up to 150,000 dead cattle in South Dakota

[doc-sun]

Wrong would be infusing those terribly- poor topline bulls of yours into the shorthorn gene pool.

The Bonus Depreciation allowance is only for qualified assets. You might want to check out what's considered 'qualified'

qualified means new ie new parking lot, new road, new..... read the law. you're not doing your employer much good if you haven't told him he could write off most of his new office parking lot in the year constructed or your new farm road.  maines were infused in the shorthorn gene pool before xpert was born so he has no first hand knowledge of how it benefitted the breed. you really had to clip a butt in most of them before infusion. another shot from my bulls would increase the genetic pool of your cattle that i have seen posted on sp 1000%, but then you xpertly mostly post other people's cattle and are critical of all the rest. becoming too much of an xpert and not listening will get you xbarred by most knowledgeable people as you age.

 

[GONEWEST]

Lol dispute with facts.  You forget you told me your name in a message.  O the power of google. You're a washed up has been- really, a never was.

What University did Google tell you I graduated from Mr Texas State?  (clapping) (clapping)

And what TWO universities did Google tell you I am currently enrolled in and what field, smart boy? And what's the GPA currently at each of those schools?

 

[knabe]

I have a two column financial staement.


One i pay stuff for

One i get paid for.

The rest is a bunch of crap to offset the cost of votes.

 

[comercialfarmer]

"commercialfarmer".....

What are you talking about that these ppl have overextended themselves?
The ppl that were totally wiped out and lost all their cows were the ones that only had a 100 or so head of cattle; the ppl with
1,000 head mostly had a good number of survivors.  The ppl with 100 or so head were mostly the young ppl that were starting out;
if they were "over extended", that seems to be a fact of life for young ppl that start out in ranching/farming.....

I do believe in the livestock indemnity program; I believe it has its place in situations such as this.
I also believe in giving of myself as we have pledged a young cow with her fall heifer calf at side for the heifers for South Dakota
project; I have also volunteered to be a resource for locating and buying bred cattle with the $250,000 that has been donated by wonderful,
caring ppl across this great nation that don't have cattle to donate themselves but want an animal bought in their name to give to
these ranchers.

Hopefully, you, as the generous giving person you have described yourself to be have also opened your wallet and join us in our mission to help these young ranchers
recover and go on.

I'm all for private donations and help in catastrophic events if it is laid on your conscience to do so.  That is what I was saying.  You should be able to choose whom and when to help in these events.  But I'm not for a federal relief program that will dump millions of tax payer dollars into a program that will do little to benefit the producer, or will cost 500 to 1000 times more to achieve the same effect as private donations.  I'm not for a mandated government decision to bail out people or corporations no matter the size.  There is risk in any business, whether natural or economic.  Too many don't prepare for the unforeseen risk.  This topic turned from donations to "the government should do something about this".  And that is what I was addressing.  No they shouldn't now, they shouldn't have 3, 4, 5, and 6 years ago and they shouldn't help Detroit, or California out of the messes they have gotten into.  Where do you draw the line?  You will be dependent on some bureaucrat to make a decision of who is deserving and who isn't.  That will end up just being a decision based on votes, like it has been.

You seem to have taken offense to my making a statement on being so over leveraged on debt that you can't recover.  There was a time when people started out small and grew their operations and even the size of their houses over time.  Now, too many want to jump out and in over their head.  You don't bet more than you can cover.  It is bad to end up at 0, but even worse to end up -$200,000 or further.  However, that is why we have bankruptcy options- if you leave yourself so open that you can't recover.  We don't need a national tax payer insurance safety net for those that gamble to aggressively.  It will only promote it.  That can be said of any industry.  Not everyone needs to own a 100 head at 20 years of age.  They might need to work a little while and save up to enter the game or start out smaller. 

Do I have compassion for what has happened- absolutely.  Like I said, we went through something very similar to this.  It was a natural event, a drought, and the government should not have stepped in to save us from ourselves.  It was our risk- our profit or our debt.  If you aren't over leveraged, you can rebuild again.

