As we showed with DAYTON being a FARM AND LABOR 'DEMOCRAT' ----so too was STALIN and MAO sold by media and global NGOs as being pro-farmer and workers. DAYTON graduated from FAR-RIGHT WING BUSH NEO-CONSERVATIVE IVY LEAGUE YALE----so too did MAO.
Don't allow all those CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA 5% neo-liberals/neo-cons having installed this MOVING FORWARD super-duper Great Depression at the same time ending all safety net programs as they plan a deliberate HUNGER AS MASS DESTRUCTION. All those national and local FAKE NEWS media outlets know this is the goal of MOVING FORWARD.
PLEASE DON'T HARM ONE ANOTHER---OUR 99% US and new immigrant citizens black, white, and brown had nothing to do with MOVING FORWARD---
HOLD THOSE 5% GLOBAL BANKING 5% POLS AND PLAYERS ACCOUNTABLE.
When an author writes today a historical FICTION of Stalin or Mao back then and says nothing about how US today is MOVING FORWARD throughout Clinton/Bush/Obama these same policy goals------don't believe the STORY. Who is MOVING FORWARD today's weapon of mass starvation? Global banking 1% HOUSE OF MALTA---TRIBES OF JUDAH. Who died in tremendous numbers? Catholic and Jewish 99% of REAL religious citizens.
Stalin was fully committed to using hunger as a weapon of mass destruction; Red Famine reviewed
There was nothing ‘natural’ about the famine in Ukraine in the 1930s, says Anne Applebaum
In 1933 my aunt Lenina Bibikova was eight years old. She lived in Kharkov, Ukraine. Every morning a polished black Packard automobile would draw up to the door of the handsome pre-revolutionary mansion her family shared with other senior Party cadres to take her father to his job as Party boss at the Kharkov Tractor Factory. When he returned in the evening her father would be carrying bulging packets of sausages and meat from the factory canteen. Lenina did not remember wanting for anything.
Yet in reality Kharkov, like all Ukraine’s cities in that terrible year, was an island of plenty in a sea of starvation. All over Ukraine millions of peasants were dying of hunger in a massive, man-made famine deliberately unleashed by the Soviet state. As Anne Applebaum chronicles in her wrenching, vivid and brilliant account of the Holodomor — literally, the ‘hunger-death’ — famine had become the main weapon of a war unleashed by Stalin on both the reactionary peasant class and on Ukrainian national identity itself.
During the famine years those peasants who managed to crawl to Ukraine’s cities, bellies bloated from hunger, were rounded up by special trucks that patrolled at night on secret orders from the municipal authorities to pick up the living and the dead. By morning there was no trace, for those who chose not to see, of the horror which was unfolding all around.
That wilful blindness has continued ever since. For Ukrainian nationalists, the Holodomor was a genocide unleashed against their people that is today commemorated in a day of national mourning akin to Holocaust memorial day in Israel. For the Soviet authorities — and now, disgustingly, Putin’s tame historians — the great famines of the early 1930s were nothing more than a natural disaster.
As Applebaum shows, drawing on a wealth of witness accounts and Soviet archival sources, there was little natural about it. From the earliest days of the Revolution, she writes, ‘the link between food and power was something that the Bolsheviks also understood very well… constant shortages made food supplies a hugely significant political tool. Whoever had bread had followers, soldiers, loyal friends.’ As early as 1921 Maksim Litvinov — later Soviet foreign minister — told a group of visiting American aid workers coming to help the starving of the Volga, in his precise but accented English, ‘Yes, but food is a veppon…’
It took Stalin’s ruthless genius to fully weaponise hunger as a tool of total war against the enemies — real or imagined — of the Soviet regime. The first Five Year Plan of 1928 called for peasants’ private land to be confiscated and all herds and grain to be turned over to the new collective farms. All over the Soviet Union, peasants slaughtered their livestock and gorged themselves rather than give them up to the Soviet state. Eyewitnesses from the Red Cross reported seeing peasants ‘drunk on food’, their eyes stupefied by their mad, self-destructive gluttony, and the knowledge of its consequences. Harvests from the new collective farms fell disastrously. By the summer of 1932, it was clear that Ukraine — for centuries the grain-basket of the Russian empire thanks to its fertile black earth and twice-yearly harvests of winter barley and summer wheat — had catastrophically failed to meet the production quotas set by the Kremlin. Stalin reverted to what he knew best from his days as a bank-robber in Tbilisi — violence, and theft. Requisition gangs were sent to seize grain reserves, seed reserves, animal fodder and, ominously, daily food supplies.
