If you thought the war on fat and veganism was just for fun...

[Yung]

I wasn't trying anything to use anything but a bit of humor like in my previous post, but I suppose that doesn't follow well in text.
I'll go and enjoy my keto in the corner now. Quack quack and have a good night.

[0ddl0t]

So why should we subsidize it?

National security. At minimum to counteract other countries' own farm subsidies, but also to ensure Americans have a robust home-grown food supply in the event of war with major Ag producers or famines from global overpopulation.

[Welder]

My own experience in the ornamental plant business showed me plenty of folks are quite willing to hire shit tons of cheap ass labor to avoid spending money on equipment upgrades that would pay for themselves in a year or two.

It's amazing how inefficient and dumb you can make a whole industry by shielding them every standard we hold every other business to.

Are you kidding me? Your anecdotal experience with a badly managed flowers and crap business has exactly nothing to do with this subject. I'm sorry you're upset with farmers and the ag industry in general as noted in some of your above posts, but although you at times appear intelligent in this forum, you're waaaaaaaaay out of your lane here. This is as nice as I can say it. I'm sure you'll have more links and quotes to refute whatever I say, but the bottom line is that your ignorance is showing.

I will address this one idiotic comment quoted above specifically, and I'm done. Not coming back to this thread and not being baited any further. Say what you want, I'm done with you and I won't be reading your responses. Dunning-Kruger, my friend, you have it. You don't know what you don't know.

But I want to first deal with the silly sentence in another of your posts which said something along the lines of not buying romanticized agriculture. I addressed this in my post in the other thread where I reminded you that the days of a simple farm life with long work hours equaling profitability are long gone. They've been gone for decades. Anyone trying to live that dream went out of business long ago or is supplementing their tiny "farm" heavily with off-farm income. It's pretty popular to be a 'gentleman farmer' in the high priced areas around the big cities. A few horses, some registered Angus, a clean, new truck and gooseneck trailer and some beautiful painted board fences with the boards on the wrong sides of the fence...these places are easy to spot and they're not farms in a true sense. They're places to 'lose' some extra money and wax nostalgic in, nothing more. They provide visible green space to the public though, which is something I suppose. A real working farm is a lifestyle, and it's a hard one. There is nothing romantic about it. Anyone who thinks there is, is out of touch.

Final reminder, my major was Agriculture and Applied Economics and I grew up on a non-subsidized, no outside income supplemented farm that has been in my family since 1774. I started working there daily after school beginning at age 7, and continued through my college graduation. I also chose not to return. I'm not in love with ag but I do know what I'm talking about. Don't try to tell me what you think you know from your little bit of experience at some greenhouse or tree farm or what you read on the internet, I walked the same mainstream agriculture walk that my family has for generations. My blood, sweat, and tears are tied to that land to this day. Frankly, in many ways I wish they weren't; I wish I'd have been able to grow up normally and play sports and chill with friends on weekends....but we play the hand we're dealt, don't we?

Farm Efficiency, Or: "Cheap ass labor" vs "equipment upgrades."

This is the same fallacy that I was addressing in the other thread. There is a single set of decisions that leads to highest profitability in anything, including agriculture. Like any business, there are well-managed farms and there are poorly managed ones. My experience is with Eastern farms, specifically, in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley of VA. I can't talk to you in specifics about open range farms or the big circle-irrigated farms out west. However, the basics of a well-run ag business dealing in homogenous products such as corn or chickens are going to be the same. Detail practices will of course vary.

Agriculture is a very highly mechanized industry *where at all possible.* But some things simply can't be mechanized, either at all because of their nature vs our current level of technology, or profitably because of economies of scale. Fruit pickers, etc are paid to show up and get a job done that can't be done by machines. Yeah, they don't get paid as much as an accountant. Should they? Everything in ag is a fight to make it, and the labor intensive operations aren't going to pay any more for labor than they have to. Same as *any other company or any other industry.* There comes a tipping point where, when available, you are able to spend $ on technology and get rid of unreliable or more expensive labor. Every farmer I know is doing everything they can to modernize in this way. Why? Because machines might break down every now and then, but when you need them, they're usually there. They don't ask for raises and they'll work 14 hours a day. Just like you are. (I've toured a few robotic milking parlors now...talk about a strange phenomenon, the idea that you no longer have to wake up at 4 a.m. to start milking.) Any business, including agriculture, that doesn't make the best use of technology for their specific situation, is screwing up. That's not an ag problem, that's a bad management problem.

However, this idea that Ag is an industry that can be treated like any other is, frankly, stupid. Anyone who says that is inane; they should really sit down and shut up, having demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. Name me another business with the inherent uncertainties of agriculture: Inability to begin or end production at ideal times. The constant fight agains the clock and the weather. Consistent inputs not yielding at-all-consistent outputs due to factors completely outside of your control. There is no year-to-year repeatability. Unpredictable production amounts which may vary by half or more from year to year, thus producing year-over-year losses at times *through no fault of management.* Gov't tariffs. The full global economy competing. Completely homogenous products. There is literally zero brand loyalty. Pricing set by brokers who will never own a penny's worth of product but who will take a giant share of profits. Large pricing swings at production level often do not show up at end consumer purchasing point *at all.* Excess profits are simply taken by middlemen and end sales points. Your work hours are extraordinarily high. An 8 or 10 hour day? LMAO. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I started working in the "real world." Show me a corporate executive who worked more hours a day or a week than I did during my summer vacation when I turned 7.

