# Winter cattle feeding area



## olschoolsteel (Mar 6, 2016)

I am trying to come up with a new way to feed my cattle through the winter. I have until Aug to come up with something. (Thats when school starts and I wont have time to mess with it)

First off, I dont have a tractor to lift and carry round bales. It's not in the budget. Second, I dont want to do a round bale feeder in the middle of my pasture. I would lose half my summer pasture after a winter of them stomping it in.

I dont plan on wintering more than 3 heifers at a time. 5 last winter was too time consuming and labor intensive. I used 2 converted horse v-type feeders. Then every other day I would go clean up around the feeder area and manually spread (yes by hand) the pitch out in the pasture. In late spring I mowed/mulched it all in and it came out nice.

I am considering a fenceline type feeder. Not that I am lazy, just stripping hay out of round bales to fill 3 feeders a day gets to be a PIA. (one for the sheep too) My other issue I want to correct is where I have the feeders located, it happens to be a low spot in the pasture along the fenceline. So when everything is frozen solid, there arent any problems, but it didnt even freeze solid here till well after new years eve. I had sheeets of plywood out to prevent the ground from being punched to shit pudding, and I kept it clean, but the affluent and water still stood on top of the plywood.

So my corrective actions;

I intend to get a pallet of concrete blocks (or more) and create a type of platform to raise them out of the muck, I will cover the top with plywood again and secure it to the blocks somehow. That leaves the style of fenceline feeder up for debate. I think the easiest would be just buy one "s" or slant shaped panel. Then I could use an electric winch or come along to slide the bale up to the fenceline. I need to come up with a way to keep them off the ground a few inches, yet still be able to slide them when needed. Probly end up using pallets or something like them.

Another issue every cattle guy deals with is waste. Using horse type feeders, I didnt have that much waste. But it was time consuming and a daily PIA, especially on high wind days. I want to try to keeps as much of the hay in the feed area as I can before they stomp it in and it becomes waste. I can keep the bales tarped and dry till it is time to use them. I didnt see any commercially available fenceline feeders with a trough, either on the feed side or the cow side, that didnt impede the cows getting to the hay. Of course the one I liked is an Aussie product and I cant find anything like it made here in the states. They call it a "j" type feeder, and it looks pretty cool. If I could find something like that here in the states, I'd make an A-frame hoist just to swing the round bales into it. The one in the top left is the one I like but cant find any others like it I can convert or work with.

http://johnshepherdfeeders.com/page5.htm

So, I am thinking once I drill some holes to anchor the wood to the concrete blocks, they will stay in place, especially once they get pressed into the mud a bit. Any thoughts on what you would do for the fenceline feeder part?


----------



## Thorim (Jan 19, 2015)

You are only feeding 3 heifers in total all winter?


----------



## olschoolsteel (Mar 6, 2016)

Thorim said:


> You are only feeding 3 heifers in total all winter?


Yea, thats my goal. Unless the bull calf is successful, which I doubt, and he will be sold by Aug, I wont carry any more than 3 through winter from here on out..


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

With that many you might be better to unroll them even if you don't like it. You are probably going to waste 50% of your bale feeding so few even with a ring.

Your best bet might be to go to the USDA-NRCS and see if you can get a EQUIP Loan for a Heavy Use Area. It is a fancy name for concrete pad that keeps the animals out of the muck and manure. They do grant them for small producers. Just don't let the name fool you, they are actually grant's if you work it right.

The USDA-NRCS will tell you right up front they don't build anyone barns, and they don't, but we got a covered heavy use area with ends walls a few years ago...what you and I call barn! It is all in how you word things!


----------



## olschoolsteel (Mar 6, 2016)

Interesting. I will look into that tomorrow for sure.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Square bales for that few of head....easy to store and easy to handle.

Regards, Mike


----------



## Swv.farmer (Jan 2, 2016)

If you have a road that the fence hose down beside of just cut the fence put in 4 post strip it put a gate over the end next to the road just back up open the gate roll hay in shut the gate you are good to go they can't get no more than their head in cuts way back on wast


----------



## Thorim (Jan 19, 2015)

Vol said:


> Square bales for that few of head....easy to store and easy to handle.
> 
> Regards, Mike


Was going to suggest sm squares

http://beefmagazine.com/blog/winter-feed-do-you-have-enough-feed-your-cows


----------



## olschoolsteel (Mar 6, 2016)

RuttedField said:


> With that many you might be better to unroll them even if you don't like it. You are probably going to waste 50% of your bale feeding so few even with a ring.
> 
> Your best bet might be to go to the USDA-NRCS and see if you can get a EQUIP Loan for a Heavy Use Area. It is a fancy name for concrete pad that keeps the animals out of the muck and manure. They do grant them for small producers. Just don't let the name fool you, they are actually grant's if you work it right.
> 
> The USDA-NRCS will tell you right up front they don't build anyone barns, and they don't, but we got a covered heavy use area with ends walls a few years ago...what you and I call barn! It is all in how you word things!


I spoke with my local USDA rep and she was kind and helpful. She said the farm bill is fully funded and they havent had any problems getting money for small independent operators like me. She said I could fill out the apps by hand and they would send them in or I could do it electronically from home. If I do it there they would walk me through the process to make sure I covered all my bases. She said that they do construct "heavy use winter feeding areas" that would fix the problem I describe. Plus my neighbor across the street is one of the largest grain producers in the county and I did some name dropping for bonus points. (I bought one of their original family homes before they went "big")

I'm excited and happy to get this taken care of. I do really appreciate you giving me this lead too. It means alot to me.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

I have a lot of experience with these, and have worked a lot with the USDA-NRCS over the years, but there is a lot of confusion with this assistance too. First off, let me say that they are a VERY valuable asset, and for anyone that qualifies, I encourage them to get in touch with their local USDA-NRCS and start a partnership with them. Their goals and conservative minded agriculture dovetail well together. Over the years, I can say on my farm they have helped me immensely; however they should NOT be regarded as a grant because they are not. They are a COST SHARE program.

