children, for the most part. And seeing businesses hurt because cliques or ag organizations boycott them for not supporting particular agenda's and social events are smaller and fewer, and our churches shrink because there are fewer young families bringing their children.

Homesteading here started about 1906 and there are many of the original homesteads still owned by the family of the homesteader. But I'm not sure I want to go back to the days of hand milking cows, raising and dressing out chickens, and hogs, raising turkeys and dressing them out to sell, all with no refrigeration beyond the ice that could be harvested during winter and being totally dependent upon my garden for all our veggies (which was never reallythe case for many of the homesteading pioneers in my area where water ranged from bad to nonexistent), and, as many around here did, selling eggs and cream to fund the grocery bill and the farm/ranch! Actually, very few people did all that work single handed. Either they worked for someone else part time or had a hired girl and farm hands, or they had grown families when they started homesteading.

Pork producers do have a problem. It is so quick to get into and out of that business that they are prone to overproduce when markets get high...and that has gone on for more than 50 years, that I can recall.

The problem of 'unintended negative consequences' continues with this "move to lend a helping hand" and doubtless will have the usual results, only be be needed again when the cycle goes full circle!!! Isn't the high feed price a direct result of the "do good" attempt to end our dependence upon that evil Arab Oil by promoting home grown ethanol???

Does ANYONE know the reasons for the 'need' to give food assistance on 20% of Americans? Is there ANY attempt to find the cause for each family dependent upon such aid being in that position and treating that cause, be it lack of education, refusal to move to where the jobs are, illness (including mental), parental irresponsibility, and even those fraudulently on the rolls of those on welfare programs?

How many of those OT mentions, other than those in prison, are being actually discouraged from getting on their own feet to keep them dependent upon government agencies, thus many government employees in a job, not to mention the party soliciting votes of the poor and 'downtrodden'????

The prisoners are a whole 'nother ballgame! OT, what do you want done with prisoners? Too many liberals claim there are too many of one or another minorities in prison, however the people harmed, physically or otherwise, by the acts of those in prison probably don't really want them out, either.

It seems reasonable to require non-violent criminals to do truly hard, or at least disagreeable, labor jobs at going rates and turn over all but a small portion of their wages to fully account for their misdeeds to the victims. They should live in, and pay the costs of, secure work camps on the model of those by Joe Arpaio till they have, first, paid off the victims; built saving for themselves to learn a trade or other honest work; then get a true 'attitude adjustment' via psychological evaluation and counseling so they would live honest, decent lives after their debts to society are paid in full.

mrj
 
MRJ, "Sandhusker, are you saying anyone who signs a contract is too stupid to understand it and will agree to work for a pittance??? You make a rather arrogant put-down of people signing such contracts!!!!! "

Would a comment about a culture eating dog be one of those arrogant put-downs you talk about?

Where is my comment calling somebody stupid?
 
Sandhusker, this one easy. My son-in-law was there and among literally thousands eating dog meat at stands on the streets of Korea. It is done. Friends visiting China saw cats, among many other animals not eaten here, in cages to be sold as food animals. Just because something is not commonly eaten in this country is not saying anything is wrong with another culture doing so.

You may not have said it directly, but I believe your comment certainly implied farmers signing contracts to work for very little money couldn't have understood those contracts.

mrj
 
Well, of course! You don't want your use of accusations by implication and innuendo exposed.......what else is new in your sandbox????

mrj
 
mrj said:
Well, of course! You don't want your use of accusations by implication and innuendo exposed.......what else is new in your sandbox????

mrj

No, MRJ, it is because you have a hard enough time understanding exact wording (Competition Title), let alone giving you the leeway to read between the lines.
 
Sandhusker said:
mrj said:
Well, of course! You don't want your use of accusations by implication and innuendo exposed.......what else is new in your sandbox????

mrj

No, MRJ, it is because you have a hard enough time understanding exact wording (Competition Title), let alone giving you the leeway to read between the lines.

