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

Look, I’m just trying to explain that, generally speaking, certain regions of the country are going to be worse off while others might actually hold up better.
It really doesn't matter whether you're out there sowing wheat or planting plum orchards.

Of course, I can't say for certain if anyone would actually pack up and move somewhere else, but honestly, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest people would relocate solely based on agricultural conditions.

And yeah, I absolutely agree with you there—both the environmental conditions and the economic landscape are shifting, so we definitely need to start looking for new solutions.

Debunking the myth that dairy farming in the USA isn't sustainable

Back in 2003, the numbers told one story: we had about 58,815 producers pumping out over 540 million kg of milk. Fast forward to 2015, and while the number of suppliers had shrunk to just over 10,000, the actual volume of milk being delivered stayed remarkably steady at roughly 522 million kg. It’s an interesting trend. Between 2003 and 2010, the total number of producers across the European Union dropped by a massive 47%, falling from 3,199,420 down to 1,701,090

wearytrucker22 said:Debunking the myth that dairy farming in the USA isn't sustainable

Back in 2003, the numbers told one story: we had about 58,815 producers pumping out over 540 million kg of milk. Fast forward to 2015, and while the number of suppliers had shrunk to just over 10,000, the actual volume of milk being delivered stayed remarkably steady at roughly 522 million kg. It’s an interesting trend. Between 2003 and 2010, the total number of producers across the European Union dropped by a massive 47%, falling from 3,199,420 down to 1,701,090

Just wait until they start pumping hormones into the cows—it’s going to be a disaster. Not just for the animals, but for anyone drinking the milk, too. Honestly, those skeptics will probably end up in the graveyard before they ever get proven right.

James Phillips92 said:Just wait until they start pumping hormones into the cows—it’s going to be a disaster. Not just for the animals, but for anyone drinking the milk, too. Honestly, those skeptics will probably end up in the graveyard before they ever get proven right.

Look, aren't hormones exactly what boosts production? I don't get why everyone is waiting around for it to happen.

wearytrucker22 said:Look, aren't hormones exactly what boosts production? I don't get why everyone is waiting around for it to happen.

They certainly do. There's actually an article detailing how pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones end up in our milk supply.
http://www.us-focus.com/index.p...vari-u-mlijeku
The text mentions a few things, including this:

It’s been proven that milk and dairy from cows raised primarily on their natural diet—mostly grass—have a positive impact on the health of both kids and adults. On the flip side, milk from industrial-scale factory farms is significantly lower quality compared to milk from pastures where cows graze on grass, hay, and legumes rather than being fed corn and soy. Intensive farming for both dairy and beef cattle has a majorly negative effect on the health of animals and people alike. In those high-intensity setups, there's a higher risk of spreading pathogenic bacteria like E. coli—which tends to pop up more often in animals fed mainly on corn and soy. This issue is incredibly rare in animals eating naturally; when they stick to grass, they maintain a healthy gut microbiome with a good balance of beneficial bacteria. For cattle, corn, grains, and soy just aren't natural, and they're hard to digest. That unnatural diet messes with their gut flora, leading to poor gut health—which ultimately means weaker overall health and a higher susceptibility to disease for both the animals and the humans consuming them.

For our own sake, we would have been better off keeping more small-scale producers instead of moving toward fewer, massive industrial operations.

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...

Look, @Andrew Booth29, nobody cares about inflating yield numbers or revenue figures anymore. In the real world, it's all about the bottom line.
I still remember the days when those old industrial conglomerates boasted legendary yields while being completely rotten underneath. It's the exact same story with Cargill. Their tech guys are out there bragging about productivity while the sales department is losing its mind trying to make ends meet... I hear it from reliable sources.
Besides, it's common knowledge that Cargill is a notorious money pit. They are staring down the barrel of a moment where their total assets will be worth less than their liabilities.

James Phillips92 said:They certainly do. There's actually an article detailing how pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones end up in our milk supply.
http://www.us-focus.com/index.p...vari-u-mlijeku
The text mentions a few things, including this:

It’s been proven that milk and dairy from cows raised primarily on their natural diet—mostly grass—have a positive impact on the health of both kids and adults. On the flip side, milk from industrial-scale factory farms is significantly lower quality compared to milk from pastures where cows graze on grass, hay, and legumes rather than being fed corn and soy. Intensive farming for both dairy and beef cattle has a majorly negative effect on the health of animals and people alike. In those high-intensity setups, there's a higher risk of spreading pathogenic bacteria like E. coli—which tends to pop up more often in animals fed mainly on corn and soy. This issue is incredibly rare in animals eating naturally; when they stick to grass, they maintain a healthy gut microbiome with a good balance of beneficial bacteria. For cattle, corn, grains, and soy just aren't natural, and they're hard to digest. That unnatural diet messes with their gut flora, leading to poor gut health—which ultimately means weaker overall health and a higher susceptibility to disease for both the animals and the humans consuming them.

For our own sake, we would have been better off keeping more small-scale producers instead of moving toward fewer, massive industrial operations.

And what does that have to do with profit, unless they've actually been outlawed? If it isn't illegal, it’s fair game if it helps the bottom line.
It’s just like using corn supplements for poultry feed or whatever.

They’re banned across the entire European Union and you won't find them on the market anywhere.

"Like how KAN is a supplement for chickens and stuff." - Are you actually sure about that?

wearytrucker22 said:And what does that have to do with profit, unless they've actually been outlawed? If it isn't illegal, it’s fair game if it helps the bottom line.
It’s just like using corn supplements for poultry feed or whatever.

Hormones are banned in the European Union, but they aren't an issue in the USA.