Blake:Here’s a link to locate an FSA office near you.This link will bring up a map of the U.S… Click on your state, and a map of counties will come up. You should be able to locate an office near you from this. Link
Well no, that’s a red herring. Some countries do indeed have their own protection systems, but many do not. And the US can not compete with those countries. Can you tell us for example what protective systems New Zealand has in place for mutton?
There is no doubt about that. California has some fine farmland. That doesn’t make it good coconut growing territory though.
See the point?
We are not discussing whether it is productive, we are discussing whether it is productive as it is currently being used.
Can we have a reference for that statement please? If it has been eliminated it was very recently.
Really? Then how do you explain Payments are made on 85 percent of the farm’s “base acres” and participants are free to plant any crop except fruits and vegetables on these base acres or acreage cannot be shifted to fruits or vegetables.
I can do better than that. Since this is GD can ask for a reference from you to support your claims.
[url= http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/3d10ba8565af0] Traditional farmers like my father always rotated a variety of crops, including wheat, milo, alfalfa and feed sorghum. The new acreage bases fixed these acreages and then required farmers to set aside 15 to 25 percent of cash-crop acres devoted to grains like wheat, milo or corn.
[/quote]
Yes, well given the lack of references and apparent misinformation you have presented here I am disinclined to tale your word at this point.
But do you actually have anything to support your claims beyond what someone told you at the bar?
And I notice that you haven’t actually acknowledged many of the issues. For example you haven’t acknowledged the sheep meat subsidy. And you haven’t acknowledged that “freedom to farm” is only small part of the picture here and that dairy, sugar etc are all heavily regulated and subsidised. And you haven’t acknowledged that payment free loans for worthless crops effectively act as a subsidy. And you haven’t explained why removing tariffs and subsidies that inflate prices will make the product more expensive rather than cheaper?
The whole point here being that you have painted a picture of a much freer and less subsidised US agriculture sector than is the case. The truth is that some areas are heavily subsidised and protected to the point where there is no free market. But almost all area are heavily subsidised and protected in some way, whether by “free loans”, subsidies, control over what can and can’t be planted and so forth.
If your understanding after all that study is as free as you painted it then I think you may need to go back and get someone else to explain it to you properly.
Well no, that’s a red herring. Some countries do indeed have their own protection systems, but many do not. And the US can not compete with those countries. Can you tell us for example what protective systems New Zealand has in place for mutton?
There is no doubt about that. California has some fine farmland. That doesn’t make it good coconut growing territory though.
See the point?
We are not discussing whether it is productive, we are discussing whether it is productive as it is currently being used.
Can we have a reference for that statement please? If it has been eliminated it was very recently.
Really? Then how do you explain Payments are made on 85 percent of the farm’s “base acres” and participants are free to plant any crop except fruits and vegetables on these base acres or acreage cannot be shifted to fruits or vegetables.
I can do better than that. Since this is GD can ask for a reference from you to support your claims.
Yes, well given the lack of references and apparent misinformation you have presented here I am disinclined to tale your word at this point.
But do you actually have anything to support your claims beyond what someone told you at the bar?
And I notice that you haven’t actually acknowledged many of the issues. For example you haven’t acknowledged the sheep meat subsidy. And you haven’t acknowledged that “freedom to farm” is only small part of the picture here and that dairy, sugar etc are all heavily regulated and subsidised. And you haven’t acknowledged that payment free loans for worthless crops effectively act as a subsidy. And you haven’t explained why removing tariffs and subsidies that inflate prices will make the product more expensive rather than cheaper?
The whole point here being that you have painted a picture of a much freer and less subsidised US agriculture sector than is the case. The truth is that some areas are heavily subsidised and protected to the point where there is no free market. But almost all area are heavily subsidised and protected in some way, whether by “free loans”, subsidies, control over what can and can’t be planted and so forth.
If your understanding after all that study is as free as you painted it then I think you may need to go back and get someone else to explain it to you properly.
John:Here’s a link to locate an FSA office near you.This link will bring up a map of the U.S… Click on your state, and a map of counties will come up. You should be able to locate an office near you from this. Hope this helps you.
The end of the peanut quota program:
http://www.google.com/u/farmserviceagency?q=peanut+quota&sa=go
Note that the link connects to the State of Missouri FSA site, but the law applies nationally. The peanut quota was out for the 2004 crop year. Possibly 2003 as well, but I’m not certain about ’03.
I don’t live in sheep country, and was not aware that those sheep programs were still in effect. I’ll give you that one. Mea culpa.
I explain it this way: Payments are made on 85% of the farm’s base acres. Period. This has nothing to do with limiting the crops that may be planted on 100% of the farm’s cropland, and in no way makes this statement by you true:
The Fruit and Vegetable Lobby worked the wording into the program so that historical plantings of fruit and vegetables may not be exceeded without a commensurate reduction in program crop payments. For your information, Alfalfa, forage sorghum, trees, etc., are not fruits or vegetables. If a farm has a history of planting fruits and vegetables, that acreage may continue to be planted to them without a reduction in payments.
Your link to The Land Institute and the Prairie Writer’s Circle discuses issues, but does not address what we’re talking about… The other link, “Back in the Subsidy Trap” gives some history of subsidies, but little else other than opinion.
Your link goes right back to the same Land Institute article. This information, as you are attempting to apply it, is not accurate.
If you can show me, on an official USDA site or document, that what you claim in the above paragraph is true, I will print out the document and eat the paper.
Here’s a link to access forms CCC-509, a DCP (Farm Program) contract and the addendum to the contract, which actually contains more information of the type we’re discussing.
Now, that link won’t work from my home computer, (dialup). I keep getting an “operation timed out” message. If you’re on broadband or a faster dialup, it should work. The Nice Young Lady[sup]TM[/sup] that works in my local FSA office assured me that she was looking at the documents, on the linked site, even as we spoke.
http://165.221.16.90/dam/ffasforms/currentforms.asp
The procedure handbook that USDA offices are using to administer this program is 1-DCP. The proof is in the above documents and the handbook.
The link I provided about the peanut quota comes from an official USDA website, and the links to the form CCC-509 and the 509 addendum come from official USDA websites, not some op-ed piece. I find it odd that someone who suggested that I “read the legislation” only provides links to op-ed pieces. If we’re talking about farm law and its administration, why not go to the source, the USDA?
You remark about me getting my information “in a bar.”
My primary source of information comes from attending meetings conducted by USDA personnel to explain the program to farmers. There were slide presentations and lectures, and literature containing information about the legislation was passed out.
My other source comes from my local FSA office, which I visit several times a year.
You took offense when I posted instructions about how to find an FSA office near you. There was no ill intent on my part. The best way for you to learn about the current farm program is to either call or stop by a county FSA office. They can answer all your questions.
If you don’t want to believe them when they tell you that a person can, indeed, convert his farm’s plantings from corn to alfalfa and still get their normal corn payment, or you don’t want to believe them when they tell you there is no such thing as a “set aside” requirement in the current program, then ask them to let you peruse Handbook 1-DCP. It’s all in there.
You seem to want to speculate that if the subsidies were stopped, corn would no longer be produced in the Corn Belt and farmers in the Mississippi Delta would stop growing cotton. Until you have a clear understanding of how the current program works, such speculation on your part can only be grounded on erroneous opinion.
“If X (X being farm subsidies) is removed, then Y will result”. How can you speculate about what will result if X is removed when you don’t understand the basics of what X is and how it works?