I'm glad you have such a zeal to help and I am not trying to discourage that.  It is a great quality.  However, attempting to help in the wrong form can be more destructive than helpful and that was the meat of my post. 

 

[comercialfarmer]

I have a two column financial staement.


One i pay stuff for

One i get paid for.

The rest is a bunch of crap to offset the cost of votes.

(clapping) (clapping) (clapping) (clapping)

 

[twc77]

Do I have compassion for what has happened- absolutely.  Like I said, we went through something very similar to this.  It was a natural event, a drought, and the government should not have stepped in to save us from ourselves.  It was our risk- our profit or our debt.  If you aren't over leveraged, you can rebuild again.

I'm glad you have such a zeal to help and I am not trying to discourage that.  It is a great quality.  However, attempting to help in the wrong form can be more destructive than helpful and that was the meat of my post.
[/quote]


Corporate farmer, as I sit and try to chew the meat of the situation you found yourself in I have a question or three.. during said drought , did you walk outside and find 30-70% of your herd burned beyond salvage a result of spontanious combustion? Or did you in fact start to sell like most would as pasture got thin and hay looked short? If it was the later of the two scenario your situation is nothing similar. If it was the first how did you (outside of  your extra long boot straps with which you pull yourself up everyday) recover? And when you say we do you speak of the proverbial we(CEO.CFO.COO.etc.)? You are a model for us all,and we thank you for it sir..

 

[BTDT]

This is FANTASTIC!  Just like high school, arguing over mute facts, he said, she said, mine is bigger than yours, I said it first...

Now if I could only find a beer.

 

[knabe]

<beer>

 

[Pleasant Grove Farms]

however you all feel about it, here is the latest.....

This just in: RAPID CITY, South Dakota, Oct. 22, 2013 -- Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Michael Scuse announced today that conservation assistance is available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for those affected by the Atlas Blizzard. USDA is offering a special signup through the Natural Resources Conservation Service' (NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to help South Dakota producers address the impacts of the storm. In addition, Scuse encouraged producers to submit forms to the Farm Service Agency to document their losses with the hope that Congress will quickly pass a Farm Bill to reauthorize the livestock disaster assistance programs that have expired. The Under Secretary also noted that the USDA's StrikeForce Initiative for Rural Growth and Opportunity has been working with Native American Tribes in the state to connect them with a variety of USDA resources, including conservation programs.
The EQIP signup runs through November 15th, 2013. EQIP assistance will help producers dispose of livestock carcasses, replace destroyed fencing, and rebuild shelterbelts and other conservation practices that were damaged by the storm. USDA will begin providing assistance to producers as soon as this week. Scuse noted that NRCS is working in partnership with the State of South Dakota to provide the greatest possible amount of assistance.
That will be all for now - WR

 

[knabe]

if tribes did a better job working with brand inspectors, theft, hiding cattle, trick, i would be inclined to give them assistance, but they don't.  they work with some shady characters and don't do a good job cooperating. they are grazers of last resort and should be a little more cooperative if they want taxpayer money.

 

[oakview]

Thank goodness for government assistance.  I heard on the radio less than 15 minutes ago that thousands and thousands of people affected by Sandy have applied for government assistance.  As of this morning, ONE check has been issued.  That must mean Obama is racist.

 

[Pleasant Grove Farms]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=560968300624252&set=a.159527250768361.43462.108865382501215&type=1&theater

taking care of our ranchers....
we all support you

 

[comercialfarmer]

Corporate farmer, as I sit and try to chew the meat of the situation you found yourself in I have a question or three.. during said drought , did you walk outside and find 30-70% of your herd burned beyond salvage a result of spontanious combustion? Or did you in fact start to sell like most would as pasture got thin and hay looked short? If it was the later of the two scenario your situation is nothing similar. If it was the first how did you (outside of  your extra long boot straps with which you pull yourself up everyday) recover? And when you say we do you speak of the proverbial we(CEO.CFO.COO.etc.)? You are a model for us all,and we thank you for it sir..