The unfulfilled portion of the Plan had to be ‘fulfilled unconditionally, completely, not lowering it by an ounce’, Stalin’s lieutenant Vyacheslav Molotov told the Ukrainian authorities in October 1932. Already, the secret police had rounded up wealthy peasants who had resisted collectivisation and shipped them to newly built gulags in their tens of thousands -- the guards dubbed the trainloads of humanity ‘white coal’. Now, the Soviet authorities unleashed something very close to a war on their own Ukrainian citizens. ‘During the Revolution I saw things that I would not want even my enemies to see,’ wrote the Politburo member Nikolai Bukharin. ‘Yet in 1919 we were fighting for our lives… but in 1930–33 we were conducting a mass annihilation of completely defenceless men together with their wives and children.’
On 1 January 1933 Stalin demanded that the Party use a recent law on ‘theft of state property’ to prosecute collective and individual farmers in Ukraine who were allegedly hiding grain. That telegram is probably the closest thing we have to a direct command from the Kremlin ordering the Holodomor. Stalin’s cable, writes Applebaum, ‘was a signal to begin mass searches and persecutions… in practice that telegram forced Ukrainian peasants to make a fatal choice. They could give up their grain reserves and die of starvation, or they could keep some grain reserves hidden and risk arrest, execution or the confiscation of the rest of their food — after which they would also die of starvation.’
The result was ‘such inhuman, unimaginable misery, such a terrible disaster, that it began to seem almost abstract, it would not fit within the bounds of consciousness’, wrote Boris Pasternak after a trip to Ukraine. The young Hungarian communist Arthur Koestler found the ‘enormous land wrapped in silence’. The British socialist Malcolm Muggeridge took a train to Kiev, where he found the rural population starving. Embittered, the idealistic Muggeridge left the Soviet Union, convinced he had witnessed ‘one of the most monstrous crimes in history, so terrible that people in the future will scarcely be able to believe it ever happened’.
The enduring tragedy of the Holodomor — which left at least five million dead, including almost four million Ukrainians — is that Muggeridge was right. Plenty of modern Russians still don’t believe it ever happened. Since Ukraine’s independence — and even more so since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ensuing Russian-backed separatist war in Donbass — the Holodomor has become an ideological touchstone, as vehemently denied by the Kremlin as it is promoted by nationalist Ukrainians.
Applebaum resists the passions of that raging ideological battle and sticks to the relentless, horrifying facts, unequivocally documented in the Soviet secret police reports, eyewitness accounts and the correspondence of senior Party leaders. She squarely places the Holodomor in the wider context of the Soviet regime’s battle with Ukrainian identity itself (an imperial crusade against separatism inherited from the Tsars). ‘Famine was only half the story,’ she writes. ‘While peasants were dying in the countryside, the Soviet secret police simultaneously launched an attack on the Ukrainian intellectual and political elites. As the famine spread, a campaign of slander and repression was launched against Ukrainian intellectuals, professors, museum curators, writers, artists, priests, theologians, public officials and bureaucrats.’ The archives show that Stalin’s aim was demonstrably not just to exterminate the reactionary peasantry but to squash all memory of the independent Ukrainian state that had flickered briefly in the aftermath of the first world war.
Perhaps most controversial is the debate over whether the Holodomor was, in fact, a genocide. Some commentators have accused Applebaum of shying away from that loaded word — though in fact she is perfectly clear that the debate is a purely semantic one. Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish lawyer who invented the word ‘genocide’, spoke of the Holodomor as the ‘classic example’ of his concept: ‘It is a case of genocide, of destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation.’ The controversy stems, as Applebaum explains in a carefully written epilogue, from the later, more legalistic definition of ‘genocide’ as set down by the United Nations in 1948. The Soviet delegation to the first UN General Assembly had argued that political persecution was ‘entirely out of place in a scientific definition of genocide’, and successfully lobbied that the official definition be restricted to the annihilation of entire ethnic groups. ‘Genocide’ thereafter became ‘organically bound up with fascism-nazism and other similar race theories’, Applebaum writes. ‘The Holodomor does not meet that criterion. The Ukrainian famine was not an attempt to eliminate every single living Ukrainian; it was also halted, in the summer of 1933, well before it could devastate the entire nation.’
