95% of Family Farms facing ruin after joining the European Union

bluetinker54 said:How many people do I personally know who are out there collecting government subsidies while simultaneously letting ragweed take over their entire property? Let’s try to avoid making sweeping generalizations here, but I have to wonder how common this actually is.

Yeah, especially when you're looking at those smaller family farms. But honestly, I guess maybe he would have been the smarter one if he’d actually put those subsidies toward consolidating his acreage instead of blowing it all on some overpriced, shiny new John Deere tractor.
You really have to keep in mind that when you're looking at tractors, the actual age of the machine isn't nearly as critical as the total number of operating hours. I mean, if you have a solid, well-built tractor that’s been properly maintained, it can easily clock 10,000 hours without breaking a sweat. Once you hit that mark, you just perform a complete engine overhaul, and honestly, you're basically starting over again.
If someone manages to clock about 1,000 hours a year—which, let’s be honest, is actually quite a bit if you're putting in four hours every single workday—they’ll probably end up destroying the machine within ten to fifteen years. But, I guess if they only run it for maybe 300 hours a year, it could potentially last them forty years. Of course, that’s assuming you factor in all the inevitable breakdowns and regular maintenance required to keep things running.

Besides, any boss with half a brain is going to go out and buy a brand-new John Deere or maybe a top-of-the-line piece of equipment, but they’ll still insist on keeping that ancient, rusted-out relic tucked away in the back of the shed just in case some absolute disaster strikes. It’s honestly ridiculous. You’re right in the middle of a massive job, a warning light pops up on the dashboard of the new machine, and what can you actually do? You basically just call the service department and sit there staring at the floor, wondering where it all went wrong. Until the mechanic shows up, you’re stuck trying to finish the whole damn project with some prehistoric junk from 1975 that probably shouldn't even be running.

wearytrucker22 As I was reading what Paul Gonzalez10 had to say, I couldn't help but feel that...
You people have been living on this land for over a thousand years, yet you can't even manage to pull together 250 acres of solid ground? It really makes you wonder what your ancestors were actually doing with their lives. Honestly, if you don't have at least a few hundred acres to work with, maybe you should just step away from the farming business entirely. It’s just not practical. And don't even get me started on the situation along the Mediterranean Coast, where the government either holds onto almost all the land or leaves nothing for the actual people to use. It's frustrating, I guess.

Here we go again, just whining and complaining like usual.
I guess you could say that back in the old days under America, there was a legal cap on land ownership set at around 25 acres. Even with that limit in place, the actual average per person was probably only sitting somewhere around five or seven acres.
Even if you happen to have the cash sitting there ready to go, it’s not like you can just walk into any neighborhood and buy up land on a whim. It doesn't always work that way.

I guess I should probably start by addressing what was said in that previous post. It seems like we're circling the same drain without actually making any progress on the core issue at hand.

How exactly am I supposed to wrap my head around that? I mean, I guess there might be a way to look at it, but honestly, I’m just not sure where to even begin with a question like that. It feels like there’s so much missing from the equation that any answer I give would probably just be a shot in the dark, though I suppose I could try to piece it together if I really had to.
I can't help but wonder who actually owns all this forest land that’s currently being torched right before our eyes. If I had to guess, most of it probably belongs to the federal government, wouldn't you say?
It doesn't really matter if they aren't easy to work with right now; over the last decade, I guess they've actually become somewhat manageable.

Three guys.
And I don't really know a huge circle of people.

Can we please stop with the broad strokes?

Around Cleveland, every inch of "farmland" is crawling with weeds, and anyone with allergies can barely breathe because of the ragweed.

Where do you think ragweed grows best? In the tilled soil or in the neglected patches?

And let's just state the obvious one more time:

The small farms soak up most of the subsidies, while the big industrial operations handle most of the actual production.

The vast majority of these subsidies go straight to the big players (though one has to wonder: how exactly do we define "big" here?).

The total amount allocated for these support programs sits at roughly $2.3 billion.
There are 1,063 major recipients (those receiving over $220,000) who walked away with exactly $558987860

When you consider there were 103,194 total recipients, it turns out that just 9.7% of them—the heavy hitters—snagged about 50% of the entire fund.

The same logic applies when looking at production shares.
Since there isn't a clear definition of what constitutes a "large entity," nor any granular data on individual production levels, an exact calculation is impossible. So, let me offer this illustration instead: the undisputed giant in the US (think massive conglomerates like Cargill) produces roughly 8% of all milk and 20% of pork.

Andrew Booth29 said:That just isn't true. If you actually bother to look at the data on the USDA website—which they used to publish more transparently, anyway—you'd see something different. Generally speaking, small-scale farms pick up most of the subsidy checks, yet it's the massive industrial corporations that drive the bulk of actual agricultural output.

