Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: Farm Bureau

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rick Williams" <mrfarm AT frontiernet.net>
  • To: "Market Farming" <market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Farm Bureau
  • Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 22:42:53 -0500


Del Williams wrote:
> Perhaps that particular wildlife group and many others like it are
> impossible for you to support. Lots of others support their
> goals. Some of
> those people, happen to be farmers.

There are some deep conflicts between wildlife support groups of that type
and farming. I can not support anyone who wants wolves in the lower 48. We
have seen what this does to livestock farmers. Small livestock farmers who
are being wiped out in northern Minnesota.

And most ironic thing is that people who say they are for grazing and
grass-fed meat over confinement meat have to understand that wolves are
simply not compatible with many livestock, particularly goats and sheep. So
the only recourse those farmers have is to move to a total confinement
system or get out. Many are and have been getting out in those areas. I do
not support that and will oppose those who want to destroy those small
farmers. And there are almost NO large farmers affected.

On the other hand, our farm just went through an inspection process from a
sustainable watershed network and they were impressed with our varied
environments for wildlife that are compatible with farming. Even small farms
like ours.

> As for the factual validity of the information presented on the website
> familyfarmer.org,
> all of it is subject to verification or falsification.

I agree. Much of it tries to somehow suggest that a particular practice is
"bad" but then you realize that nothing of the sort is taking place. For
example, they will mention that the insurance companies sometimes even have
farm bureau members on both boards. No kidding! They have to have directors
on both boards because it is a mutual cooperative. Talk about a red
herring!!

> This isn't the first source that I have read that pointed out how the Farm
> Bureau artificially inflates its supposed membership by including policy
> holders of their various insurance companies.

I completely agree on this and you will find that many or most FB members
and leaders would not deny this. In Wisconsin we separate the associate
members from the voting members but even then are liberal on who is a
farmer. If they did not, you would likely have many small holders excluded
from voting membership and only larger farms would have voting membership.

Some states apparently lump everyone into the pot which is done to make the
numbers look impressive on the one hand, but more importantly, they want the
money.

You understand that this is a huge sum of money that the non-farm people pay
that profoundly affects the cost of membership and money for operations. One
other person on here mentioned a rather high sum of membership cost over
$100. We are currently around $40 or so. Some states that have a lot of
"members" have it even lower. I think Tenessee is an example of this based
on information I received yesterday from our field representative. But you
could do it the way Wisconsin does and have the two membership types (both
pay the same price) and do what we do and subsidize the membership for all
farmers.

> I've attended Farm Bureau meetings in my county... here in east central
> Illinois. I never felt much support there for what I was trying to do in
> market farming. Go organic. I practically got laughed out of the room.
> Grow something besides corn and soybeans? I mean, come on, why
> would you do
> that? Nevertheless, I noticed this year and last that many farmers were
> converting cornfields to pastures and also growing other crops.

What you are up against is old ways of thinking from the average farmer who
may not even be aware of how much the markets are shifting. As they either
die off or are replaced by new people who are looking at new ways of
farming, and force the change in thinking. We are much more progressive here
so there is much less of this attitude.

> Maybe my local Farm Bureau ought to develop a vision for this
> area based on
> the needs of farmers and not just the companies who want them to grow more
> of the same old less profitable crops.

You need to propose resolutions at the annual meeting. Very few show up to
make the decisions for the rest. Maybe a few dozen out of 500. It would take
very few radicals to really mess up a grassroots organization like that with
such complacency:)

> Perhaps you are generalizing your experience with your local Farm Bureau
> group.

Well, for sure all the way throught the state level. Judy and I plan to be
at the annual state convention. I am a voting delegate again even though I
am no longer on the board.

> I had a similar experience with lack of support dealing with the extension
> service. My county extension service thought I was a pain in the ass. I
> just happened to join a farmers' market organization in another county and
> got all kinds of information from their extension service about several
> issues related to market farming and organic growing. They would
> have been
> happy to help a very small grower develop the business. My own county
> thought it was a waste of time.

I could tell you stories about our "beef expert" agent but I won't:)

> It seems to me that many of these traditional organizations are there to
> defend the status quo or work on the agendas of a few other
> organizations/corporations that simply have the funds to support lobbying.

Without question they are status quo for much of their thinking. That is not
necessarily bad in toto but when things are changing rapidly you need to
think things through and plan strategy. But it is very difficult to overcome
human inertia.

Usually you need some radical groups to challenge the status quo and move it
off dead center. The radicals are never going to get it 100% there way, but
you sometimes need them to move things in a certain direction.

> What I haven't observed in my experiences with the Farm Bureau and other
> organizations is any long term vision for the consequences of growing
> practices.

Bob Stallman, the current FB president and a large scale rice farmer from
Texas was voted in few years ago over Dean Kleckner because farmers were not
so sure about the earlier vision of "Freedom to Farm". They honestly thought
five or so years ago, that by removing government subsidies that farmers
would be better off in the long run. And they would to a certain extent.
They then went to a much more protectionist mode due to the realization that
they were not going to export their huge surpluses because of many factors
unforseen. Especially, more self sufficiency from foreign countries, and
outright exporting at low cost from unexpected parts of South America.

Sincerely,

Rick Williams
Misty Ridge Farm
Dairy heifers and dairy beef graziers
Viroqua, WI

www.mistyridgefarm.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page