Applebaum’s summary of the reality of the genocide debate says more about Moscow’s successful — and cynical — manipulation of international discourse than it does about the events of 1930–34 in Ukraine. But it will also anger Ukrainian nationalists who see the Holodomor — as they see today’s conflict in Donbass — as a species of epic blood feud between the two Slavic nations. They are wrong. Both conflicts are about the Kremlin’s imperial programme of power and control rather than blind ethnic hatred.
Today’s ideologically charged conflict between Kiev and Moscow often reduces history to the cannon fodder of propaganda. That makes Applebaum’s meticulous study — the first since Robert Conquest’s excellent but inevitably poorly sourced The Harvest of Sorrow (1986) — so important. The Soviet state successfully concealed the reality of the Holodomor even from children like Lenina Bibikova who were growing up in its midst — then spent 70 years denying its crimes. Applebaum has drawn back the veil — with the same force, clarity and readability as in her earlier books on the Gulag and on the Soviet postwar conquest of Eastern Europe — on one of the 20th century’s most egregious crimes.
THE GREEN PARTY-------was created in REAGAN era just to be that global banking 1% GREEN REVOLUTION far-right wing global BIG AG party. THE GREEN PARTY today supports FARMLAND REIT and LAND TRUSTS-----pretending it really is GREEN SUSTAINABILITY
What REAL left social progressive environmentalists see in GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION PARTY is MOVING FORWARD of UNITED NATIONS ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY-----you know
Here are those ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION PARTY pretending all that FARMLAND REIT can be used for 99% sustainability...................
When our US public universities allow CORPORATE FOUNDATIONS to fund education courses as here at the UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK-----with the goal of training our young college students to openly undermine GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL policies corrupting these policy goals to advance policy with goals of poisoning our future 99% of WE THE PEOPLE with our food and water---with goals of ONE WORLD CONTROL THE FOOD CONTROL THE PEOPLE-----then we have FAILED OUR US STUDENTS AND DENIED THEM A FUTURE.
That is today's GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION PARTY-----that is today's BERNIE SANDERS 'OUR REVOLUTION' for only the global 1%. They are simply next generation CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
If our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE and our 99% of new immigrants are really green and environmental---they would not join a far-right wing global banking 1% UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABILITY party.
The global banking 5% players acting as LAWYERS-----pretending to be FARM AND FOOD justice are great pretenders working for global BIG AG MONSTANTO -----advancing UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY.......the opposite of 99% of citizens' sustainability.
'achieving transformative change'
Food and Farm Attorney
As lead for Sustainable Economies Law Center’s Food and Farm Program, Neil researches, promotes, and advises on alternative legal structures of ownership that promote affordability, community ownership, and long-term sustainable stewardship. From worker-owned farms to community land trusts to land cooperatives, Neil supports the development of a racially just food and farm system that de-centers the individual and re-centers the collective. He builds partnerships with a wide range of organizations to learn about and address legal and policy challenges to achieving transformative change'.
The Future of Farmland (Part 2): Grabbing the Land Back
Posted by Neil Thapar 645.20sc on June 22, 2017
By Neil Thapar, Food and Farmland Attorney //
The first part of this blog introduced the most recent iteration of domestic land grabs, by way of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). These investment schemes threaten an equitable and sustainable future for farmland ownership and stewardship by prioritizing profits, commodifying land as a financial asset, and consolidating ownership with absentee-landlords. As the farmland REIT sector grows, Sustainable Economies Law Center is busy researching and piloting alternative models of farmland ownership that prioritize racial equity, ecological sustainability, and long-term stewardship. While consolidation, characterized most recently by REITs, represents the history of farmland ownership, we see the democratic, cooperative, and community-controlled models below as the future.
