Hows your "F - - KING" Day going!

[riders2010]

Apologize for interrupting, under that question why should taxpayers be supporting all the areas at all this year if the crop is lost, is it fair only the guys that have the margins will be reimbursed? what if their areas go 5 years in a row with no crops and it could happen?, freewheat and our area grows next 5 year bumper crops should the rest be hung out to dry?

What is the best land now? The answer is the land that is recieving the best weather but that changes every year and I think if we look at the last 5 years extremes are becoming the norm. If there is a program shouldn't it be designed to respond to that?
Under the current scenerio the margin guys will be taking over many in the no margin areas is that a good program design? Some of those margin guys are thinking short term, they could be where we are at in a few years, what would they think then?

Not supporting farms will lead to eventually only a handfull of farms is that what you see as the answwer checking?


Not answering for freewheat I was jus curious as to your answers.

[Klause]

riderfan2010,

<em>And there is no point trying to guess your financial state because there are 100 and 1 variables even if we knew most of them. But in general at 70 % coverage and 3 years crop loss, if I know your area you had a few losses prior to this also so let's say 5 losses, not sure if your crop insurance is like sask but we have 10 year average 5 years of loss means coverge at 50% of what you grow and 70% of that 50% gives you 35% roughly income, of course take off your premium which will of course be high with that many years of loss. In just my opinion you must have absolutely nil for cost because living off 35% income not sure where anyone could keep going like that. </em>

Where did I say we had 3 year crop loss? I'm not in Laurier/Ste Rose/Ste Amelie - I was using them as an example as I have good friends that farm there. For us, 2005 was wet. We only had half seeded... was a poor crop but breakeven. 2006 was awesome. 2007 was good yields, but meh... had issues with tough grain at harvest. 2008 was wet, but we got most seeded. 2009, same deal. Most seeded, excellent yields... Gotta remember, MB is not SK. We are in an area that is wet and we factor in % that can't be seeded for whatever reason. Doesn't mean crop that did go in will suck.

I don't quite gather your calculations with crop insurance, but that isn't anything close to here...

I'm covered for $215/ac on my canola this year... That's my IPI * MASC's average yields * $9.20(I think.. around the $9, don't have sheet in front of me) * 70%

For instance, this year canola yields will be 10 - 15 in the area... that goes for everyone, including me. My IPI won't drop because that's your yield vs. the rest's yield. I think we're pretty fortunate with our system.


As far as the unseeded acres, I did not claim them in years past. Only this year because so much is unseeded.

<em>No wonder you are not in agrivation, it would only be a cost of accountants for you or your time if you do it yourself, right or wrong? </em>

No accountants... I've gone through the calculations myself. I'd have a margin, but I do NOT like the program, and I do not support government stimulus in this form... It's a socialist program designed to reward those that are either incapable, or unwilling to protect their own operations. For someone like you, or the guys in St. Rose that have had numerous poor years, you have no margins, you get no money. The ones that had bumper crops for the past few years, and this year have a poor one, are getting big money - when they shouldn't. If you can't weather one bad year, then you should re-evaluate your operation and make changes that you can. I don't see an ITstability, or TrainStability, or PotashStability, or OilStability, or FishStability program - do you? Why is agriculture different? You want to get rid of high rents, high used equipment? Get rid of all forms of these bailout programs. When there is a disaster - provide aid for that. Do not provide aid for "a poor year". That is why I do not take part in it.


<em>Those crops that you lost was it because you were a shitty manager or the weather? </em>

As they say, hindsight is always 20/20. Looking back on this season, I could have done a few things differently, perhaps chiseled some fields instead of no-tilling into them, but all in all 95% is due to bad weather. I can control inputs, seeding rates, seeding depth, pests, and disease (to an extent). I can't control the weather

<em>Now having said this, interested to know Guys that had good weather and therefore income 5 years in a row prior to this year and now some will have 0 income, do you feel they deserve (because they paid income tax, LOL LOL LOL or otherwise) to be subsidized because they had good weather and you didn't? </em>

As above

<em>Were they better managers than you to have a crop when you didn't? </em>

This year the only "good" crops are those on fields that are high, and have perfect drainage. And those "good" crops would be considered poor in a normal year.

