A Peach Farmers Daughter?

[justwannano]

Appointed as AG secretary

BWAHAaaaaaaaa

Damn thats funny

Lets be serious Dubya

[BunnyGirl]

Why funny?

[scratch1300]

Ha ha ha!

Tee hee!

Guffaw!

Peach farmer’s daughter! Snicker! Cough. Ahem.
[sub][sup]I don’t get it.[/sub][/sup]

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Well, FWIW, here’s the whole joke, not just the punch line.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/20/bush.cabinet/index.html

President-elect George W. Bush stocked up his nascent Cabinet with fresh faces Wednesday afternoon – including his former campaign chairman Don Evans as commerce secretary, Florida county official Mel Martinez as housing secretary, and California agriculture official Ann Veneman as head of the Agriculture Department.

“Agriculture is not only an important part of our economy, but an important part of our international policy as well,” Bush said as he announced Veneman for the agriculture spot – his first introduction of the group of three. “She’s an accomplished attorney, she’s bright she’s capable, and she will do an outstanding job.”

Veneman, a 51-year-old attorney, was the first woman to hold the top agriculture post in California. She was the highest-ranking woman in the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 1989 to 1991, when she was deputy secretary for international affairs and commodities programs during the administration of Bush’s father.

“I am honored and humbled to be asked to join your administration, and to serve with you and your qualified team,” Veneman said to Bush, offering her first remarks as a Cabinet designee. “Agriculture is part of the fabric that makes America great.”

“Our farmers feed and clothe not only the people in this country, but people around the world,” she continued. “It is important that we work together to expand markets for our food and fiber. Like you, I want to find common ground and promote common sense.”

I’m sorry, even with the joke in print here in front of me, I don’t get it, either.

[justwannano]

Well I was certainly hoping she had some qualifications other than growing up on a peach farm.
Like maybe hogs cattle how about beans,corn.Although California peaches might be traded world wide it just ain’t the same.

[MikeG]

Why? it is a commodity. It is bought and sold in large quantities, shipped internationally, and handles through similar distribution channels. There are the same issues vis a vis corporate farming, pesticides, environmental damage, water conservation, renewable resource management, etc.

Is it just because they aren’t traded at the CME?
(although there may very well be futures contracts- I’m not going to look)

Are beans and corn and livestock somehow a more “serious” commodity? Farming is a tough business that requires hard work and very astute management if you’re going to make money at it.
I don’t get it either unless you are trying to associate “peach farmers’ daughter” with the old “farmers daughter” jokes in which case I will roll my eyes and go to another thread.

[justwannano]

Yeah there is a difference in commodities
There is a difference between peach farming and grain farming.
First there is planting. Probably done two maybe three times in a lifetime by the
peach farmer.
Then there is fuel. Not much of a concern for the peach farmer.
Fertilizer Gee I wonder if they use Jobes tree spikes.
Insect control.OK one for your side.
Shipping. How many peaches have you ever seen shipped via barge.Grain trucks
run year round here in the grain belt.
I won’t even mention livestock.

I would still rather see someone who is involved in farming full time fill the position.

[Skelji]

Would you prefer that Dubya appoint the Jolly Green Giant???

California is one of the top agricultural producers in the country. I would think being head of agriculture in that state, as well as being a lawyer, would make Ann Veneman more than adequate for the position.

[justwannano]

Yeah thats farmland alright.
Divert water 150 miles so your crops planted in the desert won’t die.

[BunnyGirl]

Geez, what a snob you are. How does being the head of Agriculture in California make her unfit for the job? Just because she’s not from the Midwest? I’m sure the other 3/4’s of the nation would have issue with your thoughts there. I’m from the Midwest and even I know we aren’t the end-all-be-all of farming.

[justwannano]

I didn’t say she was unfit.
I just question the thinking of someone from a state that is not mainly agricultural appointing someone from a state that is largely unfit for agriculture, as the highest ag official. Sure she has some experience in Ag but is she the best choice???

[BunnyGirl]

Ah, I see. Sorry for the misread then.

Actually, eventhough (is that 2 words or 1?) CA is unfit for agriculture w/o man’s assistance, they grow an incredible amount of food there. The engineering that has to take place to maintain and monitor the water resources is pretty amazing.

[justwannano]

California grows a large amount of food products because of necessity. A very large population.We assist them by buying their produce. We can very easily produce more than enough produce for ourselves.