Can you drop a link to that page? I forgot to mention that it's the big corporations that generate most of the debt the government ends up footing.

wearytrucker22 said:The point is, people didn't even emerge from the Communist era with those 25 acres per family; they came out with maybe 5. And that 25-acre cap had been in place since '53—it used to be closer to 80 acres before that. Honestly, they didn't give much of a damn about the rocky terrain of the Mediterranean Coast, which is exactly why tourism ended up in private hands, especially on the islands.

You've said this a few times now, but nobody is listening to you.
Let's recap:
most of the subsidies go to small farms, while the bulk of agricultural production is driven by massive corporations.

Can you drop the link? Where'd you read that?

The comparisons between farming and renting out vacation rentals always crack me up. I have this buddy who inherited some acreage from his old man—a tractor, some gear, the whole bit—and spent a few years running wheat, corn, and sunflowers. Back in the day, maybe ten years ago, you could actually see a decent return on your time and investment even with smaller plots. Nowadays? It’s basically peanuts. He finally just gave up and started leasing his land out instead. If you don't have the cash upfront for supplies, you're stuck signing IOUs. Plus, when harvest hits, you're glued to that tractor for 36 to 48 hours straight—you need serious stamina for that. When he actually crunched the numbers, the "profit" was so pathetic his hourly rate ended up being way lower than what a college kid makes working in a warehouse—and that wasn't even factoring in the depreciation on his equipment. It’s all too easy to work yourself to the bone only to realize you're actually losing money.

stormyangler12 said:The vast majority of these subsidies go straight to the big players (though one has to wonder: how exactly do we define "big" here?).

The total amount allocated for these support programs sits at roughly $2.3 billion.
There are 1,063 major recipients (those receiving over $220,000) who walked away with exactly $558987860

When you consider there were 103,194 total recipients, it turns out that just 9.7% of them—the heavy hitters—snagged about 50% of the entire fund.

The same logic applies when looking at production shares.
Since there isn't a clear definition of what constitutes a "large entity," nor any granular data on individual production levels, an exact calculation is impossible. So, let me offer this illustration instead: the undisputed giant in the US (think massive conglomerates like Cargill) produces roughly 8% of all milk and 20% of pork.

What kind of nonsense is this?

I mean, how much land area and production percentage does that 9.7% of recipients actually hold?

The reality is, obviously, that small farmers take the subsidies, while the big guys handle the actual production. ☕

Ronald Howard3 said:The comparisons between farming and renting out vacation rentals always crack me up. I have this buddy who inherited some acreage from his old man—a tractor, some gear, the whole bit—and spent a few years running wheat, corn, and sunflowers. Back in the day, maybe ten years ago, you could actually see a decent return on your time and investment even with smaller plots. Nowadays? It’s basically peanuts. He finally just gave up and started leasing his land out instead. If you don't have the cash upfront for supplies, you're stuck signing IOUs. Plus, when harvest hits, you're glued to that tractor for 36 to 48 hours straight—you need serious stamina for that. When he actually crunched the numbers, the "profit" was so pathetic his hourly rate ended up being way lower than what a college kid makes working in a warehouse—and that wasn't even factoring in the depreciation on his equipment. It’s all too easy to work yourself to the bone only to realize you're actually losing money.

Interesting... I mean, how would he even fix up an apartment if he had no money? People seem shocked every time they realize things actually cost money.

Of course, people living on the coast think everything just falls from the sky. ☕

rowdypilot19 said:What kind of nonsense is this?

I mean, how much land area and production percentage does that 9.7% of recipients actually hold?

The reality is, obviously, that small farmers take the subsidies, while the big guys handle the actual production. ☕

Interesting... I mean, how would he even fix up an apartment if he had no money? People seem shocked every time they realize things actually cost money.

Of course, people living on the coast think everything just falls from the sky. ☕

The fact remains that both small and large operations receive subsidies proportional to their acreage and output. That doesn't change the reality that the massive corporations are walking away with the lion's share of the subsidy pie.
Try reading with some actual comprehension.

Hmm, nah, the way it works is you get subsidies based on acreage, or per head of cattle, or maybe based on hitting a minimum milk production level. Like, if you hit some baseline amount of milk—say, 10 liters per cow, LOL—you get the payout, but if you don't, you get absolutely nothing.

It’s not like you get paid for how much wheat you actually grow per acre or anything like that. That's what I'm getting at.

Whether you pull in 3 tons or 10 tons per acre, the subsidy stays exactly the same. I mean, if you ask me, it's just plain silly.

James Phillips92 said:Like I said before—the lion's share of those subsidies went to Todorica and his crowd. That's why everyone else sees their output tanking; a lot of folks are just giving up on production entirely, especially in livestock.

The whole damn country used up 7% of the available funds from the agricultural budget, so maybe stop barking at the wrong month...