So what is a cost share program and how does it differentiate from a grant? Well a grant is capital for a specified project that does not need to be paid back. A cost share program is only partially funded. This is how it works. Lets say your farm is approved for a manure storage pad. The USDA-NRCS comes in and engineers a manure pad that meets federal guidelines and they calculate the costs on what it would cost THEM to build the manure pad. Typically they fund the manure pad at 75% and you pick up the other 25%. Here is where the waters get murky though. Because the Federal Government tends to pay higher costs for things, most of the time you can build things to their specifications and not have to invest your portion of the money. Most of the time.

Here is an example of that. I had a manure pad at a 75/25 % cost share ratio and their portion was $7000 to construct, my portion should have been $2300. I built it to their specifications for only $7000 so in essence the manure pad was "free". However you cannot bank on that. If the manure pad had truly cost $9300; $7000 coming from the USDA-NRCS, I would have had to cough up $2300 from my checking account to pay for the rest. That is why it is a cost share program and not a grant. That is easy to understand, but what if the cost was lower then $7000? Well first off, IT MUST BE BUILT TO THEIR SPECIFICATIONS so there is no cheating the system here, but it is possible to come in under what they pay. In that case you keep the extra money. Sweet huh?

I have an example of that. I had a field that lacked access and we were running sheep through a stream and driving through it with trucks. I was approved for an access road. The requirements were for the road to be a minimum of a foot deep of gravel, 20 feet wide for a quarter mile. Their cost to build that road was predicted at $10, 500, but because I own my own gravel pit, I built the road a quarter mile long, but 4 feet deep and 24 feet wide for $8000 and so I got to keep $2200.

But all is not rosy. When I had my Forest Management Plan approved under the same cost share program I came in well over what I got for a federal monies. In that case I was approved for $1100 dollars, but when the Forester got done, it cost a total of $1800 so I had to pay $700 out of my own checking account to pay for the forest manage plan.

There is another aspect to this that must be considered. You do not get the money up front. You are expected to build the project first, have it inspected and approved, then get the money. This may take some time. In some cases I was able to talk with contractors and let them know the money would arrive, but just when I was not sure. In an extreme case it was 90 days later. This is a huge deal too if you plan on renting equipment to get the job done yourself, because rental companies expect the money up front. Now once approved YOU WILL GET YOUR MONEY because it is put into an account that no one can touch until your project is completed so no matter what happens to the Federal Budget AFTER you are approved does not matter, you will get your money.

Still there are a few more details to consider. You have 2 years to complete the project. That is not a big deal, but the next time mandate is HUGE. Every project approved has an amount of time that must be dedicated to the project. For instance, the roadway I had built has a 15 year time limit on it. In other words I must use it for farming for the next 15 years. If I don't, I must pay back part of the cost share payment that I got, plus 10% as an engineering fee. This is depreciated yearly of course, but it needs to be mentioned because people think these are grants and you never have to pay the money back. That is just not so. Every project has a determined life span so it may be 15 years, 10 years, 5 years etc. But this is a very good clause because tax payers should not be funding farmers to improve their farms just so they can sell it for higher profits a year down the road. Another place this comes into place is in divorces. Because these are not grants, and a married couple is considered a single financial entity, each is responsible for their half of the remaining portion should the marriage end in divorce. In my case, my ex-wife would have had to pay me $22,000 for her portion of the fiscal help we got with these cumulative cost-share programs if I had not let her off the hook on it.

So is all this worth it? ABSOLUTELY.

My farm has improved greatly with the appropriate sheep fence, crop rotation, rotational grazing, roadway, manure pad, and all the plans I had done. Few would have been able to be done had I done so out of my own pocket. However a farm must qualify. The key to that is using your farm to put food on the national food chain; that is after all, the purpose of the USDA. I think it is wonderful that people want to be self-sufficient and provide for their own families, but the USDA does not assist in that. With only ½ a percent of the population feeding the other 99-1/2%, they are trying to ensure farms stay viable and with conservative measures on their farm.

This is actually one of the few ways the Federal Government administers things appropriately because it is done on the local level. It comes from elected people in the county where they live and these grants are prioritized by anyone attending the sessions. It is not fool proof I know, we are talking people and personalities here. Despite being hundreds of acres in size and existing for hundreds of years, we were denied funding for 23 years because a member of the board HATED sheep farmers and preferred to fund dairy farmers. Now there is a shift to small farmers because of the woman that superseded him. Honestly the meetings, though advertised, are often under involved and so monies are diverted to the wrong categories.

Here is a case in point, despite having far more woodlot then I do tillable land, I fought putting federal money into forestry because this is Maine, the most forested state in the nation; it is a battle to keep farmland open and not the other way around. Well this meeting was staffed by state paid foresters and who fought strongly for monies in this county to be diverted into forestry. Because of that, it was, but after 5 years of funding it was discovered that most of the forestry money was going into road building and not actual forest improvement, so it was stopped. My case in point. But people like me who cared never showed up at the meetings where as a state paid employee never missed one. So the system only works if people get involved.

Right now there is the thought that the USDA cares little about sustainable agriculture, but there is actually a ton of cost-share programs out there for small farmers. Where I live it is actually far more likely that a small farmer will get federal monies than a big farmer.