Iowa grows an even larger amount-per acre-and does not need to go to some of the extremes that Cal does because the land is perfect for what it is used for.
It needs protected.
Our ground water becomes polluted easily because there is so much of it.
It needs protected.
I don’t know about the percentage of family farms in California but here it is high because we protect the concept of the family farm.

[Shiva]

From the USDA:
“California led the nation in 1993 with a net farm income of $5.2 billion…”

“California, at $19.9 billion in cash recipts led the Nation in value of cash receipts in all commodities…”

Iowa’s not even in the Top Ten.

California has one great advantage over Iowa in Ag-- Climate.

[Tranquilis]

*Originally posted by justwannano *
**I didn’t say she was unfit.
I just question the thinking of someone from a state that is not mainly agricultural appointing someone from a state that is largely unfit for agriculture, as the highest ag official. Sure she has some experience in Ag but is she the best choice???

**

You need to go and look at California’s stats again: Its one of the highest AG states in the union. It grows more rice than any country save China, produces more veggies than any other state, has a very large cattle industry, and so on…

Being the SecAg from CA is alo a crash-course in international relations, as CA exports a lot of it’s produce to the Pacific Rim.

BTW: Running a peach orchards (or any other kind of orchard) IS REAL FARMING. Just mybe not the kind you’re familiar with. Before slamming and denigrating them again, go do a look-up.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Dire Wolf *
Would you prefer that Dubya appoint the Jolly Green Giant???

The Jolly Green Giant was Dubya’s original choice, but it turned out he voted for Nader.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Peach farming.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/wa/peaches.htm

The July 2000 forecast of U.S. peach production is 2.67 billion pounds, up 6 percent from 1999 and 11 percent above two years ago.

Of that, over half of the nation’s peaches come from California.

The California Clingstone crop. is forecast at 1.12 billion pounds, unchanged from the June 1 forecast but 6 percent above 1999. Quality of Clingstones has been good, but sizing concerns have persisted in the Yuba City and Kingsburg areas and some mildew damage was reported in the Modesto area. Overall, the majority of the crop remains in good condition.

The California Freestone crop is forecast at a record high 840.0 million pounds, unchanged from the June 1 forecast but 12 percent above 1999. The Freestone crop continues to progress normally with harvest active. Recent cool weather has caused minimal delays to fruit maturity and overall crop condition remains good.

1,120,000,000

• 840,000,000

---

1,960,000,000

half of 2,670,000,000 is 1,335,000,000. (right?)

Peaches are an important government commodity, vital to school lunch programs all over the U.S. No kidding.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/MENU/fd2000/teamcore.htm

By March 1 of each year, USDA announces its market support plans for the following year. For example, USDA might state that they will buy beef, peaches, apricots, chicken and turkey, etc. This allows school districts to begin to develop their plans for procurement for the following year.

Peaches are very Big Business in California.
http://www.csfsa.org/lac.htm

More then 50 delegates from California are going to participate in the Annual Legislative conference on Washington, DC. As in the past, the California brings its own legislative issues we want to share with our representatives in Washington.
24. Date District Trail Mix Project.

Rationale: USDA currently buys California dates when market support is required. These dates are then packaged in 30-pound boxes and are very unpopular with students.

What is requested is that USDA change the commodity item description for dates to allow dates to be used in a California Trail Mix along with diced peaches, diced apricots, almonds, walnuts, diced prunes and diced figs - all of which are grown in California - and which could be combined into an attractive Trail Mix which would be both nutritious and popular.

25. Peach Commodity Item Description Project.

Rationale: USDA currently buys peaches canned and frozen. These products are popular with children but districts would like to have the option of processing them, at district cost, into even more forms.

What is requested is that USDA allow commodity item descriptions to be changed so that dehydrated diced peaches would be one of the commodity options available to be used in the California Trail Mix. Additionally, current USDA practice has peaches purchased by USDA put into 30 pound pails, delivered to school districts who take the 30 pound pails, send them back to the same manufacturer who packed them and have them turned into

4 oz portion cups. This is a tremendous waste of time and money.

What is requested is that USDA allow those school food service authorities who can deal in complete truckload quantities to have peaches delivered to a processor who can turn them directly into the type of portion pack requested by that district on a contract that’s paid for by that district.