Community Farmland Trusts
While the overwhelming majority of the more than 250 community land trusts (CLTs) in the United States currently focus on preserving affordable housing, the roots of the CLT movement spring from agriculture and civil rights struggles of Black farming families dispossessed of their land in the 1950s and 1960s who purchased and collectively managed farmland as a survival tool in the face of racial discrimination and violence. Today, one of the biggest barriers to the equitable ownership of farmland is the increase in land values as a result of the financialization of land as an economic asset. CLTs effectively address this barrier by removing the speculative pressures from farmland when they acquire it. The CLT holds land for the benefit of the community and enters into long-term leases to provide farmers with secure tenure and the autonomy we generally associate with ownership. The CLT can also partner with another entity to sell a conservation easement, which drastically reduces the value of the land, making it that much more affordable for the farmer and preserving the agricultural character of the land forever. As nonprofit organizations, CLTs also legally bind the farmland to the charitable purposes for which the CLT was incorporated, essentially ensuring that the farmland it owns will be put to uses that will benefit the public in perpetuity.
Importantly, CLTs also structure their Board of Directors, the ultimate decision-making body for most nonprofits, to localize decisionmaking power. CLT boards include representation from professionals, tenants (in this case, farmers), and immediate community members to ensure that the CLT is acting in the best interests of those impacted by its activities. At the Law Center, we are working with Agrarian Trust to further develop the CLT model into a decentralized and democratic community institution by piloting the model of worker-self direction within the land trust itself.
Other examples of farmland CLTs include South of the Sound Community Farmland Trust and Sustainable Iowa Land Trust.
REITs exemplify a dominant feature of farmland in the United States, absentee ownership. This “out of sight, out of mind” approach leaves open a gap in land management that agribusiness has been all too eager to fill with its overuse of chemicals, export-driven cropping practices, and worker exploitation. It is one reason why communities in the Central Valley of California, mostly people of color, experience some of the highest rates of food insecurity and environmentally-influenced diseases in the state, even though they live in the heart of the richest agricultural economy.
Worker-owned farms, on the other hand, are by definition locally-owned. And local ownership matters. Placing farmland ownership in the hands of the people who work the land, live in nearby communities, and raise their children there leads to a seismic shift in decision making over land management. Empowered is this way, would farm worker-owners choose to spray chemicals in the fields where they work? Would they choose to grow crops without considering whether they will be able to feed themselves? Would they contaminate groundwater with nitrates from overusing fossil-fuel based fertilizers? We think the answers are no, no, and no.
At the Law Center, we are leveraging our expertise with worker cooperatives to put together a series of resources for farmers and farmworkers interested in developing worker-owned farm enterprises. While the cooperative model has a long history of supporting self-sufficiency in agriculture (see Federation of Southern Cooperatives), worker-ownership has not been a key feature. Recently, several examples of worker-owned farms have developed, including Our Table Cooperative, Solidarity Farm, and Our Harvest Cooperative. Swanton Berry Farm, while not set up as a cooperative, does include features of worker-ownership through an Employee Stock Ownership Program and a unionized workforce.
Community Financing for Farmland
There is no question that one of the biggest challenges to implementing a just transition in farmland ownership is identifying sources of financing. In traditional real estate transactions, financing tends to greatly influence the ownership structure. A common principle is that the person who invests the most money gets to own most of the land and make most of the decisions. While this may appeal to the investor in each of us, such a model perpetuates the myth that because wealth is generated based solely on merit, those with wealth ought to be in control. It also erases the history of unjust enrichment of White people in the United States at the expense of Native Peoples, Black farmers, and waves of immigrants of color.
If we are to truly develop an equitable food system, then we must envision a new relationship between money, land, and ownership.
Nonprofit lenders focused on supporting farmers already exist, and have been providing low-interest operating loans to farms for decades. California Farmlink and Northern California Community Loan Fund are great examples of the role nonprofit lenders can play in extending beyond operational support to finance equitable farmland acquisition. Both are Community Development Financial Institutions, or CDFIs, which allows them to access a larger pool of federal funding that they redirect to supporting economic development in low-income communities. As nonprofits, they may also have an easier path to aggregating investment capital because of exemptions from federal securities laws for charitable organizations.
There is also the example of a cooperative twist on REITs, called a Real Estate Investment Cooperative (REIC). REICs sell membership shares to community members, specifically targeting non-accredited investors (those who are not very wealthy), to aggregate capital to finance projects that benefit specific communities. Examples of this model include the Northeast Investment Cooperative and NYC Real Estate Investment Cooperative. Black Land Matters is using the REIC model to finance, among other things, farmland acquisition to rebuild Black land ownership in the United States.