Some people wonder what kind of management or agronomic expertise is actually required when God sends nothing but two measly drops of rain to the Mediterranean Coast in an entire three-month span... 😁

Just don't come at me with talk about hydroponics, NASA technology, or aquaponics... during drought periods where water is gold, most aspiring farmers—real or imaginary—can't even get their hands on a basic Mesopotamian irrigation setup. With no rain in sight, city water being prohibitally expensive, and the local quality being absolute garbage... how exactly are you supposed to execute your strategies, operational studies, or those von Schlieffen plans for conquering France without any water? 😁

The most basic setup, probably straight from the Stone Age—just a well.

Alex Scott5 said:Some people wonder what kind of management or agronomic expertise is actually required when God sends nothing but two measly drops of rain to the Mediterranean Coast in an entire three-month span... 😁

Just don't come at me with talk about hydroponics, NASA technology, or aquaponics... during drought periods where water is gold, most aspiring farmers—real or imaginary—can't even get their hands on a basic Mesopotamian irrigation setup. With no rain in sight, city water being prohibitally expensive, and the local quality being absolute garbage... how exactly are you supposed to execute your strategies, operational studies, or those von Schlieffen plans for conquering France without any water? 😁

All you really need is a deep pocket. That's the secret behind this 7-acre property here.
It’s like a little slice of magic tucked away near Cleveland—a family farm and olive grove paired with a luxury villa, sitting about half a mile from the edge of town and about a mile from the waterfront and downtown. The farm covers roughly 7.5 acres, mostly planted with young olive trees—only about three years old now. The entire plot relies on an irrigation system fed by a reservoir with a capacity of 900 cubic meters.


Mind you, I’d still need to add a plastic liner to the setup. You’d want to float about a hundred Styrofoam sheets on the surface. Then, you drill tiny holes in the liner so any rainfall can drain easily into the reservoir. The liner itself helps stop evaporation during those brutal heatwaves. Of course, you’d have to cover the whole thing with hail netting and anchor it down tight so a strong wind doesn't just blow the whole operation away.

I was actually looking into buying something similar to handle the summer irrigation for the olives.
Though, I'd probably just order the base model without all the bells and whistles. But the cover and the wind protection would be non-negotiable. Fill it up during the winter—use it through the summer.

Take a look at a massive operation like Belj—they pull in roughly $1.6 billion in revenue, yet they only grab about $90 million in subsidies. That means those government payouts only account for maybe 6% of their total income. Compare that to your average small family farm here in the States, where subsidies can make up a staggering 30% of their entire revenue: Meanwhile, the grain yields over at Belj are sitting at 50% above the national average.

If you head over to , you can actually find the full list of subsidy recipients. Now, if Belj controls somewhere around 10% of the agricultural production in the country, they’re only pulling in about 1.5% of the total subsidy pool. You can always cross-reference this through the IRS to track down specific companies and their actual revenues.

There are a few other major players following a similar pattern, but the rest of them...

stormyangler12 As I was saying:
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly can't help but feel like most of those government subsidies just end up being swallowed by the massive corporations. It seems like whenever there’s a new round of stimulus or tax breaks being handed out, the big players—the ones who probably don't even need the extra cushion—are the first ones in line to grab it all. I guess it’s just how the system is set up, but it feels like the smaller businesses, the actual backbone of the economy, are left fighting over the crumbs while the giants get a free pass. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it certainly looks that way from where I'm sitting. I guess it really comes down to how you define "large" in this context, doesn't it? It’s one of those terms that feels pretty straightforward until you actually sit down and try to pin it down, but I suspect everyone is looking at a different metric. Maybe we should probably establish what we mean by "big" before we get too far into this, because without a clear definition, the whole argument kind of loses its footing.

I guess the total amount earmarked for those subsidies is sitting somewhere around $460 million.
I guess if you look at the numbers, exactly 1,063 of the largest recipients—those pulling in more than $500,000—have received their payments in full. $558987860

If you actually sit down and crunch the numbers—considering there were exactly 103,194 recipients in total—it turns out that... I guess if you look at the numbers, it’s pretty wild to see that a tiny fraction—about 9.7% of the largest recipients—ended up walking away with roughly 50% of the total. It just seems like such a massive concentration of resources in so few hands, though I suppose that's just how these things tend to play out in the US. ...out of the total amount.

I suppose you could make the exact same argument when it comes to their specific share of total production.
Since there isn't exactly a clear-cut definition of what qualifies as "large-scale" or any specific, granular data on production numbers for individual companies, it’s basically impossible to make an exact, definitive statement about the market share. That said, I guess we can look at one illustration to get a sense of the scale: the biggest player in the American agricultural sector produces roughly 8% of the milk and about 20% of the pork.

