All farm recipients of USDA grants or any funding must offer community supported agriculture CSA and/or farm stand so that they have some direct sales on-site. This should discourage homogeniety and chemical usage and remind of their purpose being stewards of nature and providing nutrition to known consumers as opposed to only seeing acreage, animals, and crops as commodities.
Farmers deserve to know the difference they make in communities and for carbon sequestration and value the biodiveristy their land allows.
Farmers should also be encouraged to take apprentices, whether family, known associates, or others, and have skilled staff ready to carry the business forward and let them eventually retire for the sake of perpetuating agricultural use.
I agree we should be promoting small and local farming / livestock. Just not sure how that would work.
Currently not getting (or seeking) USDA grants, but if I did, it would be for fencing, livestock water installation, pasture improvement. I don’t have a market garden. I raise sheep and cows. Having CSA or farm stand makes no sense for what I do, especially now when we’re building up herd size and acquiring genetics, not culling/selling.
Additionally, one thing I might seek a grant for is restoration of habitat for wild quail - and that’s definitely not going on a farm stand.
When we do start marketing meat, it will generally be on the half-beef, quarter-beef, whole-beef level, not cuts of meat individually. That is the typical model for small producers of beef, pork, lamb, and poultry here. Grant programs would need to accomodate more than the CSA-weekly or needs-a-person-to-sit-there-daily farm stand models.
Thanks. I mean it as a concept and not strict that it has to be a regular CSA or manned refrigerated stand. It could be a lot of ways that you direct market in your town. I wouldn’t expect it to be in your growing phases but whenever you get to the selling stage that it applies. The idea is to break away from USDA funds that are removed from the consumer and going to ethanol production or processed food products sold across the country and owned by unknown international entities or conglomerates. It’s logical that the agency and recipients maintain their purpose. In your case, there should be restaurants who can handle the sizes of beef you sell. And that’s a problem, too, if there aren’t, if there are only chains who must purchase from corporate-approved remote suppliers. Equal Exchange is a great co-op that educates consumers and encourages buying together. That should be another way neighbors can purchase directly from you and split up their shares. My basic unspecific point is that if there is free government money for food production, the taxpayers in your vicinty need access to it. You’ll get to know them and feel better being there. Conservation is a great mission, but in seeking a grant so that you will later hunt quail, then it’s applicable that people around you are allowed to buy a portion. In that case, maybe the stand just shows what’s available for people to drop off orders and payments.
Trump just let a executive order end that Biden issued that actually brought healthy food to food pantries and schools. It’s caused some uproar here in Iowa. Several farms and businesses around the state ramped up their production to meet the statewide demand and now the USDA grants to the state have ended. The Democrats are already using this for midterms and it isn’t going to be pretty if something doesn’t change. He was either serious about Maha or he wasn’t. Allowing these grants to disappear isn’t a wise choice on his part.
Can you, please, cite that executive order? I would like to review what you’re saying to best reply. I agree with the concept of moving carefully rather than quickly and that he’d be more effective to describe the positive effects of what he does as well as what other people do more than project what they imagine. Our side is in the White House. We shouldn’t have to baby this. It’s continued stress. I get and appreciate how Trump is while at the same time being in this alliance that was supposed to comprehensively elevate. There are good things about being a bull, but the president has to be keen and consider complicated and sophisticated implications. Then the other side won’t have a devastating arsenal against claims we can’t defend because Trump’s administration already thought about effects of their work and go in such necessary detail. He captivates but repeats so much. It would help to use that time presenting less and formulating stable and forever solutions incorporating the concerns of dissenters. Many of us were censored and discriminated against for the last four years and can show the way out of that by addressing what the other views are.