At the Law Center, we are interested in supporting these models as well as exploring other less developed, yet potentially impactful, financing strategies to secure an equitable future in farmland ownership. These include unlocking people’s retirement incomes (like an IRA or 401k) from Wall Street and allowing people to self-direct their investments into local farm enterprises and farmland ownership. This could directly counter the current use of similar funds by pension fund managers that promote domestic land grabs. We also see potential in expanding crowdfunding laws to promote broad-based community investment in local agricultural enterprises, including supporting farmers in acquiring land. Or, how about creating pathways for advanced investment in cemetery plots to fund pasture land preservation and promote green burials?
Our guiding principle in exploring these possibilities is that the democratization of land ownership requires the democratization of capital. To reach this goal, it’s likely that all of the strategies discussed above - community control of land, worker ownership, and non-extractive finance - will need to work together in order to ensure an equitable and sustainable future for farmland.
We discuss REIT public policy often-----as too why our FOOD STAMPS safety net was attached to FARM BILL. FDR using NEW DEAL to build small farms across America was a REAL left social progressive 99% WE THE PEOPLE policy stance. The early FARM AND LABOR PARTY of Minnesota or Wisconsin did indeed support small farming in what is today's American bread basket. What our 99% of US citizens forget ----how to PROTECT AND FIGHT for these REAL left social progressive issues. EISENHOWER that great global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS freemason working for KNIGHTS OF MALTA-----introduced REITS as a financial policy and set the stage for US small farms to be captured by expanding BIG AG.
The national media and Congressional policy discussions surrounding reforms of FARM BILL----had our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE thinking the right wing was protecting FARMERS while the left wing had us thinking they were fighting for FOOD STAMPS when NEITHER WERE FIGHTING FOR ANY OF OUR US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens.
SEN ROBERTS SAYS 'WE'RE GOING TO GET FARMERS A GOOD FARM BILL' is the same as FAKE GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL groups saying they are fighting for FOOD JUSTICE.
AGPROFESSIONAL------not small farm media----
Sen. Roberts: 'We're Going to Get Farmers a Good Farm Bill'
June 6, 2018 09:45 AM AGPRO
We'll get our first look at the Senate version of the farm bill this week. ( Lindsey Benne )
After months of waiting, agriculture is expected to get a first taste of the Senate version of the farm bill later this week. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) hopes to release the language by the end of the week, with a possible mark-up on June 13. It’s also possible the full Senate will vote on the bill before the July 4 recess.
After the House farm bill vote was derailed by the Freedom Caucus over damands for a vote on a conservative immigration package, Roberts says farm country shouldn’t expect major changes from the Senate. Instead look for minor tweaks and improvements that he says makes the bill stronger and immune to strong partisanship.
"This is not a time for a revolutionary farm bill." - Sen. Ag Committee Chair Pat Roberts
“This is not a time for a revolutionary farm bill,” said Roberts. “This is my eighth farm bill. So it's not my first rodeo and it's not the first rodeo of the distinguished ranking member Senator (Debbie) Stabenow, as well, and we worked together in the past to produce a bipartisan bill and that's what we're trying to do.”
He says it’s that bipartisanship that’s key to getting the number of votes needed to pass the hurdles of Washington. He thinks the urgency behind the economic hardship in agriculture should also help push the bill across the aisle, including Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) throwing her support behind it in order to get the needed 60 votes.
“Our situation is so dire and with the trade policy having a question mark after it, farmers want predictability not uncertainty,” Roberts told U.S. Farm Report. “I've got to have 60 votes. We have to have 60 votes. All of us in agriculture have to have 60 votes in the Senate. You're not going to do that unless you reach across the aisle and you make it a bipartisan bill.”
Unlike the House version of the farm bill, Roberts made it clear that the Senate doesn’t support work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP), as he says the states already have the authority to make those changes.
“The law - right now - is a state can have work requirements,” said Roberts. “Kansas has a work requirement, and so I don't think we're going to change that. I think we're going to have existing law, we'll make some efficiencies.”
He told U.S. Farm Report that some of those efficiencies can be to protect the program by ensuring the integrity of the program. He says that includes possible changes to bonus payments and other work-arounds.