If anyone has any questions; ask away. I was on the board for several years and my wife is currently on the board, but despite the length of this post, there are many details left out.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

When this was started during the dust bowl era, farmers were leery of the government, so to aid in conservation a moderator was established...what is known as the Soil and WaterConservation Districts, as well as some elected boards for the Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. (FSA and NRCS respectively). Still ALL meetings of these groups are open to the public, and they meet on a monthly basis. Their role has been watered down a bit for two reasons, people do not get involved, and because gov has gotten so big, people as a whole are accustomed to Gov involvement now; neither of which is good. Still let me ask you this; I don't see any local representation in what happens to say welfare or transportation money...this is unique to the USDA alone. I admit I fought against Forestry being diverted from food production in my county, but my NEIGHBORS decided it was proper, and that is something I love...a local decision. I can live with that.

As for new farmers being eligible...yes and not only that their cost share rates are higher. Instead of the typical 75-25% what is known as beginning farmers get a 90%-10% match, so in other words they get 90% of what it would cost the Federal Government to build for a project. That status lasts for 10 years.

Projects generally are conservation minded, the biggest one being nutrient management, mostly because the costs to build composting facilities and manure pits is so high. Likewise pollutants are high too so its high on the priority list because farmers are doubtful to spend a lot of money doing the properly engineered system, yet water contamination can be high if they don't. The local issue can be good or bad too though; for instance in my county anyone is eligible for fencing to rotationally graze, however the next county over only allows fencing if existing fencing is there, but inadequate. Another note on this too. These are only given based on current need. They are NOT going to pay for fencing for animals you do not have yet. In my case I ran into this when I wanted to fence in a 40 acre field. I did not have enough sheep to justify that extra field, so I had to fence in a ten acre field instead. That is understandable though otherwise people would say, "well I plan to get 500 sheep" and for a slew of reasons it just never happens. So I understand the here and now. Its to fix problems, not as financing capital.

The other aspect of priorities is watersheds. They are everything. Certain watersheds have bigger problems then others and so rules change and more money diverted from one to another based on need. I live on top of a hill so I am in two watersheds. One is more polluted then the other so it receives more money.

One other thing, there is no anonymous money here. If you are really shy about getting money you should know that everyone that receives money is put on a national website that states your name, the year and how much you were given. For instance I know a fellow farmer who swears up and down he never receives a penny for farming by the Gov, yet the website clearly states that he does...a lot in fact. I am fine with that, he is doing the work and kicking food out on the national food chain, but he should know that the information is out there. Its just something to be aware of that is all if that is a concern for you.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

Now I have always been honest with you on here, and said I will tell you the good and the bad. Often times it is what people leave out that is far more important then what they say. In this case you really have to know that all cost share programs may not be the best for your farm. Here is a case in point.

One program addresses wildlife (WHIP: The Wildlife Incentive Program) and while it may benefit your farm, in my case it just did not, even though the pay off was good. In essence I would not have been able to harvest hay crops until after song bird hatching was completed. I believe it was in August. Here that is just to late, it would have given me very straw like hay, no protein content and lots of waste from the sheep. I would have loved to have a bird nest on every other fence post in my pastures, and while I already use bats to control flies in my sheep barns, more would be nice, but it just did not make sense overall. We just don't farm like that. And so this is a powerful message, not every program is beneficial to every farm, it really must be carefully calculated. As the saying goes, "when you take the King's shilling, you also do his bidding." In other words, you must abide by some pretty harsh rules. If you go into some blindly you could end up paying that money back!

There was another program that illustrated this point well. They wanted to leave what was essentially saplings along the margin of our fields for song birds and the like. Its is nice in theory, but when I took over this farm I had some of that stretching nearly 50 feet from the first row of corn to the rock wall. It does not sound like much, but one field I have is exactly 1 mile in circumference. If you do the math on that, that is 7 acres of lost production! Now times that by all the fields and it really adds up. For some people its easy to justify, but for me, I farm right up to the rock walls. I say all that because it really shows that caution must be taken when signing up for these programs.

*Always make sure the program fits the farm and is going to take it in the direction you want it to go*. A lot of farmers alter their farms in order to be recipients of the government check and I have yet to see a truly functional farm work well from that method. It is why I am a HUGE proponent of having a sound, written Farm Plan.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

What about Farm Service Agency loans? Well I have applied for two, got one, and then by referral of the FSA moved to a private bank that obtained a loan via the Small Business Administration, which yes was for the purchase of my farm.

It is kind of a long story, but after 5 years we figured out a way to fairly transfer a 9th generational farm to me and my wife. Considering I have 9 brothers and sisters, that was not easy. For every previous generation the farm was handed down by gift (free) and to the eldest son. I am second in line however, and my parents wanted money for their retirement. Hey times change and that is just how it is. We settled on a fair price; enough to give my parents some retirement money, but not so much it bankrupted me, and while my siblings did not want the farm (or its taxes) they did want to use it, so it is there for that. Now how to finance it all.

The USDA does have loan money for farm purchases, and at very low interest rates, however there is a 2-3 year waiting period for this. If you can find a landowner willing to wait that long for their money, it is possible, but good luck. My parents...they wanted to retire. So we were referred to a in state bank that secures its loans through the Small Business Administration. It is a very long story, but due to ex-spouses, a big farm with an old municipal dump on it, houses, sawmills, barns, and a host of other issues; it was complicated. It took 10 months to go through. In the meantime we were set up with a SBA councilor who helped us draft a very sound business plan (I already had my farm plan done). The interest rate was not as favorable as what the USDA one was, BUT it was 10 months instead of 2 years! My parents liked that. Now, I said I would always tell the good with the bad and one mistake we did make was not getting enough capital. We did not obtain enough money for us to get all the rental homes in rentable shape and so we have one (my late grandmother's) that is languishing. It was my fault, our councilor told us to make sure we had enough money, but I am VERY conservative in nature and hated to borrow more than I absolutely needed. I just did not figure enough.

