The End Product MATTERS to Them!

[3 M L & C]

Absolutely. Well put. I will ad about the subsidies though. Subsidies are about 2 % of a farms income nowdays. If its 2 % for the farmer what do you think it is for a rancher once it trickles down? I do recieve some, and I do believe they should junk the whole thing. Farmers don't need these subsidies like they used to. Then everone in the city thinks the "Farm Bill" equals the gov buying your combine for you. You don't hear to many people mention that over half of the bill goes toward welfare and food stamps. Even if farmers did the amount of money one would receive wouldn't pay for the intrest one uses in a year.

 

[rancherfred]

In order for something to be sustainable it has to be profitable. The idea that we put "sustainability" ahead of profits is stupid, or ill informed, if you prefer the gentler way of saying it. These ranches that are going on third and fourth generation of operation are the epitome of sustainability. They are demonstrating their sustainability every single day. They don't need mission statements or cute little catch phrases like "buy local" to keep them in business and do what is best for the environment. If what they were doing wasn't best for the natural environment they would have all ready gone out of business, thus ending the "sustainability". It always amuses me when the backyard farmers want to come preach to the people that are feeding the rest of the world that we ought to be marketing locally. The fact of the matter is our diets would stink and people would starve to death if we all tried to follow that model. Our diet is healthier and more varied because the average citizen doesn't buy locally.

The fact of the matter is that the food supply we have today is what it is because it has been proven to be the most sustainable. When it ceases to be sustainable something else will replace it. But I can guarantee with one hundred percent certainty that it will not be the model that is being advocated here. We tried that model 100+ years ago. We quit doing it because it was a crappy way to live and eat.

Now I am going to go put my soapbox away and go back to lurking.

 

[3 M L & C]

In order for something to be sustainable it has to be profitable. The idea that we put "sustainability" ahead of profits is stupid, or ill informed, if you prefer the gentler way of saying it. These ranches that are going on third and fourth generation of operation are the epitome of sustainability. They are demonstrating their sustainability every single day. They don't need mission statements or cute little catch phrases like "buy local" to keep them in business and do what is best for the environment. If what they were doing wasn't best for the natural environment they would have all ready gone out of business, thus ending the "sustainability". It always amuses me when the backyard farmers want to come preach to the people that are feeding the rest of the world that we ought to be marketing locally. The fact of the matter is our diets would stink and people would starve to death if we all tried to follow that model. Our diet is healthier and more varied because the average citizen doesn't buy locally.

The fact of the matter is that the food supply we have today is what it is because it has been proven to be the most sustainable. When it ceases to be sustainable something else will replace it. But I can guarantee with one hundred percent certainty that it will not be the model that is being advocated here. We tried that model 100+ years ago. We quit doing it because it was a crappy way to live and eat.

Now I am going to go put my soapbox away and go back to lurking.

Also very well put

 

[gcreekrch]

In order for something to be sustainable it has to be profitable. The idea that we put "sustainability" ahead of profits is stupid, or ill informed, if you prefer the gentler way of saying it. These ranches that are going on third and fourth generation of operation are the epitome of sustainability. They are demonstrating their sustainability every single day. They don't need mission statements or cute little catch phrases like "buy local" to keep them in business and do what is best for the environment. If what they were doing wasn't best for the natural environment they would have all ready gone out of business, thus ending the "sustainability". It always amuses me when the backyard farmers want to come preach to the people that are feeding the rest of the world that we ought to be marketing locally. The fact of the matter is our diets would stink and people would starve to death if we all tried to follow that model. Our diet is healthier and more varied because the average citizen doesn't buy locally.

The fact of the matter is that the food supply we have today is what it is because it has been proven to be the most sustainable. When it ceases to be sustainable something else will replace it. But I can guarantee with one hundred percent certainty that it will not be the model that is being advocated here. We tried that model 100+ years ago. We quit doing it because it was a crappy way to live and eat.

Now I am going to go put my soapbox away and go back to lurking.

Also very well put

Thanks RF and MRJ, you are a lot more eloquent than I. :wink:

These writers of woe seem to forget that WE do buy locally.

 

[MsSage]

Since I am the one who gave you higher costs. Let me tell you where my numbers come from...... 8 years of doing bookwork for an over the road truckers. He spent the last 4 years buying the truck. After it was paid for stepping back to see where could pull in more money. Had to face the hard truth his dream truck was costing money not making. He had to trade in "Gus" for as be puts it a girl truck which can go into Canada and better fuel mileage. So for you to tell me my numbers are wrong is off base. Sorry but I balance those figures every week, where you get your numbers from a study and searching the web.
For you also to say its my issue how you came across, if you look at all the replies they have the same feel of not liking being talked down to. Yes some are better at saying that without the hard freight but they all mean the same thing.
Too bad your wasting the best learning tool you could ever find with the people here if you would ask to learn instead of trying to teach them a thing or two.....yeah they know they don't know it all but they are successful.

 

[jodywy]

In order for something to be sustainable it has to be profitable. The idea that we put "sustainability" ahead of profits is stupid, or ill informed, if you prefer the gentler way of saying it. These ranches that are going on third and fourth generation of operation are the epitome of sustainability. They are demonstrating their sustainability every single day. They don't need mission statements or cute little catch phrases like "buy local" to keep them in business and do what is best for the environment. If what they were doing wasn't best for the natural environment they would have all ready gone out of business, thus ending the "sustainability". It always amuses me when the backyard farmers want to come preach to the people that are feeding the rest of the world that we ought to be marketing locally. The fact of the matter is our diets would stink and people would starve to death if we all tried to follow that model. Our diet is healthier and more varied because the average citizen doesn't buy locally.

The fact of the matter is that the food supply we have today is what it is because it has been proven to be the most sustainable. When it ceases to be sustainable something else will replace it. But I can guarantee with one hundred percent certainty that it will not be the model that is being advocated here. We tried that model 100+ years ago. We quit doing it because it was a crappy way to live and eat.

Now I am going to go put my soapbox away and go back to lurking.

Also very well put

Thanks RF and MRJ, you are a lot more eloquent than I. :wink:

These writers of woe seem to forget that WE do buy locally.

Local in Wyoming can mean 100-200 miles too

 

[gcreekrch]

Provincial is local here.

 

[mrj]

Thanks for the kind words!

I was a bit hurried and forgot to mention that I do enjoy getting to a local farmers market occasionally, but sure wouldn't enjoy being totally dependent on those out here in western SD with our short growing season and frequent drought.

The current percentage of USDA budget going for SNAP and the many other food assistance programs is more than 80%. Not certain, but believe other programs such as forrests, etc. may also take part of the remainder. Not sure where things like local water and sewer systems fit into that budget, not to mention 'rural housing' subsidies......and more!

As a rancher not growing cash grain crops, it does seem to me farm programs may be more trouble than they are worth.

mrj

 

[WVGenetics]

Excellent replies everyone. Great job sharing the story . We don't do it enough!