Realizations: I'm not an Agvocate???

Image via Wikipedia
The following is my response to the wonderfully written article by @justfarmers: Agvocate or Agtivist?

Most of my reach is other farmers; I suppose by that definition, I am an agtivist. I sometimes play devils advocate on issues because I want people to think about the issues for themselves rather than going with the status quo. I'm not preachy as your chart suggests, but I do suppose that my methods seem as if I'm "preaching to the choir". I realize that there are many viewpoints in agriculture...that some modern farming methods are seen as unreasonable by some and revolutionary by others. But should I be attacked by these "advocates" because I don't reach as big of a crowd as they do and because my message is geared towards farmers rather than consumers? I agree wholeheartedly with your blogpost. People who take the attitude that "either you're with me or you're against me" are no better than PETA, because they are closed minded and cannot see past their own agenda. This is where their message becomes propaganda rather than actually doing any good.

But back to me, I still am trying to get "advocates" to see that there are more than one side to a story, and they should not be so paranoid and angry when one person's story is different than their own. For example, one person has the opinion that factory farming is not a good method of raising pigs. But the mainstream agvocates advocate that it's very efficient, safe, and effective. The agvocate should not get so angry with an agtivist who's against factory farming. It's just another side to the story, right? The whole reason everyone was angry with Chipotle's was because they expanded their audience to the consumer. To an agvocate, this is unacceptable, because it puts a part of the agriculture story in a bad light. But should agvocates be the police on what consumers think and believe? They will say that the agtivist is lying and saying untrue things because of the negativity they've been put in. Sometimes, rightly so, because it IS untrue. However, not all things are said under false pretenses. Yet, the ag community still gets the knee jerk reaction when someone in the world of ag takes the opposite side of the fence.

I'm sorry for my long response. Next time I'll try to keep it down to a few sentences. I think your blogpost is a wonderfully written, and I agree with everything you say. But not all agtivists are as closed minded as PETA, and not all agvocates have the whole story.

Government Debt is Your Debt

Government spending (Photo credit: 401K)
While I am a conservative, I think the Clinton was best when it came to ag spending policies. The farm economy was improving, and by the year 2000 (the end of his term), the budget surplus was as much as 200 billion dollars.
But after the Bush Administration's Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (dubbed by the Wall Street Journal a "10 year $173.5 billion bucket of slop")agriculture budget spending skyrocketed. It sometimes increased by $25 billion a pop. It was enough to almost immediately put the budget in a deficit of negative $150 billion.
Where some divisions of ag got more than enough money to run, others like the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) had to turn down program applicants due to lack of support. And despite the increase in conservation programs, more than 22 million acres of native grassland was lost in 2005.
In 2005, despite the fact that pretax farm profits made a record of $72 billion, the government still gave them $25 billion in "aid", 50% more than they gave families on welfare.
Flash forward to today, another Democrat, President Barack Obama has been in office for almost a full term. Has federal spending decreased? Are we anywhere near coming out of a budget deficit? The answer is no. But with the 2012 Farm Bill coming up, we better keep in mind that increased government spending doesn't necessarily help agriculture. Remember, Government Debt is the people's debt. As a tax payer, it is now on my generation's shoulders to bail out the government. I feel like I shouldn't have to, but I must.
But first, some policies need changing. Some attitudes towards finances needs changing. The USDA needs to redefine it's purpose. As a very independent person, I don't want to have to be dependent on the government for my next paycheck. Once they start doing that, they own me, my farm, and my life. So when we argue and fuss once the Farm Bill starts being formulated in Congress, lets keep in mind that bigger doesn't always equal better. I guess we sometimes forget that because sometimes they become a faceless entity from Washington D.C. that runs the agriculture in America. We need to remember: the America's Department of Agriculture is OUR Department of Agriculture.
Image via Wikipedia 

Sources:
Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2007; Congressional Budget Office.

Imhoff, Daniel. "Chapter 9: Freedom to Farm and the Legacy of Record Payoffs." Foodfight: The Citizen's Guide to a Food and Farm Bill. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media, 2007. 53-55. Print.

Corn Fields Environmentally Beneficial???

Image via WikipediaImage via WikipediaImage via Wikipedia

Well I've been hearing a lot about this business that one acre of corn soaks up 8 tons of harmful greenhouse gas. Excuse me if I'm a little cynical, but according to the World Resources Institute, 20% of nitrogen fertilizer applied to a crop of corn is lost to runoff. Under some conditions, up to 60% can be lost to atmospheric volatilization. I am a big supporter of agriculture, but I think that before you go and make a claim such as this, you should do a little research into the sustainability of mono-culture corn crops. Perhaps this statement is true of organic corn fields that doesn't use nitrogen fixation and strong pesticides. In conclusion, i'm not so sure if the claims that corn farms are good for the environment have any validity. Just my opinion. Comment your opinions below!