When you find a way to sell 2 years of burned up wheat that never produced, please let me know. I stated that we had 2 years of severe drought followed by a bottoming out of the wheat market that never recovered.  I never said cattle. 

Both scenarios are weather related.  Ever heard of a family farm? 

It took scraping by, working extra jobs, and going without stuff, but the original hole dug by all the inputs and no crop for multiple years right at start up was eventually paid off over many years. 

When is the event big enough to warrant help from the feds?  Does it take a declared disaster in the entire county, the state, a region?  Why not just 1 individual?  Who decides if it is a disaster?  Sounds like a pretty pi$$ poor way of conducting our affairs and prone to corruption.  In years past, train wrecks with BRSV have occurred taking out large percentages of some individuals wheat pasture or feed lot calves bought by loans.  Why not re-reimburse them?  What about someone that lost 60 head of weaned calves due to dog packs?  You ready to write the check?  What about blue green algae poisoning?  What about nitrate poisoning killing entire herds?  What about when foot and mouth disease hits?  What about when BSE hits the US market with a real impact? 

Life happens.  No one is holding a gun to your head making you run cattle.  If you want to do it, buck up and take on the risk. 

Any assistance provided during these events should be by private citizens.  Any assistance is a blessing and a good deed provided by your fellow man.  It isn't to be robbed from the tax payer. 

 

[Pleasant Grove Farms]

Did you not have crop insurance for your burned up wheat?
We are third generation family farmers/ranchers; we do farm and have a good number of cows both and so have experienced loss in both areas.

Now we can get into a whole other thread and start talking about how the crop farmer has such a lowered risk of loss because of federal crop insurance and also the government payments on the acres of crop planted; what that has done in our area is caused lots and lots of acres of pastures to be turned into fields that are poor and raise not much but its all covered by crop insurance and crop support payments so risk is not there anymore; which leads one to wonder where and who will raise our beef? 
Until there is some incentive by the government programs to take more risk out of raising beef such as there is risk out of raising crops, and until the cattle rancher can sell those animals for more money, pasture continues to be broken and made into crop ground.  Or we can do it the other way and make there be more risk in the crops, to even out the risk....

I read some years ago that the next world war would be over food; all people in this nation need to support the farmers and ranchers who are making this country strong and stable with the food supply. because as the world's population continues to increase, this looks like it may come to pass.

 

[RyanChandler]

Now we can get into a whole other thread and start talking about how the crop farmer has such a lowered risk of loss because of federal crop insurance and also the government payments on the acres of crop planted; what that has done in our area is caused lots and lots of acres of pastures to be turned into fields that are poor and raise not much but its all covered by crop insurance and crop support payments so risk is not there anymore; which leads one to wonder where and who will raise our beef? 
Until there is some incentive by the government programs to take more risk out of raising beef such as there is risk out of raising crops, and until the cattle rancher can sell those animals for more money, pasture continues to be broken and made into crop ground.

I read some years ago that the next world war would be over food; all people in this nation need to support the farmers and ranchers who are making this country strong and stable with the food supply.

The Fed Govt shouldn't hedge the individual from SYSTEMATIC risk- not to be confused w/ systemic risk- in  There is inherent risk in all business and like commercial farmer said, "  No one is holding a gun to your head making you run cattle.  If you want to do it, buck up and take on the risk."

Ranchers, like any business owner, face a trade-off between the returns they expect and systematic risk. Therefore, their desired returns correspond with their desired exposure to this risk.  If the potential returns from raising cattle are too low for you to assume the inherent risk, then GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS.  It is not the Govt's role to subsidize my competition.  If some ranchers decide there is too much risk FOR THEM to raise cattle and so they leave the market place, guess how that effects the returns of those who decide the trade-off is worth it? $$$ I am more risk adverse than some- well most really.  I should be rewarded accordingly. 