Still the experience was good and I got some great tools from the SBA that really help in creating spreadsheets for future use. To be able to toss around ideas on a computer spreadsheet and see what could happen if you do X, Y and Z is amazing. Overall it was a great experience. So my recommendation is to go with the USDA if you can first, the interest rates are far more favorable, but they work with other lenders and agencies like the SBA so things can happen. In our case a 9th generation passed a farm to the 10th and that is a very good thing.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

Now the other loan I did get was called an Operational Loan and those can be used for anything. My wife and I decide in the winter what our one big farm project will be for the year and then just go for it with guns abalazing. Last year it was a new barn. This year it was the purchase of a bulldozer and a field crop rotated back into grass ground. But a few years ago we had three other choices.

More sheep
More fields
Bigger barn

After a lot of thought we put the horse before the cart and figured what is the sense to have a bigger barn if you have no sheep to fill it, and what is the sense to have sheep if you can't feed them, so we went with more tillable fields. (As a side note, all our fields are tillable. We do not have "pasture only" fields as we crop rotate). To do that we needed some money and approached the USDA. They suggested a Operational Loan. They are VERY favorable loans, with the one we had at 2.99% interest though that rate probably has changed now. I don't know. Either way it is paid back in the traditional agricultural way with a single payment once per year, though you can pay it in any installment you wish (monthly perhaps) and also early with no early pay off fee. Remember, the goal of the USDA is to keep putting food on the national food chain and not to make money on you. The low interest is to just cover administrative costs. We even had to move one years payment ahead by a few months as we were expecting our 4th daughter at the same time. It too was easy with no ramifications so it was very easy to do. Really the only thing that is concerning is that Operational Loans are a maximum of 7 years in length so plan accordingly for your yearly payment, and you can only get them 7 times. That does not mean if you get one this year you have to burn up 6 more in the next 7 years or you lose out, it just means you have 7 low interest loans before you must go to a regular bank. Even then you must prove you cannot get a loan from a commercial lender as once again, the USDA is not a bank...they just want to ensure US Farms stay farming.

With this loan in hand, we fired up the feller-bunchers and skidders, cut off twelve acres and then rented a bulldozer and stumped the field. It took from June to August to rid the field of rocks and get it sown down with enough time to fight off winter kill, but the transition is amazing, and crunching the numbers, the pay off for this field was less than 3 years time. Not bad!

Now that Operational Loan has been paid off and we have another now. (we had the land so why not have more sheep to feed that grass too), but this one is through the SBA. I mention this one only because it is slightly different because with the USDA you pay the interest rate WITH your yearly payment. With the SBA you pay the interest rate separately every month. Its not a big deal, just a few more stamps, and something you have to remember to do. Everything else is the same. No early pay off, a bit higher interest payment, but not by much, and really great to work with.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

I wrote all this out so you might have a bit of knowledge going into this. The guys (and gals) on here have way more farming experience then I do, and can perhaps tell you more than I have, or correct any mistakes. I know some people know things but hate to write it all out. I have done that, not to be a know-it-all, but so that you can weigh your options and think everything through.

The USDA has some good programs, and they have some bad programs; which ones are right or wrong for your farm is something you must decide. However I hope I have presented you (and maybe others) information that they did not know.


----------



## Tim/South (Dec 12, 2011)

I believe the land owner has to pay for the fabric that goes underneath a high traffic or feeding area.


----------



## olschoolsteel (Mar 6, 2016)

What an awesome accrual of information here. I am sure there are a few things at the USDA office that would benefit my farm. Considering some of my lamb will be headed to the grocery store here in a few weeks, it shows that my small farm can benefit others aside from my own dinner table. I havent registered my farm with the FSA nor do I have a tax ID # for it either. On my summer to do list.

The lady on the phone was happy to hear the USDA pasture walk last Nov was beneficial to me, and I told her how I implemented some of his recommendations. (I thought my cows would eat broom grass. Not really.) I didnt know that till after. I did look into the USDA farm loan, but like you said, it would take forever and I was practically homeless. So I went with my VA dollar down loan. Same rates, just different ways to get there.

Again, I do appreciate this info. I will re-read it a few more times to better arm myself before I go in there to fill out some paperwork. I dont have a complete farm plan just yet, but parts and pieces of one. (read:log book of expenses  )

Thank you Sir. Very helpful indeed.


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

If it works for you, go for it. After all, that's why we pay taxes-- nice to get a little of it back instead of it going to some worthless welfare cases.

I talked with NRCS about their cross-fencing program and cost-share for running water lines to remote pastures. They had a 50/50 cost share program, but when I started talking about what I wanted to do versus what their "regulations" require, I decided not to bother going any further with it.

I wanted to run a 3/4 inch water line (black plastic tubing) through a subsoiler boot from my folk's water well at their house out to the back pasture. No, that was unsatisfactory. According to their "regulations", they'd have to come do a site inspection, measure out the distance, consult water distance/pressure drop tables to determine what size piping had to be installed, and then if it turned out it needed inch and half or two inch piping, then that was what MUST be used to cover that given distance. Of course that would require renting a trencher or hiring a backhoe or something to dig in and install a line that size, as well as using something beside flexible plastic tubing that can be installed using a boot installed over a subsoiler shank. Then their waterer cost share program required using a double-thick cast concrete stock tank they would have delivered by roll-off truck (as it was too heavy to move once delivered and had to be set in place). The site would have to be excavated out a foot or two deep, lined with ground cloth, covered in rough stone, which had to extend 6-8 feet out past the edge of the water tank, then that had to be surrounded by a 3 foot wide "sidewalk" of concrete to contain the rough stone.

