JaxDad wrote:
WTP-GC wrote:
JaxDad wrote:
WTP-GC wrote:
fj12ryder wrote:
"I recall a study done a few years back on ways we could ‘spend’ our way out of the recession. There were several instances where really small increases going straight back to a producer could have a HUGE trickle down effect. One item really jumped out at me, adding $0.05 to every loaf of bread, this going straight back to the farmer would DOUBLE his income. FIVE cents."
This really does sound wonderful, and considering how little wheat is actually in a loaf of bread probably was likely true.
But in all honesty, who will believe it? How often are we lied to, prevaricated to, and have the truth sidestepped around? And then we are told that if the price of bread went up a nickel it would all go to the farmer? No one believes it, probably least of all the people behind the study. They know the farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel, if he saw anything at all.
The first problem I see is that the farmer isn't who you think he/she is. The fields producing grains and other ingredients are owned primarily by large corporations, heavily divested into equity groups, foreign assets, etc. If your everyday local farmer has any part in this, their fields, equipment, and resources are probably heavily subsidized by some corporation that's selling to the bread industry. Still, he's selling his grains through a broker who will set the pricing based upon industry price indexes (controlled by the mega corp).
To say a farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel may even be an over-estimation.
Wow, I’m not sure where all of that came from, but that’s urban myth territory right there!
Next we’ll be hearing those corporations all have only robots and trained chimpanzees running the equipment not a single human employee!
The TRUTH of it (according to the USDAj is that family farms own and operate 96.4 percent of the crop-producing farms in the U.S.
Pricing is based on world markets, we are all familiar with the Chicago Mercantile system.
The reality of it is that no ‘Mega Corp’ these days wants to explain to shareholders why they have billions tied up in owning dirt. That level of debt or cash investment together with higher labour costs would make it cheaper to just buy from the open market.
I'm not sure how it is in Toronto, but you should visit some of the farms I've been to. Yes, there are numerous family farms that exist which play a part in the supply chain. But in many cases, even those farms are subsidized nearly completely by the so-called mega corp. There's actually a neat documentary about farms (can't remember the name) where the farmers discuss how they are required to conform to standards by the buyers, which in many cases they can't do. However, the buyer (or some subsidiary thereof) is happy to provide loans and resources. Then you're stuck in a revolving world of obligations and commitments. But in some cases, you're forced into it if you want to sell your product. And don't think ole Joe Farmer calls up Marita bread and says he has a load of grain to deliver. It has to go through the brokers, who work with the corps and buyers.
I'm not saying that any of this is good or bad, but it just that its not always as it appears.
I think you must have drank the Kool-Aid or watched the You-Tube video........
You are trying to say that the Mega Corp. would provide farms with ‘subsidies’ (read ‘increased costs’) rather than just buy at market (lower) prices?
Gee, I’ve only been farming (as a 5th generation farmer) for a little over 40 years, I wonder why nobody ever told ME about this?
LMAO.
Big problem...your statement is misleading. Sure, "family farms" may own 96% of the crop producing farms, but that hardly means that they produce 96% of the food. According to the same website where you got that information, approximately 21% of the "value" of products sold come from non-family farms. Note that specialty products (such as organics) have a higher per-unit value vs. something like grains, beef, chicken, etc (ie the more common foods). So even those numbers are hard to comprehend. The USDA states that the vast majority of family farms gross less than $250,000 annually. Farms that small have little to no impact on the nationwide food supply chain.
I can't question your experience, just like you can't question mine. I've been involved with ag for most of my life. The effect of corporations and their control over our farms is so significant nationwide that the U.S. Congress has put forth many bills over the last decade or more attempt to limit these issues and create a more fair market environment.
If you have further doubts, next time you look at your investment portfolio, try to notice all the farm-related investments you can make.
Again and again, I'm not saying anything pro or con to this end. Big Ag has certainly helped a lot of family farmers turn their operation into major revenue producing machines. In some cases, so much so that they no longer can be classified as a "family farm" by USDA standards. This isn't a reprimand on my part, but just an exercise in discussing reality. It's like when you buy a product on the shelf that has a neat trendy brand name that you've never seen before...then you spin the package over and find out it comes from a product family that's one of the big guys. Farming has similarities to that example for sure