That’s exactly the point right there—before we can even begin to move forward, I guess we really need to figure out how we're actually going to define who counts as a "major" player and who just falls into that "minor" category. It seems like a pretty fundamental step we're skipping over, but without some kind of clear distinction between the big fish and the small fry, the whole discussion feels a bit aimless, don't you think?
I guess if you’re looking at someone managing maybe 12 acres, then that guy running 250 acres probably seems like some massive industry player to them. But honestly, even that 250-acre operation is practically nothing once you start comparing them to the heavy hitters out there managing 2,500 acres or more. It's all relative, I suppose.
On the other hand, over on the Mediterranean Coast lately, you’ve got these guys who managed to snag long-term concessions for permanent crops, and now they’re just sitting pretty, reaping in those massive government subsidies on 50 to 100 hectares. It feels like a setup, honestly.

I guess there isn't much to say here, really. It feels like we're just circling the same drain over and over again without actually getting anywhere, which is pretty frustrating if you ask me. Maybe I’m being too cynical, or maybe I’m just seeing things for what they truly are, but it seems like everyone is just talking to hear themselves speak rather than actually addressing the core of the issue. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly. I suppose we could try looking at it from another angle, but I haven't seen anyone offer anything substantial enough to make that worth the effort yet.

rowdypilot19 Asks: Whether you’re pulling in 3 tons or 10 tons per acre, the subsidies stay exactly the same. Honestly, if you ask me, that’s just plain stupidity.

Look, you have to understand that this isn't some kind of stupidity. It’s actually pretty straightforward when you think about it, because not everyone is working with the same natural conditions. I mean, if you take two farmers using the exact same agricultural techniques, Matt from the Midwest might pull in maybe 8 tons of wheat, while Steve over in a hilly region like Tennessee might struggle to even hit 5 tons. Plus, he’s dealing with all that extra work coming from the hills, too.

I guess if we’re being honest about how these subsidies actually work, the whole system feels a bit backwards. If you really want incentive programs to make any sense at all, the payout per acre should probably scale down as the farm size increases. It just seems logical that a larger operation benefits from economies of scale—they have lower overhead and can run things much more efficiently than someone struggling with a tiny plot. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but right now, the math just doesn't seem to add up for the bigger players who are already running a tight ship.
Honestly, if that happened, we’d just be looking at an even bigger mess of total chaos and systemic corruption.

I guess I should probably start by addressing this whole situation, though I’m not entirely sure where to begin without sounding like I'm just venting for the sake of it. It feels like everything is being thrown into a blender lately, and honestly, I find myself questioning if anyone is actually looking at the bigger picture here. Maybe I'm just overthinking things, or maybe I'm the only one noticing how much the landscape is shifting under our feet, but it seems like we're constantly reacting to the latest headline instead of planning for what comes next. It’s frustrating, I suppose, to see such a lack of foresight, especially when you consider how much is actually at stake for us all. I mean, if you really sit down and weigh the implications, it becomes pretty clear that the current trajectory isn't exactly sustainable, though I realize that might be a bit of an exaggeration depending on who you ask. Still, it leaves me feeling rather unsettled about where we'll end up if things don't start heading in a more predictable direction.

slysurfer14 said:The whole damn country used up 7% of the available funds from the agricultural budget, so maybe stop barking at the wrong month...

So, who exactly is to blame for all this? I mean, really, if we're going to sit here and dissect this mess, we have to ask ourselves who is actually responsible. It feels like everyone is pointing fingers, but I guess it’s never that simple, is it? Maybe it's one group, maybe it's another, or perhaps it's just a systemic failure across the board. I don't know. I'm just sitting here wondering who we should actually be holding accountable when everything falls apart like this.

rowdypilot19 said:The most basic setup, probably straight from the Stone Age—just a well.

That’s assuming your well is the only one in the vicinity 3.1 miles. But then again, there are areas where you won't find water at all, or maybe it's sitting fifty meters down. And even if you hit it, the water is usually way too cold, so you end up needing these massive surface tanks just so they can soak up some sun during the day to reach a usable temperature.

Real irrigation isn't really possible without massive infrastructure projects and serious, large-scale systems. Primarily, it's an issue of ecology.
If everyone starts setting up their own little DIY micro-systems just to suit their immediate needs, we’re going to run into an ecological disaster long before anyone sees any actual profit.

Andrew Booth29 said:Take a look at a massive operation like Belj—they pull in roughly $1.6 billion in revenue, yet they only grab about $90 million in subsidies. That means those government payouts only account for maybe 6% of their total income. Compare that to your average small family farm here in the States, where subsidies can make up a staggering 30% of their entire revenue: Meanwhile, the grain yields over at Belj are sitting at 50% above the national average.

If you head over to , you can actually find the full list of subsidy recipients. Now, if Belj controls somewhere around 10% of the agricultural production in the country, they’re only pulling in about 1.5% of the total subsidy pool. You can always cross-reference this through the IRS to track down specific companies and their actual revenues.

There are a few other major players following a similar pattern, but the rest of them...