Geez Louise, that would have ended up costing me $10,000 bucks! I just ended up going to TSC, buying a 400 foot roll of 3/4 inch black plastic water line tubing, installing it with the subsoiler boot, and then installing a big steel water trough. Not as pretty or fancy as the big spiel the gubmint boys wanted me to build to get their cost share, but then it cost me WAY less than I'd have ever gotten out of the cost share anyway.

Same thing with the cross-fencing program. I wanted to put up cross-fences with 4 strands of Gaucho wire with steel posts every 15 feet, and railroad tie H-braces and cross-braces and corners that I could hang gates off of where necessary. Nope, that just wouldn't do. The guy came out with FIFTEEN PRINTED PAGES of rules and regulations on how cross-fencing must be built to be eligible for cost-sharing. It was ridiculous, and would have cost me more than double what I planned to do. Plus, then they could come and inspect the cross-fences for the next 20-25 years. SO, if for any reason I needed to switch back to row crops (like a long term downturn in the cattle business, gubmint taxing cow farts, or some other stupidity) and I took the cross fence down, they could come back years later and require I refund their cost share money plus interest. No thanks. Didn't want to be "tied down" to the gubmint rules and regs for the next 25 years.

If it works for you, though, more power to you. Like I said, that's why we pay taxes, and better it go to a farmer than some worthless welfare scumbags.

Later! OL J R


----------



## IHCman (Aug 27, 2011)

Luke the rules must be a little different in TX. Here our County has a shallow pipeline plow to install 1.5" plastic water line. Its a pull type unit that holds the reel of plastic pipe with a subsoiler point with a boot on the back of it to lay the line 18inches deep. When i first bought my land I got into an equip program. I layed close to a mile of pipe with 4 tanks and that equip contract paid for it all.

Our cross fencing regulations aren't to bad either. Not much different than how I'd build a fence, except they want an H brace every quarter mile which I sometimes don't do. They also want our steel T posts 18 inch in the ground. A 5 and 1/2 foot T post doesn't quite make it that deep but I've never seen any of your NRCS guys pull one out to check if thats deep or not.

We do have a pretty good staff at our local NRCS. All either grew up on a farm or farmed or ranched at one time, so they all have common sense and know what rules can be bent. Dad has told me some horror stories of some of the jerks he had to deal with in the past that worked for NRCS. I'm glad they'd all left or retired before I started. I've been really lucky and have only had good people to work with.

My Dad is also on our Soil Consevation Board so he and another guy did alot to get that pipe layer going in our area. Dad even stored the pipe for our SCD until they got set up to handle it themselves. We'd get alot of questions from the neighbors about what we were doing with all that pipe. Usually a semi load or two. I'd always tell em that we were going to lay a beer pipeline from town.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

Thanks guys for not beating me up on the information I typed. I figured many of you would take issue with it. I know many have had far more experience then me.

I have a few issues with the NRCS of late. The biggest is that over the last few years (since the 2006 farm bill), they stay stuck to their computers at the office 98% of the time. I wanted to take a field that was in corn and put it in grass ground because it was very steep and was washing out after a gale or hurricane down the hill right into the paved road. I applied for the EQUIP Program but they never came out and saw what I was talking about. They just called to confirm which field it was by satellite photograph.

Here is the rub...

My wife is now on the Soil and Water Conservation District Board and the NRCS told them that watershed had more money in it then applicants, yet my request was denied. The only way that could be is because of low ranking, yet if they had actually came out and seen where I had to take my tractor and scoop up soil with the bucket and put it back in the field, they would have ranked it a lot higher that is for sure! I am converting it over on my own, but I won't do so to the same degree they would. I wish it was done right.

I don't blame them outright, its just they can't make the decisions with a phone call; they MUST get out to the farms and that just is not happening.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

OlSchoolSteel: One thing my wife and I do on this farm is try to pick one major thing per year to do in order to improve the farm, then really go about doing it. Over the years it really has made a difference. Looking back at where I started from and where it is now, the farm is almost unrecognizable. (I have cleared a lot of forest back into fields). I say all this so that you can move forward without getting overwhelmed.

I am excited that you are getting some help and improving your farm.


----------



## azmike (Jan 4, 2015)

There is a huge satisfaction to work your land and stock without any government involvement. It takes a larger business program and diligence to financials.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

IHCman said:


> My Dad is also on our Soil Consevation Board so he and another guy did alot to get that pipe layer going in our area. Dad even stored the pipe for our SCD until they got set up to handle it themselves. We'd get alot of questions from the neighbors about what we were doing with all that pipe. Usually a semi load or two. I'd always tell em that we were going to lay a beer pipeline from town.


IHCman, I live closer to town, how deep do you need to put the 'beer' line down? And was the flow OK? Thinking I might be able to use a smaller pipe. :lol: Man, I'm way off the subject, sorry folks I just got distracted, monetarily (hopefully and it's not old age).


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

NRCS has been a joke for me...I did a cost share back in 09 when dairy had tanked and they couldn't find enough guys willing to spend money. We fenced off the creek and put in crossings.

Talked to them in 2015 about doing a high use pad. I feed 20 head at a feeder and the entire hill turns into a manure/mud hole. I was a low priority because my feeing area is more than some set distance from the creek. Something like 300 feet and they need to be within 100 ft for it to be high priority...

I asked the NRCS lady.. "So if I move my feeding area down by the creek, and tear it all up, then call you next year I can get funding?" She didn't like that and didn't answer the question.