If the peach farmer’s daughter has been running this, then she has definitely been playing with the Big Boys, and I can’t imagine her having any trouble filling Earl Butz’s shoes. :rolleyes: (remember him?)

[psiekier]

I dated a girl for a while whose name was Jennifer Farmer. All the guys at work kept giving me hell about dating “the Farmers’ daughter.”

---

Pete
Long time RGMWer and ardent AOLer

[justwannano]

Shiva
You need to look here

http://www.nass.usda.gov/ia/

Please look in the Crop reports and the Livestock reports

Also please note my concern that Iowa and most of the other Ag states are landlocked.

Also Iowa is 23rd in land area.
Considering California is 3rd and Texas is 2nd you will see that their big numbers are have a lot to do with their massive size.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Livestock reports are irrelevant–we’re talking about crops, not livestock. The fact that Iowa is landlocked and California isn’t, has nothing to do with crop production.

Here’s The National Agricultural Statistical Home Page, if anybody’s interested.
http://www.usda.gov/nass/

More than you wanted to know about various statistics for crop production, if anybody’s interested:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/
You have to look around; there are statistics for every crop grown in the U.S., including things like cotton and tobacco.

Here are some figures for 1990:
http://www.demographia.com/db-landstate-agsh.htm

Land Use by US State: 1990:
Ranked by Agricultural Land Share

#2 Iowa–percentage in agricultural use: 93.65%
#33 California–percentage in agricultural use: 30.82%

California is larger than Iowa, but California has a lower percentage of its acreage in agricultural use.

However, California still manages to make more money at it. The link you gave has a chart of Iowa’s standing in crops. According to it, in 1999, California earned $24,115,000,000 in cash receipts from farm marketings; Iowa earned $9,841,000,000.

California had a net farm income in 1999 of $5,366,000,000; Iowa had $2,277,000,000.

Principal crops, total value in 1999: California–$14,463,000,000 Iowa–$5,831,000,000

In 1999, Iowa had 96,000 farms; California had 89,000, nearly the same. So California has got nearly the same number of farms, crammed into one-third the acreage.

Iowa grows more corn, soybeans, and oats; California grows more hay.

Here is a partial list of crops that the USDA concerns itself with.

Barley
Beans, Dry
Corn
Cotton
Flaxseed
Hay
Mustard Seed
Oats
Peanuts
Potatoes
Proso Millet
Rapeseed
Rice
Rye
Safflower
Sorghum
Soybeans
Sugarbeets
Sugarcane
Sunflower
Sweet Potatoes
Tobacco
Wheat, Durum
Wheat, Spring
Wheat, Winter

I understand that living in Iowa, when you think of “agriculture”, you think of “corn and soybeans, corn and soybeans”. I live in Illinois–it’s the same thing here. But there’s a whole world of agricultural products out there, and painful though it may be to believe, California makes more money at it than Iowa (or Illinois) does.

http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/99-10/familyfarm.html

Still rooted in the nation’s nostalgia-driven psyche, the perception of the small family farm—a single farmer providing for his family on a couple hundred acres—and its place in the ag economy has not kept pace with reality. If the idea of “saving the family farm” is to save all small farms, or to make the small farm economically viable and competitive with larger farms, then the family farm has been dead for some time…

Without doubt, the nature and operation of the family farm today has changed, as it has for most of this century. But in fact, family-controlled farms still make up 99 percent of all farms. Close to nine of 10 farms in the Ninth Federal Reserve District (except in Montana, with eight of 10) are operated by an individual or family as a sole proprietorship (the “traditional” family farm). The remaining farms are mostly either partnerships or corporate farms, which despite being vilified by many, are predominantly operated and controlled by families…

Corporate farms made up just over 4 percent of all farms nationwide in 1997—double the percentage two decades ago—and are grabbing a bigger chunk of the production and sales pie. But contrary to the glass-building image of corporations, 90 percent of the 84,000 corporate farms in the United States are family owned, whose shareholders (usually capped at 10 or fewer) are usually required to have close kinship to the farm operator (e.g., brother, father, grandmother). What’s more, since 1978, sales from nonfamily corporate farms have dropped while sales by family-owned corporate farms have surged by 50 percent.

I think that if you want to claim that Iowa still retains a higher percentage of family farms than California does, you should be the one to go find the cite to prove it.