Fine. But I think you should read that article a bit more carefully.
It points out that livestock producers actually receive a higher percentage of subsidies compared to crop farmers. Which makes sense, I suppose, because they get incentives for both the initial planting and the livestock itself.
Looking at Belje's own data, they manage about 50,000 acres of cropland along with 4,000 head of cattle and 2,000 beef cattle.
That works out to roughly one animal for every 12 acres.
Whereas a dedicated livestock farmer, where ranching is the primary business, might have about one head per 2.5 acres. Or basically three times the density of livestock per unit of land. So, naturally, their subsidy percentage ends up being higher.

As for those folks claiming subsidies make up 50% of their income, those numbers probably need a little "cleaning up." It’s most likely small-scale homesteaders who produce a tiny amount for the market—often just selling right from their front porch—so there’s hardly any paper trail regarding their actual sales volume.

bluetinker54 said:

stormyangler12 As I was saying:
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly can't help but feel like most of those government subsidies just end up being swallowed by the massive corporations. It seems like whenever there’s a new round of stimulus or tax breaks being handed out, the big players—the ones who probably don't even need the extra cushion—are the first ones in line to grab it all. I guess it’s just how the system is set up, but it feels like the smaller businesses, the actual backbone of the economy, are left fighting over the crumbs while the giants get a free pass. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it certainly looks that way from where I'm sitting. I guess it really comes down to how you define "large" in this context, doesn't it? It’s one of those terms that feels pretty straightforward until you actually sit down and try to pin it down, but I suspect everyone is looking at a different metric. Maybe we should probably establish what we mean by "big" before we get too far into this, because without a clear definition, the whole argument kind of loses its footing.

I guess the total amount earmarked for those subsidies is sitting somewhere around $460 million.
I guess if you look at the numbers, exactly 1,063 of the largest recipients—those pulling in more than $500,000—have received their payments in full. $558987860

If you actually sit down and crunch the numbers—considering there were exactly 103,194 recipients in total—it turns out that... I guess if you look at the numbers, it’s pretty wild to see that a tiny fraction—about 9.7% of the largest recipients—ended up walking away with roughly 50% of the total. It just seems like such a massive concentration of resources in so few hands, though I suppose that's just how these things tend to play out in the US. ...out of the total amount.

I suppose you could make the exact same argument when it comes to their specific share of total production.
Since there isn't exactly a clear-cut definition of what qualifies as "large-scale" or any specific, granular data on production numbers for individual companies, it’s basically impossible to make an exact, definitive statement about the market share. That said, I guess we can look at one illustration to get a sense of the scale: the biggest player in the American agricultural sector produces roughly 8% of the milk and about 20% of the pork.

That’s exactly the point right there—before we can even begin to move forward, I guess we really need to figure out how we're actually going to define who counts as a "major" player and who just falls into that "minor" category. It seems like a pretty fundamental step we're skipping over, but without some kind of clear distinction between the big fish and the small fry, the whole discussion feels a bit aimless, don't you think?
I guess if you’re looking at someone managing maybe 12 acres, then that guy running 250 acres probably seems like some massive industry player to them. But honestly, even that 250-acre operation is practically nothing once you start comparing them to the heavy hitters out there managing 2,500 acres or more. It's all relative, I suppose.
On the other hand, over on the Mediterranean Coast lately, you’ve got these guys who managed to snag long-term concessions for permanent crops, and now they’re just sitting pretty, reaping in those massive government subsidies on 50 to 100 hectares. It feels like a setup, honestly.

I guess there isn't much to say here, really. It feels like we're just circling the same drain over and over again without actually getting anywhere, which is pretty frustrating if you ask me. Maybe I’m being too cynical, or maybe I’m just seeing things for what they truly are, but it seems like everyone is just talking to hear themselves speak rather than actually addressing the core of the issue. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly. I suppose we could try looking at it from another angle, but I haven't seen anyone offer anything substantial enough to make that worth the effort yet.

rowdypilot19 Asks: Whether you’re pulling in 3 tons or 10 tons per acre, the subsidies stay exactly the same. Honestly, if you ask me, that’s just plain stupidity.

Look, you have to understand that this isn't some kind of stupidity. It’s actually pretty straightforward when you think about it, because not everyone is working with the same natural conditions. I mean, if you take two farmers using the exact same agricultural techniques, Matt from the Midwest might pull in maybe 8 tons of wheat, while Steve over in a hilly region like Tennessee might struggle to even hit 5 tons. Plus, he’s dealing with all that extra work coming from the hills, too.

I guess if we’re being honest about how these subsidies actually work, the whole system feels a bit backwards. If you really want incentive programs to make any sense at all, the payout per acre should probably scale down as the farm size increases. It just seems logical that a larger operation benefits from economies of scale—they have lower overhead and can run things much more efficiently than someone struggling with a tiny plot. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but right now, the math just doesn't seem to add up for the bigger players who are already running a tight ship.
Honestly, if that happened, we’d just be looking at an even bigger mess of total chaos and systemic corruption.