<em>Do you think those that have the margins in agrivation did they all of a sudden become poor managers because they are gonna have no income this year off the crop itself? </em>

No. However, if they had good crops in years past they should have a slush fund. Unfortunately, and I know of a few around here, they spent the money on new equipment and pickups, vacations, etc. and have no contingency. Most of these guys also bought land at 50% or more over average market value. These operations shouldn't get subsidized... they will never learn to manage properly if the government keeps handing out taxpayer's money.

Before someone accuses me of being greedy, I would most likely be getting quite a bit from AgStab. if I was in the program this year... It's a matter of ideology more than anything... We buy with money, not debt. I don't buy new, I buy used (but in good shape). I don't rent land for exorbitant values, but I pay my rent every year in full by the deadline - and did the same thing this year.

<em>I realize you likely have a different perspective on the be happy thing and may not care if they get subsidized, because you are closer in time in terms of your family leaving a very corrupt and dangerous country, so your views would be more that it's just nice not to get shot at understandable. But some of us feel we're past that and expect that as normal, so let's get on with dealing with the level of corruption happenning here.

Your parents I assume left because they were in a system where only the priveleged with the inside of the gov and the crooks prospered and survived. If you spoke up you what got shot at? </em>

It's hard to explain if you're not there... You are thinking of a different kind of corruption... The government was not evil. Ok, I'll give you an example.

Al`Queda starts blowing up cars, buildings, etc. in Canada. They systematically infiltrate the local and state and federal law enforcement agencies... Now start picturing what this would do. The country is now seen as being unstable. No one will lend money, and the country is forced to pay high interest on its bonds... in effect printing paper. Inflation goes through the roof - 500% or more a month. Banks go broke, call in on paid for loans... Your family members get kidnapped for ransom... The governemnt runs out of options, and starts confiscating your production to feed the population... See what I'm getting at here?

I'm not saying Canada is the same, but I'm saying we shouldn't be complacent...


<em>Why is it wrong for us to say look just because of weather people are going to get and I am not sure everyone is aware but if they actually pay it there is going to be some massive agrivation payments to people that have had good luck 4 of 5 years prior (take the lag year out)this is taxpayer money and others are gonna get none.</em>

It's not wrong to vent... but by God, every thread on here was a vent! I simply said count your blessings, it can always be worse. We're getting off-topic now, though.

<em>I spoke with our accountant and of course didn't provide names but in those lentil areas there are guys with above 200 margins, some of them seeded very little. So let's say 50 bucks of allowable expenses they potentially could recieve 250 bucks x 2000 acres = 500,000 bucks and you will recieve nothing out of that program do you think that is right? I think your farm was 2000 acres. </em>

No. It isn't right. As I've said above...


<em>Klause,

Lets be realistic there are two types of farmers on here ones who are used to making good money and supporting a family and ones who basically have nothing to lose, like you. I don't mean to be demeaning but that's the reality. 5 years ago i was in your position now i have lots to lose, guess what I'm not whining cause i got one frick of a good crop but if i didn't i sure as hell would be.

If you are happy to have shitty crops three years in a row there is something wrong with you. What are you going to say next year when its 4 in a row "oh well be happy i can go to the oil patch" I guess you aren't a farmer then you are a hobby farmer who derives most or all of his income from other sources.

guys who are whining on here are tied to their farm there is no way they could just frick off for a winter, just doesn't work when you have a big farm. Its like any other business does a grain company just close their doors for a few months cause they are having a lean year i don't think so. </em>

With all due respect, I agree. There are two types of farmers.