Sandhusker---forgive my ignorance here, haven't checked into the site lately, so haven't seen the debate. However, I do know that most, if not all of the Comp Title issues R Calf was stumping for did get deep sixed out of the Farm Bill. Of course, GW is now threatening a veto of the Farm Bill, so hard to predict what will happen next. What kind of "exact wording" are you talking about?
 
Beefman said:
Sandhusker said:
mrj said:
Well, of course! You don't want your use of accusations by implication and innuendo exposed.......what else is new in your sandbox????

mrj

No, MRJ, it is because you have a hard enough time understanding exact wording (Competition Title), let alone giving you the leeway to read between the lines.

Sandhusker---forgive my ignorance here, haven't checked into the site lately, so haven't seen the debate. However, I do know that most, if not all of the Comp Title issues R Calf was stumping for did get deep sixed out of the Farm Bill. Of course, GW is now threatening a veto of the Farm Bill, so hard to predict what will happen next. What kind of "exact wording" are you talking about?

NCBA claimed, and MRJ parroted, that the competition title would reduce marketing options for producers. I asked her to provide me ONE example - and call headquarters if she needed some help. For her benefit, I even provided the actual title so she could read it for herself. Even after several proddings, she couldn't come up with a singe one. This was the exact same thing that R-CALF publicly called NCBA out as liars on.
 
mrj said:
From the Economic Research Service. Structure and Finance of U. S. Farms: 2005 Family Farm Report at www.ers.usda.gov.

About 717,000 farms in the US wentout of business between 1992 and 1997.

HOWEVER, the total number of FARMS declined by just 13,400 BECAUSE the number of entries into farming (707,700 farms) nearly equalled the exits. Further, the farm count has remained fairly stable since the 1974 census and we still have a bout 2,000,000 of them.

There is considerable turnover in farms. Older farmers getting out. Younger ones getting in, etc. Exit rates are 9-10 percent per year which is within 1 percentage point of the nonfarm small businesses (self employed-no employees).

All small businesses, not just farming, have a high exit (failure) rate. US farms and small businesses have not disappeared because the ENTRY rates, as well as the exit rates are high, too. The exit rates are highest for farmers age 65 or older.

Does this surprise anyone???? Can you say "retirement"? Does anyone wonder why these 'scare' stories never mention the fact that there are new, young people starting in farming at only slightly less than the retirement rate , and at more than the exit rates for all farmers?

Farms with product sales of $1,000.00 a year are considered a "small farm" and sales of $250,000.00 or more is considered a "large farm". "Newer" farms were more likely to go out of business than older ones, and "larger" farms were less likely to exit than were "smaller" farms.

98% of US farms are "family farms", defined as structured as proprietorships, partnerships, or family operations that do not have hired managers.

61% of US farms did not participate in any farm program in 2003, the point being that only a minority of farmers receive agricultural subsidies

Small farm households typically have substantial off-farm income and large and very large farms averaged off farm income of $30,000.00. I take the implication to be that the smaller farms had more than $30,000.00 annual off farm income. What do you think?

Those who attempt to incite "gloom and doom" over 'loss' of farmers or farms don't seem to consider that family farms could appear to be going out of business when the elder generation turns the operation over to the next, which/who also may not fit the definition of "young". Point: the farm generally is still being operated by someone, and is not necessarily a foreclosure of 'loss' of the farm, whether it continues, or it becomes part of another farm whose owners want to grow in size, possibly to accomodate additional family member/s. Larger point: many of those inciting such "gloom and doom" are doing so to promote their own political agenda. That agenda often includes loss of freedom to make sound business decisions or inflicts burdensome regulations, or both, and more difficulty making for family farmers in the guise of reining in "corporate" farmers.

BTW, The share of total agricultural production under contract (what some on this site refer to as being "serfs on your own land") grew by only 5% between 1994 and 2003, resulting in 2% total (that amount not considered "family farms", but it didn't seem clear to me).

mrj

This information,is no better than its source..................good luck
 

Latest posts

Back
Top