I guess I should probably start by addressing this whole situation, though I’m not entirely sure where to begin without sounding like I'm just venting for the sake of it. It feels like everything is being thrown into a blender lately, and honestly, I find myself questioning if anyone is actually looking at the bigger picture here. Maybe I'm just overthinking things, or maybe I'm the only one noticing how much the landscape is shifting under our feet, but it seems like we're constantly reacting to the latest headline instead of planning for what comes next. It’s frustrating, I suppose, to see such a lack of foresight, especially when you consider how much is actually at stake for us all. I mean, if you really sit down and weigh the implications, it becomes pretty clear that the current trajectory isn't exactly sustainable, though I realize that might be a bit of an exaggeration depending on who you ask. Still, it leaves me feeling rather unsettled about where we'll end up if things don't start heading in a more predictable direction.

So, who exactly is to blame for all this? I mean, really, if we're going to sit here and dissect this mess, we have to ask ourselves who is actually responsible. It feels like everyone is pointing fingers, but I guess it’s never that simple, is it? Maybe it's one group, maybe it's another, or perhaps it's just a systemic failure across the board. I don't know. I'm just sitting here wondering who we should actually be holding accountable when everything falls apart like this.

That’s assuming your well is the only one in the vicinity 3.1 miles. But then again, there are areas where you won't find water at all, or maybe it's sitting fifty meters down. And even if you hit it, the water is usually way too cold, so you end up needing these massive surface tanks just so they can soak up some sun during the day to reach a usable temperature.

Real irrigation isn't really possible without massive infrastructure projects and serious, large-scale systems. Primarily, it's an issue of ecology.
If everyone starts setting up their own little DIY micro-systems just to suit their immediate needs, we’re going to run into an ecological disaster long before anyone sees any actual profit.

Fine. But I think you should read that article a bit more carefully.
It points out that livestock producers actually receive a higher percentage of subsidies compared to crop farmers. Which makes sense, I suppose, because they get incentives for both the initial planting and the livestock itself.
Looking at Belje's own data, they manage about 50,000 acres of cropland along with 4,000 head of cattle and 2,000 beef cattle.
That works out to roughly one animal for every 12 acres.
Whereas a dedicated livestock farmer, where ranching is the primary business, might have about one head per 2.5 acres. Or basically three times the density of livestock per unit of land. So, naturally, their subsidy percentage ends up being higher.

As for those folks claiming subsidies make up 50% of their income, those numbers probably need a little "cleaning up." It’s most likely small-scale homesteaders who produce a tiny amount for the market—often just selling right from their front porch—so there’s hardly any paper trail regarding their actual sales volume.

So, basically... you're encouraging someone to pour their life into something that just doesn't pay off? I mean, yeah, great idea. Truly a stellar move.

I mean, if we’re being honest, for subsidies to actually make any sense... I don't know, maybe the amount per acre should probably scale down as the farm gets bigger? It just seems like it would work better that way. Because, you know, a larger operation usually means lower overhead and everything runs a bit more efficiently. It's just more rational, I guess.
I mean, honestly? It would just be a total disaster. Probably even more chaos and shady business than what we're seeing now. I guess... maybe things would just get way messier.

It’s like... this whole setup is actually even worse, I guess. It feels like if you're actually doing well and being successful, they just end up punishing you more for it. Maybe that's how it works now? It's just a system where the more you succeed, the more they come after you. Truly.

Since you're clearly struggling, here—take some extra cash. Maybe it’ll help.

That’s just brilliant. Truly.

I guess I should probably start by saying... well, there isn't much else to say, really. It’s just that thing we were talking about. You know? I mean, if you look at it one way, maybe it doesn't even matter, but I can't help but think about it. It stays on my mind. I don't know. Maybe I'm overthinking things, too much, probably. But anyway...

I mean, it’s a whole different ballgame if your well is basically the only one for miles around. I guess you start thinking about things differently then, right? Like, if that one source goes dry or something... man, that's a heavy thought. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like everything changes when you're relying on just one thing. It's a lot of pressure, honestly. 3.1 milesIt’s just... I mean, you have to consider that in certain spots, there isn't even any water available at all. Or, if you do find some, it might be sitting fifty meters down. And then, okay, even if you get it, the temperature is just way too cold. It’s freezing. So, I guess you’d end up needing those massive storage tanks out on the surface, just hoping they soak up enough sunlight during the day to actually warm things up. Maybe that works, but it seems like a lot of extra work, right?

That’s not quite right, I guess... if you actually look at Vrgorac and Sinjsko polje.

I mean, seriously, if there isn't any water, what on earth would be the point of trying to jumpstart agriculture there? I guess... I don't know, it just doesn't make sense. Like, why would we even talk about incentivizing farming on Brač, specifically out in the Blaca desert? It feels a bit pointless, honestly.

I mean, sure, it’s doable, I guess... but you better be ready to shell out some serious cash if you're actually going through with it.