NRCS ranks me low, because I am 300 ft from a creek, but they will put in a 100k concrete manure tank for the dairy down the road that has NO creeks/swamps/etc on the entire farm...go figure...


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

I'd prefer not to give the government anymore reasons to come nosing around.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

It's 1 am on Monday morning (really still Sunday night) when the alarm goes off. The man awakes to jump in his old jalopy to drive to work to ride on the back of the trash truck. He does this every day of the week, summer and winter. Summer's trash is juicy and full of maggots, winter has other horrid working conditions. He man gets compensated fairly for the unsavory job; he is happy to make a living for his wife/kids and hopes to not do this for too long, but honest work is honest and moral. His paycheck on Friday has money that has been removed from the compensation for his labors.

The government MAKES NO MONEY to give to others for their "programs"; when the government pays someone-anyone for anything, the money must first be taken from someone else.

I do not see the origin-of-debt that makes it the responsibility of the trash truck rider to pay for someone else's concrete pad. Harvesting the fruit of someone else's labor by force or threat-of-force (gummint) is servitude/slavery.

I have had the conversations with some that rationalize that if they don't take it, someone else will. I liken that mentality to those of the Ferguson looters. They were looting and stealing from their neighbors because it was there for the taking and if they did not take it, someone else would...or "everyone else is doing it".

"Social reform without personal reform will necessarily end in failure"

73, Mark


----------



## Tim/South (Dec 12, 2011)

I do not know a farmer who is not paying taxes. Most are taxed from their day job and again for every buck they make farming.

If the government is going to throw someone a bone taken from all the steaks the the person has paid in taxes I see no problem with that.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

WE plant our own buffer strips and grass waterways. We've looked into cost sharing, for the buffer strips a hayfield along the ditch isn'y good enough, they also want trees and shrubs added, which in effect turns in into a fifty foot wide fencerow, no thanks, hay field works just fine


----------



## azmike (Jan 4, 2015)

A line in the sand. I don't want the money and strings that are attached.


----------



## Tim/South (Dec 12, 2011)

I can see where people do not want any of their money back. Farmers are are an independent type by nature. Other farmers will say getting help on a cross fence or high traffic area is the same as free cell phones. I disagree.

Are we to feel guilty for cashing our tax refund check?

Do we refuse to drive on government built roads?

Do we keep records of our deductible expenses to keep from over paying taxes?

My great grandfather struggled to keep the farm during the Great Depression. He lost his life savings when the banks went under. He blamed the government. We were raised not to trust the government.

Two years ago I began looking into the small amount of taxes set aside to help small Ag. I had stirred up a hornets nest writing my state and federal legislators saying there was no transparency. I was tired of the public saying that farmers were paid not to grow food, that the government bought our tractors and machinery. I accused the lack of transparency as a tool for money going only to the favored few.

Me and my big mouth. I was appointed by the state as a supervisor to our county conservation committee. Major eye opener for me. I began to gradually see there was total transparency and how hard those people worked, how fair they were.

Then the local farmers nominated me to run for the county's FSA position. Figured that was for the big shots but I won hands down. Major shock to me. I got to see even more on how these agencies bent over backwards to help the little man.

I had such a negative condescending mentality of any government agency going in. I have been educated and humbled.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Last time I had a refund check to cash is when I still worked full time in town, just saying.


----------



## azmike (Jan 4, 2015)

It is a personal measure to figure where conservative principals start and end. I found that my political views shaped my business persona more towards avoiding any sort of government interventions. I do pay my taxes and register and insure my vehicles but must stop for an "interview" by a government agent every time I travel any road north of my home.

I am sure that there is justification for any and all entitlements available, this is why that it stays funded and viable.


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Transparent or not, I don't want the gubmint all up in my bizness.

Like a favorite line of a favorite movie of mine (Legends of the Fall), "SCREW THE GUBMINT!"

Later! OL J R


----------



## Tim/South (Dec 12, 2011)

The government will know as much of anyone's business as they want to know.


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Tim/South said:


> The government will know as much of anyone's business as they want to know.


Mebbe so, but I ain't handing them the rope to hang me with.

Later! OL J R


----------



## Tim/South (Dec 12, 2011)

luke strawwalker said:


> Mebbe so, but I ain't handing them the rope to hang me with.
> 
> Later! OL J R


If the government is going to hang anyone it is going to be the non tax payers getting free food and cell phones. It is not going to be the large base of tax paying farmers that are necessary for this nation to have affordable food.

The lion's shared of the USDA budget goes for the true welfare / food stamp programs.

The USDA is almost in panic mode that farmers have aged and there are not nearly enough new or young farmers ready to fill their shoes.

One thing that still makes the U.S. strong is we do not depend on other countries for our food. Those days are quickly coming to an end. our grandchildren will not see abundant food unless our current direction changes.

The government is not looking to hang farmers.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Tim/South said:


> The government is not looking to hang farmers.


Oh I don't know about that. The USDA might not be, but the EPA sure would of if they had their way, that stupid new wetlands rule certainly would have hanged every single farmer I know in my area, then you have the IRS targeting conservatives, not a lot of liberal farmers I know of in my area. Then the rumor keeps popping up here and there about the EPA wanting to ban rebuilt kits for engines that don't meet emissions standards, that would kill every tractor I own eventually.

Once they figure out how to run an entire farm from an Xbox or Playstation then we'll have plenty of young farmers.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

We had a guy in town that was a lot like many of you, "Oh I would never take a dollar from the government to help me farm!"

Oh really? How come it shows here that you have received $155,654.78 since 2011!