I will change the classifications though. There are those that, through luck, have grown large, and have become arrogant... The arrogance is masking ignorance. The other type of farmer is the one who grows his crop, follows his beliefs, is conservative, saves some money, and isn't capitalized up to the wazoo.

You think I have nothing to loose - I have no mortgage. I own half the land I farm - outright. I own my equipment - outright. I have a small operating loan and input financing, and two years to go paying off a loan from when I bought Dad out of the operation at age 16. My net worth is healthy. I have never been turned down for any credit... My credit rating is very important to me.

The farmer who has been flooded for 3 years is a poor manager. However, you, who has one bad year and is crying he needs government funds, is a good manager? Where did the profits from the past few years go? You obviously didn't save any money or forsee that anything could go wrong. That proves the opposite of what you said. Want to see a bad manager, look in the mirror.

Finally, your comment that farmers your size are tied to the farm... Tell me, if you have no crop to harvest, why are you tied to the farm? What are you doing all winter? You work in the patch, 2 weeks on, one off. Buy your inputs on the week off. If you have a bit of grain, haul it out then. Actually, one member on this board farms 8,000 acres, has a custom spraying business, and a custom seed cleaning business. He's also the manager of a drilling rig and works out in the patch all winter... Now, for my personal opinion, guys like him make people like you look like lazy whiners.

Finally, calling farmers "dog f&%$kers" is probably the most childish thing I've ever heard... Again, think you can take your opinions into a public debate with me? I can guarantee the general public won't support your view point.

I'm off... And I'll read this thread, but won't keep posting. It's a waste of time talking to people who's ears are plugged.

[riders2010]

Thanks for responding Klause that was really revealing, I've got no time to respond right now but I am anxious to and I will, I was under the impression you had lost crops and were still happy about it, You haven't lost crops so naturally what the heck would you have to complain about? You showed these dreary pictures and said I'm still happy wait til this continues for 3 more years like it did for us.

[checking]

riders2010.

I will respond to you, but I'd like to hear from freewheat. Okay.

[freewheat]

Checking, you offer some excellent questions for a right wing farmer who beleives in the marketplace, and minimal subsidization!

I do not think it would be feasible to abandon a few million acres as marsh, especially as most marshes are not slightly rolling as our country is. Too many Islands!!!

For me, my alternative if the weather does not change is to raise sheep, not grain. As far as the others in the region, they'll probably be forced to quit and move on. I am a farmer, and always will be somehow, by gum.

I do not beleive in special support by region, I frankly disagree with subsidies. If we had as I have said before, a tangible crop insurance system that was the farmers sole responsibility to pay into, and it actually provided coverage for troubles such as these, to offset the costs incurred in a 4 years in 6 flood, i would gladly pay in high premiums. Heck with agrisnot, ad hoc, etc.

Finally, I will say this again. The regulations imposed on our specific area, the regulation disallowing drainage in the Fishing slough, I mean lake drainage basin, even after the sask water study that states drainage only affects water levels by 3-6 inches, must be revoked. It is a ridiculous law, and has disadvantaged our area which is one of the forty inch of rain areas, above other areas, causing our specific area to see maybe 10 % seeded this year... To wreck a million acres of farmland to stop a 3 to 6 inch rise in lake levels in years when rainfall is 40 inches is utterly unfair, and equal to forcing me to sell my wheat to the CWB which is unjust and unfair as well as a western Canadian.

If we could drain some water away this fall, we may seed next year. If not, we're in big trouble again.

You must be in a dry area checking, as you simply have no clue about flooding. I found it to be worse than I thought when I drove my tractor out on the land for the first time this year at the end of august. I didn't get far before getting stuck: in a midslope position.

As well, when one lives in an area where the climate scores a 39 out of 40 on assessment sheets for soil/land assessment, where a crop failure had never realy occurred between settlement and 2004, one must always have a contingency, BUT not for years of difficulty. How much of your debt repayment would the 30 bucks cover? How much of your actual costs would the 47 bucks cover? And finally do you know what it costs to take care of wet ground?