Watering your lawn in the middle of a summer day? I don't know... maybe it isn't the brightest idea. It just feels like a waste, honestly.

I guess, at the end of the day, maybe it’s actually better for farming to just have a desert and the ocean instead of all that fertile soil and a river running through it. I don't know. It feels like if you have the barren stuff, at least nobody is breathing down your neck about environmental conservation or whatever. At least then, nobody's messing with you. 😁

rowdypilot19 said:So, basically... you're encouraging someone to pour their life into something that just doesn't pay off? I mean, yeah, great idea. Truly a stellar move.

I mean, if we’re being honest, for subsidies to actually make any sense... I don't know, maybe the amount per acre should probably scale down as the farm gets bigger? It just seems like it would work better that way. Because, you know, a larger operation usually means lower overhead and everything runs a bit more efficiently. It's just more rational, I guess.
I mean, honestly? It would just be a total disaster. Probably even more chaos and shady business than what we're seeing now. I guess... maybe things would just get way messier.

It’s like... this whole setup is actually even worse, I guess. It feels like if you're actually doing well and being successful, they just end up punishing you more for it. Maybe that's how it works now? It's just a system where the more you succeed, the more they come after you. Truly.

Since you're clearly struggling, here—take some extra cash. Maybe it’ll help.

That’s just brilliant. Truly.

I guess I should probably start by saying... well, there isn't much else to say, really. It’s just that thing we were talking about. You know? I mean, if you look at it one way, maybe it doesn't even matter, but I can't help but think about it. It stays on my mind. I don't know. Maybe I'm overthinking things, too much, probably. But anyway...

I mean, it’s a whole different ballgame if your well is basically the only one for miles around. I guess you start thinking about things differently then, right? Like, if that one source goes dry or something... man, that's a heavy thought. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like everything changes when you're relying on just one thing. It's a lot of pressure, honestly. 3.1 milesIt’s just... I mean, you have to consider that in certain spots, there isn't even any water available at all. Or, if you do find some, it might be sitting fifty meters down. And then, okay, even if you get it, the temperature is just way too cold. It’s freezing. So, I guess you’d end up needing those massive storage tanks out on the surface, just hoping they soak up enough sunlight during the day to actually warm things up. Maybe that works, but it seems like a lot of extra work, right?

That’s not quite right, I guess... if you actually look at Vrgorac and Sinjsko polje.

I mean, seriously, if there isn't any water, what on earth would be the point of trying to jumpstart agriculture there? I guess... I don't know, it just doesn't make sense. Like, why would we even talk about incentivizing farming on Brač, specifically out in the Blaca desert? It feels a bit pointless, honestly.

I mean, sure, it’s doable, I guess... but you better be ready to shell out some serious cash if you're actually going through with it.

Watering your lawn in the middle of a summer day? I don't know... maybe it isn't the brightest idea. It just feels like a waste, honestly.

I guess, at the end of the day, maybe it’s actually better for farming to just have a desert and the ocean instead of all that fertile soil and a river running through it. I don't know. It feels like if you have the barren stuff, at least nobody is breathing down your neck about environmental conservation or whatever. At least then, nobody's messing with you. 😁

EXACTLY: http://www.agrosmart.net/vesti/bez-z...lastenika.html

Look, the real secret lies in innovating how we handle irrigation and fertilization—but we aren't just talking about turning on a hose here. It’s about a massive, integrated system—everything from building reservoirs and pumping stations down to the actual sprinklers, all tied together by computer-controlled monitoring. The whole goal is to take soil that’s been thoroughly tested and deliver the exact amount of water and nutrients directly to the plant's roots for peak growth—that’s how Hermisan ” Juan Felipe Muñoz Viscaíno, the director over at “ Hermisan, explained it to us.

“Hermisan” is one of those heavy hitters in Spain, producing top-tier irrigation equipment for both greenhouses and open fields. They’re moving about two billion euros worth of gear through Spain and 70 other countries. From what we gathered from Juan, the entire point is using these high-tech tools to squeeze out the highest possible yield while using as little water as possible, all while staying green.

- It’s actually quite simple. You have to understand plant biology and soil characteristics to deliver precise amounts of food and water. We haven't seen rain here since May, though honestly, a sudden downpour might actually mess things up right now by throwing this controlled system out of whack—Juan told us this while we were touring the greenhouses and lemon groves in San Juan, way down in the South of Spain, near Alicante.

The Andalusians really go all out to secure their water supply; they use rainwater, desalinated seawater, groundwater, and even pipe it in from other parts of Spain. They build these massive reservoirs and then pull from them via fully automated systems where the computer acts as the brain. Everything is doable and everything pays off, mostly because the farmers there—whatever they’re growing—work together. The Andalusians are pretty much in a league of their own when it comes to that. They irrigate fruit and veg collectively through irrigation user associations. They pay a flat membership fee to access the reservoir water, and then a secondary fee based on how much water they actually use, or rather, the acreage they’re irrigating.