All investments/business face this trade off.  Why are the returns on T-bills so low? Because they're backed by the Government. This is why they are considered Risk-Free.  Why is the return mezzanine financiers receive so high? Because their investments are unsecure, they DEMAND a rate that corresponds with their exposure. This is the most simple risk/reward concept that all businesses should have to face.    Take the federal crop insurance and subsidies all together out of the equation and let the producers that can defend the risk, on their own, REAP THE BENEFITS.  To the victor go the spoils.

 

[Pleasant Grove Farms]

pretty sure the whole theory behind federal involvement in the production of food is so that it remains fairly stable and affordable.
in this nation, we pay one of the lowest % of our income for food in the world; gov't trying to keep it affordable and also to keep the family farms in business;

we can take away all the gov't involvement and food will have to go much much higher to make the rewards high enough to assume all the risk of food production, then the gov't has to deal with ppl that can't afford to buy food or should the gov't and we as a ppl just leave them on their own also?

interested to hear your solution on that.

 

[BTDT]

Also remember, that Americans are used to cheap food. They do not seem to care much about quality as long as it is cheap. Most of our "prime" meats and foods go over seas and we import lesser quality that is cheaper. I will go out on a short limb (because it is true) that our exporting of ag products is what is keeping our fine nation half way solvent when it comes to foreign trade. If it wasn't for ag, what can we export? Not electronics, not auto's, not clothing.
Crop farmers, including wheat farmers, have long been "assisted" by the gov't with subsidies in way of LDP's, Crop disaster payments, erosion control programs, Crop insurance, and commodity payments.  If they have a good year, they get a payment, if it is a bad year, they get a payment.
If a livestock producer gets hit with a huge loss, they are on their own. So maybe we need to even the playing field one way or the other.

So commercialfarmer, I am assuming you did everything EXACTLY the same during those drought years as you did during other years. Did not sell any wheat on contract when those prices skyrocketed? Plant less acres?  Hedge your crop?  At least you had some warning and could have (and SHOULD have) taken some action.

I forgot to ask - Which crop programs have you or did you take advantage of? No shame if you did, just askin'.

 

[RyanChandler]

pretty sure the whole theory behind federal involvement in the production of food is so that it remains fairly stable and affordable.
in this nation, we pay one of the lowest % of our income for food in the world; gov't trying to keep it affordable and also to keep the family farms in business;

we can take away all the gov't involvement and food will have to go much much higher to make the rewards high enough to assume all the risk of food production, then the gov't has to deal with ppl that can't afford to buy food or should the gov't and we as a ppl just leave them on their own also?

interested to hear your solution on that.

That theory was proposed before the surfacing and the reality of a global economy.  "We" pay one of the lowest % of income for food, not because of govt subsidies, but because we can import food substantially cheaper than it can be grown domestically. Don't kid yourself, poverty stricken Americans aren't eating domestically grown sources of food- well, unless they grown it themselves.  From a macro perspective, the high quality food that is being produced here is being EXPORTED.  The affluent of the world are willing to pay the premium for prime cuts of meat; the majority of Americans are not.  Subsidizing food production in the US does nothing but widen the profit margin for those exporting commodities- and compensate the farmer/rancher much more so than the free market would dictate his/her skill set requires. 

 

[Pleasant Grove Farms]

so you are saying with the government out of it, food prices in the US wouldn't change and the affluent countries that eat all of our food are just fine in paying the increased cost it would take to produce it and everything would be better....

I wish ppl like you would run for public office so all of our problems would be solved.
Why don't you?  You know all the solutions.

(in our isolation, in our local grocery store, there are labels that say, grown in Washing state for apples, grown in Texas for melons, grown in Florida for citrus, product of the USA in the meatcase; but most likely we are an isolated example).

 

[oakview]

Just don't buy the dog food made in China.  How much longer will we let this go on?  Every time I turn around there's something imported from China that is tainted, from shrimp to dog food, or has lead based paint.  Now we're letting them buy the pork processing business?  That sounds like a good plan to me.  Not.  The grandkids were watching TV with me early this morning and saw the bit about the tainted dog food on the ticker.  They asked a good question.  "Don't they make dog food in the United States?"  Check your labels!