- Agriculture.com Community
- Announcements & Forum Help
- Farm Business
- Young & Beginning Farmers
- Cattle Talk
- Crop Talk
- Hog Talk
- Machinery Talk
- Machinery Marketplace
- Shops, buildings and bins
- Ask the SF Engineman!
- Computers & more
- Precision Agriculture
- People & Rural Life
- Ag Forum
- Women In Ag
- Agriculture.com Blogs
- Your Farm in the Future
- Women in Ag: Lisa Foust Prater
- Women in Ag: Brenda Frketich
- Women in Ag: Anne Miller
- Women in Ag: Jennifer Dewey
- Women in Ag: Talkin' Turkey with Lara Durben
- Women in Ag: Heather Lifsey Barnes
01-24-2017 09:56 AM
Sometimes wondered when driving around the countryside, seeing all the Trump signs on prosperous looking farms.
Although as one of our commenters here has maintained, they'll just have to increase our subsidies.
01-24-2017 10:40 AM
Of course the flip side of this article is that these other countries that the U.S. has a trade deficit with, made be forced to buy MORE ag products to even up the trade. Time will tell.
BTW, There were far more reasons to vote for Trump than just thinking of what it would do to the farmers' bottom line.
01-24-2017 01:04 PM
I wonder if there will be a change from having such optimistic soybean carryouts in the upcoming USDA reports.
Personally, I am thinking maybe there will be some good opportunities to pick up some more land if we can get ag to think the sky is falling.
01-24-2017 02:38 PM - edited 01-24-2017 02:38 PM
A couple things: Bernie Sanders preached against the TPP, Obama circa `08 preached against NAFTA..so why`d they get a pass? Because their supporters really didn`t think they`d live up to campaign promises?
With China we run a $360 billion trade deficit, with Mexico we run a $60 Billion trade deficit, with Canada God knows how big the trade deficit is...so I know agriculture is the "bright spot" of all this trade, Smithfield and Tyson gets to export their vertically intergrated pork over there$$$$$$$$ But good Lord, the US runs a +$700 Billion trade deficit, seems to me if we didn`t trade and let the chips fall where they may, we`d be better off. And I know that might shoot "market oriented" agriculture in the foot, but there`d be plenty of money not lost to send farmer`s a check if need be.
Also keeping in mind, yeah we sell all these ag products, but is anyone happy with these prices..pork guys? beef guys? corn guys? wheat guys? ..soybean guys might not be as bad, but there you go, it is due to mother nature`s supply management. But no one kid yourselves "they" need our commodities or they wouldn`t be buying them, "they" aren`t doing us any favors. And when SA beans are cheaper you hear rumblings of beans coming into Carolina ports and aren`t we a net importer of beef? That free trade moves both ways.
01-24-2017 10:15 PM
BA, you can bet that as the US farmer gets squeezed out of export markets, USDA will be squeezed for farm payments and farmers will find themselves without a friend at home at the same time they lose their foreign customer. Farming coulld be in for a bloody time.
01-24-2017 10:56 PM
Jim, I wouldn`t doubt that farmers will be expected to take some hits, but every since the golf courses got plowed up and planted to corn, we`ve returned to a more "historical price" for grain ...cure for high prices...you know. Our day of reckoning resumed right after the effects of the 2012 drought ended...hindsight being 20/20 of course.
If we don`t straighten out our country, it doesn`t matter how much we trade and how good our prices are. Look at pork, we`ve never exported so much pork, yet check the hog prices. Well that industrialization of the hog industry has come to grain farming too, so we get a similar price structure in the grains. The opperator that buys inputs at half price and deals in volume amounts that opportunities of premiums are available to them. Those in that rarified air aren`t complaining on internet chatrooms.
For one thing, we need Country Of Origin Labeling, the US consumers need to know and have the choice of where their meat comes from. We are either side of being a net beef importer, I have the confidence that the American people would pay a premium for US beef and other meats.
In this last election, we had a admitted socialist get dangerously close to the white house and many yet would rather have him than the current occupant. This is the danger of a good chunk of Americans losing their living wage jobs, then socialism looks very attractive.
01-24-2017 11:07 PM
Food comes from, then why is it so bad we
Can or can not say if it is gmo or not ?
You want the consumer to know as much
About their food as they can, so what wrong
With required gmo ?
01-24-2017 11:46 PM - edited 01-24-2017 11:53 PM
On the GMO thing -- if 'non-GMO' is already advertised, along with 'organic', etc., then why label the rest? If someone is making a special claim, or marketing angle, then it is up to them to market it as such. Last I noticed, they were getting some price premium for their efforts. Personally, I just assume if it doesn't say it's 'non-GMO', then it could be GMO, right? Yet, for whatever is labeled, the labels need standards nationally, not set by each state, including agreed stardards for definitions of what qualifies for any particular labeling, otherwise it's a labeling quagmire. I have no problem with 'non-GMO' or 'organic', etc., being labeled, so long as mechanisms are in place to prove it really is 'non-GMO' or 'organic', etc. I never buy that stuff simply because I assume it's needlessly overpriced in comparison to what I could spend to buy the 'regular' stuff. Kind of like I don't fill my pickup with 'premium' when 'regular' will do, although I don't really equate 'non-GMO' nor 'organic' with 'premium', though some people do (it's their right, it's their choice).