The whole point of subsidies shouldn't really be about handing out rewards. It should be more about leveling the playing field, I guess. It’s about making sure that someone dealing with tougher natural conditions and lower yields gets at least some kind of compensation for that disadvantage.
On poor quality land, everything just struggles to grow. I’m not suggesting we should go around forcing wheat production in the middle of the mountains or hilly terrain, but any kind of farming there is inherently harder, more expensive, and the soil is just less productive. I hope that makes sense to you.

Where on earth did I mention irrigation in the middle of the day? Water pulled from 65 feet deep stays cold, even at night.
I still maintain my stance that if you want to do serious irrigation, you need serious infrastructure. Sure, you can maybe use a makeshift well to water a small plot of 10,000 square feet or maybe 50,000 square feet and turn a little profit, but that is absolutely NOT how you manage large-scale operations.

On top of that, you’re going to need reservoirs wherever it's feasible.
To wrap this up, let's look at a little bit of math.
The flat plains cover roughly 170,000 acres of arable land. The summer flow through the Zrmanja river is around 1,400 cubic feet per second or perhaps a bit less.
Vegetables require at least 30 liters of water daily. For one acre, that translates to at least 30 cubic meters. So, for all 170,000 acres—if we were actually trying to grow vegetables across the board—we would need
2,100,000 cubic meters of water every single day. Meanwhile, the total discharge through the Zrmanja into the sea is about 3,456,000 cubic meters. This means we could potentially use about 60% of the Zrmanja's flow for irrigation, but we'd also risk triggering an ecological catastrophe by diverting that much water.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't irrigate; it just means we have to build a system that is actually sustainable.

I don't know, I can't really agree with that. If certain areas just aren't built for farming, then maybe we shouldn't be trying to force it there in the first place.

Especially not in a country where even the prime, most fertile land isn't being worked properly.

I mean, you have to actually tap into your best possible potential first. Only after you've done that can you start looking for ways to deal with the land that is, I guess, in a different category altogether.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:EXACTLY: http://www.agrosmart.net/vesti/bez-z...lastenika.html

Look, the real secret lies in innovating how we handle irrigation and fertilization—but we aren't just talking about turning on a hose here. It’s about a massive, integrated system—everything from building reservoirs and pumping stations down to the actual sprinklers, all tied together by computer-controlled monitoring. The whole goal is to take soil that’s been thoroughly tested and deliver the exact amount of water and nutrients directly to the plant's roots for peak growth—that’s how Hermisan ” Juan Felipe Muñoz Viscaíno, the director over at “ Hermisan, explained it to us.

“Hermisan” is one of those heavy hitters in Spain, producing top-tier irrigation equipment for both greenhouses and open fields. They’re moving about two billion euros worth of gear through Spain and 70 other countries. From what we gathered from Juan, the entire point is using these high-tech tools to squeeze out the highest possible yield while using as little water as possible, all while staying green.

- It’s actually quite simple. You have to understand plant biology and soil characteristics to deliver precise amounts of food and water. We haven't seen rain here since May, though honestly, a sudden downpour might actually mess things up right now by throwing this controlled system out of whack—Juan told us this while we were touring the greenhouses and lemon groves in San Juan, way down in the South of Spain, near Alicante.

The Andalusians really go all out to secure their water supply; they use rainwater, desalinated seawater, groundwater, and even pipe it in from other parts of Spain. They build these massive reservoirs and then pull from them via fully automated systems where the computer acts as the brain. Everything is doable and everything pays off, mostly because the farmers there—whatever they’re growing—work together. The Andalusians are pretty much in a league of their own when it comes to that. They irrigate fruit and veg collectively through irrigation user associations. They pay a flat membership fee to access the reservoir water, and then a secondary fee based on how much water they actually use, or rather, the acreage they’re irrigating.

We’re actually planning to head out to Israel and Spain next spring, specifically to check out their agriculture. Trying to mix a little bit of travel fun with some useful learning, I suppose.👍

Wait, so you're telling me someone living out near Topusk shouldn't bother with farming just because there's some unused acreage sitting between Našice and Đakovo?

I mean, sure, from a purely economic standpoint, I guess you'd want to focus all your best resources on the most productive spots first. But at the end of the day, people live where they live, not necessarily where some lawmaker thinks they ought to be settled.

Are you honestly sure that someone living out in a place like Topusk wouldn't want to just pack up and move somewhere else to actually make a decent living? 🍿

I mean, I guess we all pretty much realize that if the soil quality isn't there, you have to grow different crops. It's just common sense, right?

So, yeah... it doesn't really make any sense to be pushing people to grow wheat if the yields are consistently falling below a certain point.

The world is changing, you know? There’s really no point in clinging to some outdated system that was cooked up a hundred years ago and acting like the rules of the game haven't changed since then.