[cottonpicken]

Convincing,so are the idiots walking around saying
bread is bad for you,difference is i dont tell them
not to say it.

Control,control,control,are thoughts,are actions,all
the while flying the holier than you flag.

Whats the old saying?

There are two types of people in this world-those
who want to be left alone and those who wont leave
them alone.

leave us alone-if we want to complain and swear
just dont *** read us.

[gregpet]

Then ignore the positive post cotton, pretty simple.

[bgmb]

I am going to take one last stab at this.

Klause said,
"I will change the classifications though. There are those that, through luck, have grown large, and have become arrogant... The arrogance is masking ignorance. The other type of farmer is the one who grows his crop, follows his beliefs, is conservative, saves some money, and isn't capitalized up to the wazoo."

I don't think you can attribute success to luck those that have large successful farms have taken calculated risks, made good decisions and understand business and economics. Probably a good idea to get post secondary education before you farm.

However I think you can attribute some failures or lack of progress to bad luck.


"However, you, who has one bad year and is crying he needs government funds, is a good manager?"

I don't think I am going to have a bad year crops are really good but only 20% done harvest. But if I do I know I can have two bad years before my agristability margin starts to decline.

My profits are right where they should be invested back into my operation so they can generate more profits for me. More land more grain storage you know stuff like that. And we have lots of working capital so we could go quite awhile without a crop even if there was no crop ins or agristabilityinvestrecovery.

My point was that agristability and to a lesser extent crop ins pay good farmers more that bad ones. I just think it is better than paying based on acres or gross sales. But actually in my farming utopia there would be no subsidies at all.

On the work ethic/off farm income comments.

It would cost my farm far more to lose me for a winter than I could ever make at a job and I think I could get a pretty good job. I will quote a good friend of mine "there is hard work and there is smart work" and remember don't mistake activity for productivity.

Guess what there are some dog F(*^%g farmers. And they don't deserve to farm and certainly don't deserve random gov payments to keep them in the business of dog humping.

[checking]

Freewheat.

I recognize that you are more than articulate enough to defend your thoughts, so hence the brush off of perhaps an area citizen in riders2010.

I'll accept your take on what is wrong with what are labelled as safety nets. You have me at an disadvantage, but no envy here, that they don't work in a changed region now more suited to fish agriculture than grain production, but mainly your advantage is in the knowledge you've gained in participation in programs. I cringe at the thought of such words as programs, and if I had had to rely on them to continue farming I would have changed businesses. That's just me.

If I had the power, and it has always been limited to an involuntary electrical response only sufficient to drive my heart, I would require from you a commitment that you would make a refund to the public purse when the normal times return to historic production. The way I see it your area has developed too much of a risk factor for what your first choice is to do with the land. If you wanted my support, you would have to agree to this.

I've likely labelled people on here, but it is not a wise thing to do. You would be wrong to believe I'm anywhere close to being a right wing farmer simply based on the two criteria you have listed.

You have a valid point with the watershed authority, but you would find that their action resulted from complaint(s), and for $200.00 you could lodge the same one against an upstream neighbour. The authority is required to respond to determine its validity. There is one thing that you can do that does not change the historic water storage on your property, and that is to consolidate it to a specific area. A thousand islands could become one that's farmable with your own private little lake.

Confronted with your situation, I'd hook my 4WD tractor up to a 26 foot mower, after ground freeze up, and mow it. I've done the same with cattail areas, and it does work, and has limited expense. Nothing is wrecked. There are no ruts. There is no partial burn, and there is a chance you will be able to do something with it come spring. It's the reason I suggested to you awhile back that I wouldn't fight a weed-water situation that wouldn't support equipment. I'd let it grow to consume some of the moisture, and my expense would no where near a program payment.

Take care.

[hedgehog]

you guys need to send all your phots of bogged combines to the bbc website, and all newspapers.
tell them you wont seed next yr either.
and please stop knocking seven bells out of each other.