To me, the real question is not whether hard working farmers should or should not get these cost share programs. I know the ones I got, I would never have done if I had not gotten help building them. But the real question is; if farmers are only getting a measly amount of the Farm Bill, then *where is the list by name, and zip code who are getting welfare*? Now I bet that is a list that would absolutely shock you...but it does not exist. No, lets try and shame those 1/2 of 1 percent who are feeding the other 99-1/2%!

https://farm.ewg.org/search.php


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Tim/South said:


> If the government is going to hang anyone it is going to be the non tax payers getting free food and cell phones. It is not going to be the large base of tax paying farmers that are necessary for this nation to have affordable food.
> The lion's shared of the USDA budget goes for the true welfare / food stamp programs.
> The USDA is almost in panic mode that farmers have aged and there are not nearly enough new or young farmers ready to fill their shoes.
> One thing that still makes the U.S. strong is we do not depend on other countries for our food. Those days are quickly coming to an end. our grandchildren will not see abundant food unless our current direction changes.
> The government is not looking to hang farmers.


You're kidding, right??

We're those "rich bastards" getting paid not to plant crops, destroying the environment, etc. etc. etc.

They're certainly not doing anything to HELP farmers, either. At least not anybody but the mega-producers, which if you look at the USDA's ag statistics, is all they're interested in. The numbers show that, basically, the top 10% of largest growers raise 75% of all the crops, and the top 25% of largest farmers raise 90%. That means that the smallest 75% of farmers could disappear tomorrow and it would just eliminate the surpluses.

Believe what you will, but USDA and the gubmint is NOT your friend. They're gonna look out for the welfare recipients down on the VOTING FARMS long before they're gonna worry about hurting "the producers". They cut benefits and they won't get re-elected, and that's all their after anyway.

Later! OL J R


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

luke strawwalker said:


> You're kidding, right??
> 
> We're those "rich bastards" getting paid not to plant crops, destroying the environment, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> ...


would only let me like once in the original post, but I can like again if I quote it. well technically liking my own, but thats the best I can do.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

luke strawwalker said:


> Believe what you will, but USDA and the gubmint is NOT your friend. They're gonna look out for the welfare recipients down on the VOTING FARMS long before they're gonna worry about hurting "the producers". They cut benefits and they won't get re-elected, and that's all their after anyway.
> 
> Later! OL J R


Not enough farmers around for the gubmint to really care about us, however those who vote for a living is entirely a different story.


----------



## Tim/South (Dec 12, 2011)

luke strawwalker said:


> You're kidding, right??
> 
> We're those "rich bastards" getting paid not to plant crops, destroying the environment, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> ...


No, I am not kidding.

The small producer is who keep the prices competitive. Do away with the small farmer and you will have the same as when the EPA did away with the mom and pop gas stations. The big guys get together and set the price, no competition.

The large producers are not afraid to get all they qualify for. The small producers refuse and blame the government and the large operations.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

I guess when I opened this can of worms, I should have specified between Gummint (the ruling class) and the government (the people who make this country). I don't have a moral dilemma taking money from the gummint-per say. The problem is, THE GUMMINT DON'T HAVE MONEY!!!!!!! To take money from the "gummint" is to take money from your fellow citizens against their will. The gummint DON'T make wealth; so for them to give it to you, they have to take it from someone else.

Of course, I reckon all of the welfare rats I know feel that they are entitled as well. Like AZMike said earlier, it's up to everyone's conscience to be their guide.

73, Mark


----------



## azmike (Jan 4, 2015)

I am a nut, there I said it! I don't go to Costco, no Netflix, no Target, Doritos etc.... because of their support of liberal causes. I research to find out who gets my money, as limited as it is. With this crazy mindset I feel strongly that I'd be a hypocrite to accept any $$ from anything less than the fruits of my labor and business prowess.

I have known several NRCS reps, I've rode around the ranch drinking beer in the guv pick-up!


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Tim/South said:


> No, I am not kidding.
> The small producer is who keep the prices competitive. Do away with the small farmer and you will have the same as when the EPA did away with the mom and pop gas stations. The big guys get together and set the price, no competition.
> 
> The large producers are not afraid to get all they qualify for. The small producers refuse and blame the government and the large operations.


Interesting...

I don't agree, of course, but interesting...

Have a good one! OL J R


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

I have said this a few times now, but I am all about honesty, and when the US Government went away from backing every dollar bill with ounces of gold or silver and just basing everything upon trust, it is pretty scary. Already Russia and China is trying to start the worlds set currency as something new and not the US Dollar. That would devastate our economy.

To put all this in better to understand terms, it is like the businessman from back east who walked into a motel in western Texas to get a room for the night. To hold his room he paid with a crisp one hundred dollar bill. But business at the motel had been slow, so the motel owner had to get a little credit at the local garage to get his truck fixed and so he ran right over with that 100 dollar bill and paid his repair bill. The mechanic on the other hand, needed to feed his cows, so he used credit at the feed store for a few bags of all-stock and used the 100 dollar bill to pay for the grain he had purchased. Meanwhile the owner of the feed store was short of cash and needed some groceries for his children, so used a little credit at the local convenience store and with that 100 dollar bill in his hand, he went right over and paid the store owner. That store owner however, had got a little lonely ever since his wife died, so he had been with the local prostitute, so he drove right over to her house and paid off his bill with that 100 dollar bill as well. She had rent to pay however, and with few visitors running through town, had taken the room out the night before on credit. So she went back to the motel and paid the owner with that 100 dollar bill as well. Just as she was handing it over to the motel owner, the businessman came back down the stairs, said he did not like the room, and got his 100 dollar bill back and left.

And that is how the US economy works today. Money came in from away. Everyone's bill was paid off. No work was ever really accomplished. And then the money left in the pockets of the people from away in the end.