Finally, you don't have to look far to find other heavily subsidized industries in the U.S. Many industries have a logical argument for being critical to the country's success and long-term viability, and the gov't takes an interest in them. The idea of a completely free market economy is for simpletons who do not understand economics. These are the same people who complain about taxes while driving on public roads. Yeah, there are screwups and mismanagement in the system. But there are underlying reasons for things like subsidies which, I shudder to say, may be beyond the understanding of some people.

If you feel like you're being held back for some reason because of agribusiness or decisions related to it in your area, as alluded to in another post, make the changes necessary for your success. No one owes you a certain amount of money or job. Go out and do what's necessary to get it for yourself, and conversely, don't blame anyone but yourself if you don't rise above. Yeah, I learned that on the farm.

[0ddl0t]

Name me another business with the inherent uncertainties of agriculture: Inability to begin or end production at ideal times. The constant fight agains the clock and the weather. Consistent inputs not yielding at-all-consistent outputs due to factors completely outside of your control. There is no year-to-year repeatability. Unpredictable production amounts which may vary by half or more from year to year, thus producing year-over-year losses at times *through no fault of management.* Gov't tariffs. The full global economy competing. Completely homogenous products. There is literally zero brand loyalty. Pricing set by brokers who will never own a penny's worth of product but who will take a giant share of profits. Large pricing swings at production level often do not show up at end consumer purchasing point *at all.* Excess profits are simply taken by middlemen and end sales points. Your work hours are extraordinarily high. An 8 or 10 hour day? LMAO.

Trucking (which is also highly subsidized by the US)

[Welder]

OK, I said I wouldn't return here to read responses and I haven't. But I want to apologize to Baldanders for being especially hard on him in my post. Yes, I believe everything that I said. But I woke up this morning and realized that everything I thought, didn't need to be said. It's the better part of discretion to keep some things to yourself and have some class.

Obviously it was late when I wrote my post, and I should've been smart enough to wait for today to respond. Again, I apologize for coming off harsh. You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of what I think of it....and there are (usually) plenty of smart people on both sides of an argument. Recognizing this is what allows us to interact in a constructive way.

PS - No one told me to write this; I woke up and knew what needed to be done.

[CWM11B]

In large amounts, yup.

Science doesn't back high-animal fat diets, whatever the quacks say.

If you are going to to try to use Inuits or similar groups as examples of why this is untrue, you need to dig past quacks for your data.

I would love it if the Jordan Peterson diet made sense. It doesn't.

I disagree, based on the work of Dr. Eric Westman at Duke University, and from personal experience with his program and that of several friends who have used his program and are actual patients of his.

[Baldanders]

National security. At minimum to counteract other countries' own farm subsidies, but also to ensure Americans have a robust home-grown food supply in the event of war with major Ag producers or famines from global overpopulation.

We would have plenty of time to shift production in either case.

And I would bet you anything neither is happening in our lifetimes, or ever.

War among the great powers is going to be more subtle than that. It already is.

[Baldanders]

*Post deleted in an attempt to match the class of my fellow forum member.*

[Baldanders]

OK, I said I wouldn't return here to read responses and I haven't. But I want to apologize to Baldanders for being especially hard on him in my post. Yes, I believe everything that I said. But I woke up this morning and realized that everything I thought, didn't need to be said. It's the better part of discretion to keep some things to yourself and have some class.

Obviously it was late when I wrote my post, and I should've been smart enough to wait for today to respond. Again, I apologize for coming off harsh. You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of what I think of it....and there are (usually) plenty of smart people on both sides of an argument. Recognizing this is what allows us to interact in a constructive way.

PS - No one told me to write this; I woke up and knew what needed to be done.

I didn't read this before I responded, and now I'm the asshole.

No ill feelings here, sir.

My sincere apologies.

Smart people are often passionate. It beats apathy.

[Baldanders]

I disagree, based on the work of Dr. Eric Westman at Duke University, and from personal experience with his program and that of several friends who have used his program and are actual patients of his.

It can make sense in the short term(sometimes), but I don't know of anyone on a high-animal fat for many decades who is in great shape, or any traditional diet than seems to have good outcomes that is based on such.

It does beat lots of simple carbs and sugar with low-fat, no doubt. Fat in general has been unfairly demonized. But saturated fat is clearly linked with heart disease.

And my own diet is heavy on the animal fat. But I am planning on shifting that. Or I may end up testing Westman's theories.

100% meat is still definitely insane. Unless someone can explain how we can synthesize Vitamin C.