Government money is no different. China or Spain puts a bunch of money in a mason jar and the US government pays someone to dig a hole and bury it. Then they turn around and pay someone to dig it up. The US Government does not really care because it was not their money in the first place, and as long as the guys doing the digging and transporting are getting paid and paying in on the income taxes, they are getting a cut of the action!

Don't believe me? Look at one of the biggest funded bills out there; the Transportation Bill. Its well funded, but 92% of the aggregate contractors in this country...if you follow the line of parent ownership...goes to a foreign company.

But hay, it really is all good. Obama, the Kennedy's and even Killary (what I call Hillary), really, really didn't mean to be rich, it just happened by accident.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

RuttedField said:


> I have said this a few times now, but I am all about honesty, and when the US Government went away from backing every dollar bill with ounces of gold or silver and just basing everything upon trust, it is pretty scary. Already Russia and China is trying to start the worlds set currency as something new and not the US Dollar. That would devastate our economy.
> 
> To put all this in better to understand terms, it is like the businessman from back east who walked into a motel in western Texas to get a room for the night. To hold his room he paid with a crisp one hundred dollar bill. But business at the motel had been slow, so the motel owner had to get a little credit at the local garage to get his truck fixed and so he ran right over with that 100 dollar bill and paid his repair bill. The mechanic on the other hand, needed to feed his cows, so he used credit at the feed store for a few bags of all-stock and used the 100 dollar bill to pay for the grain he had purchased. Meanwhile the owner of the feed store was short of cash and needed some groceries for his children, so used a little credit at the local convenience store and with that 100 dollar bill in his hand, he went right over and paid the store owner. That store owner however, had got a little lonely ever since his wife died, so he had been with the local prostitute, so he drove right over to her house and paid off his bill with that 100 dollar bill as well. She had rent to pay however, and with few visitors running through town, had taken the room out the night before on credit. So she went back to the motel and paid the owner with that 100 dollar bill as well. Just as she was handing it over to the motel owner, the businessman came back down the stairs, said he did not like the room, and got his 100 dollar bill back and left.
> 
> And that is how the US economy works today. Money came in from away. Everyone's bill was paid off. No work was ever really accomplished. And then the money left in the pockets of the people from away in the end.


Just because I'm feeling ornery this morning, I will disagree with the accuracy of the story to make a valid point. First of all, I agree that the fiat dollar is only worth a dollar as long as everyone agrees that it is...or trust.

Money (of any type) is to make products or services durable and mobile. If I sell firewood and get 50 dollars per load, the store does not want to take two loads of my firewood for my grocery bill. Instead, I sell the firewood to the guy needs it for his uses, and he sells his product to someone else, and so on and so on. Without money, gold, silver, beads and blankets, etc... bartering would be awful difficult as you would have to find someone with the product that YOU want and also is in need of YOUR product. Instead, "value" is placed upon something that is not easily counterfeited/produced-from-thin-air and is mobile. People that sell products that go bad (apples for example) would have to try to keep their product from decaying until they needed something else to trade...it would be awful had to "save up" for something if you were "saving" apples for 5 years to buy a new truck; instead they are sold and turned into money (and the money is saved); that is the "durable" quality of money.

I say all of that to say this... the above story could have went just the same way with a gold eagle or a silver cartwheel...or even without money whatsoever. With no money, the debtors/creditors could have all gotten together around a table and each could have traded their favors,services or products to the other-in-need and could have reached net-zero without the business man's presence-he merely started the conversation; before the business man's arrival, there was already a net-zero debt/credit balance within the town, they just did not know it. He neither brought wealth to, or took wealth from the community. If you think critically of this situation, there is no need for the business man in the story; financially it ends the same either way...he was just a passerby.

Now, this paper-dollar thing...that's where it's all going to go bad. The fiat dollar is no longer durable as its value as it is not longer finite...meaning "they" can just print more...basically legal counterfeiting. The gummint's counterfeiting brings on lack of trust and the lack of a value; that's what we call inflation.

Rutted, I'm not trying to be arguementative; I got the last of 40 acres of hay stacked in the barn last night...all without rain. Only have 10 acres of first cutting left to go...I'm feeling like I could go bear-hunting with a fly swatter this morning (and I bantering about economics). 

73, Mark


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Still not a fan of subsidies or grants, learned at a dealer meeting yesterday that the backlash has been so great against the EPA and their emission standards for outdoor wood boilers that shortly in the future grants will be available to either help people upgrade to the new compliant boilers or install new.

Kind of good in a way if it helps to increase sales, my tax money will eventually find its way back into my pocket where they can tax it again&#8230;..

Income tax, sales tax, inventory tax&#8230;..

Rather they'd not fiddled with the rules, not have the grants available and just lowered my taxes instead.

Income redistribution plain and simple.


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

mlappin said:


> Still not a fan of subsidies or grants, learned at a dealer meeting yesterday that the backlash has been so great against the EPA and their emission standards for outdoor wood boilers that shortly in the future grants will be available to either help people upgrade to the new compliant boilers or install new.
> 
> Kind of good in a way if it helps to increase sales, my tax money will eventually find its way back into my pocket where they can tax it again&#8230;..
> 
> ...


There hasn't been a grant or "incentive" or whatever invented yet that does NOT "skew" the markets and economic reality. Same thing with these moronic "laws" that mandate everything from ethanol to CFL light bulbs vs. incandescent. Reality is somewhere in the middle, regardless of what it is.

Sometimes the "skew" of the markets happens to work out in a "good" way, at least for *somebody*. MOST of the time, the losers FAR outnumber the "winners" or any "good" that comes out of such things.

Later! OL J R


----------