“We're going to have to clean up that bonus program and to get that done, I think we can say here is a SNAP program that everybody can agree would be the program that we can pass,” he said.
He says crop insurance is the one item that he continues to hear about from farmers. He says the Senate version will include changes to the program, but he thinks the program will make the crop insurance portion of the bill stronger in the end.
“You say anything about crop insurance you're talking about land values coming down, so that's the number one thing that we'll protect in the farm bill,” - Sen. Pat Roberts
“We'll protect crop insurance,” said Roberts. “We are trying to make some corrections in it and a more accurate way of determining crop insurance, but we are not going to cut crop insurance.”
Roberts says this isn’t the year to make drastic changes to the crop insurance program, as agriculture can’t afford that right now.
“You say anything about crop insurance you're talking about land values coming down, so that's the number one thing that we'll protect in the farm bill,” said Roberts.
The Senator did point out with current commodity prices, he thinks more farmers will switch to Price Loss Coverage (PLC) under the 2018 farm bill. He says it’s certainty and predictability those in agriculture need right now; and it’s that certainty he wants agriculture to know is being worked on in Washington.
“I want farmers to know that we're going to get them a good farm bill,” said Roberts. “I want to them to know they can go to their banker or their lender - whoever it is - and sit down with that individual and say ‘hey, I'm going to be all right next year. Then I want to do that thing that they do best, whether you're a farmer, a rancher or a grower or people up and down Main Street, we're going to be fine. We're going to compete and we're going to get this trade policy worked out.”
FARMLAND REIT as all REIT TAX POLICIES are geared towards making sure global BIG AG pays no property taxes. Since Eisenhower, REIT has transferred all property taxes on large big box industry and retail businesses back to our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE and small and regional businesses. This is why all through 1970s---80s----90s-----taxation on small and regional businesses went UP ----as all our 99% pensions, 401K investments were used to subsidize corporate property taxes.
So, this is what FARMLAND REITS do today. Land global banking 1% are PRETENDING are being set aside as GREEN SUSTAINABILITY with a goal of being made massive FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE industrial corporate campuses-----will still fall under FARMLAND REITS----no property taxes for those global factories once US farmland.
As well, those US BIG AG farmland in mid-west and west coast soon to return to being deserts as fresh water and climate change creates DUST BOWLS-----those DUST BOWL FARMLAND which will sit idle unable to produce will use FARMLAND REITS to pay no property taxes on USELESS FARMLAND.
As we discussed in detail earlier-----FARM BILL reform during OBAMA era met the policies of TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT-----in allowing no SUBSIDY ----ergo, ending farm subsidies ----moving those 'subsidies' to global BIG AG only in the guise of these global banking REITS. Small farmers will of course not receive any farm subsidy or be able to play the global banking game of REITS.
House Farm Bill Amendments Attack Crop Insurance
May 14, 2018 12:25 PM
There are 103 amendments to the House version of the farm bill, several of which aim to make significant changes to the crop insurance programs.
© Sara Schafer
By Anna-Lisa Laca
Farm Journal's Milk
The House version of the Farm Bill, which is expected to have floor time this week, made its way through mark up last week which resulted in 103 amendments, several of which aim to make significant changes to the crop insurance programs.
“Amendment topics include the usual controversial proposals on capping crop insurance premium subsidies, means testing for the program, changing the sugar program, etc.,” says Jim Wiesemeyer Pro Farmer policy analyst.
An amendment from Reps. Michael Burgess (R-TX) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) , “caps spending on Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs at 110% of CBO-predicted levels for fiscal years 2021 through 2025.”
Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL) aims to simplify the program with his amendment, which “streamlines the sign up process for Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) by directing the Secretary of Agriculture to change the regulatory requirements from an annual sign up to a ‘one and done’ process for ARC and PLC only.”
An amendment from Reps. Mark Sanford (R-SC) and Ron Kind (D-WI), “lowers the Profit Margin that Crop Insurance Companies are guaranteed referred to as the ‘Target Rate’ of return from 14.5% to 12%.”
An amendment from Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) “reduces crop insurance premium subsidies for insurance policies by 15 percentage points, except for catastrophic level of coverage.”
Two representatives want subsidies to be public record. The amendment from Reps. Kind and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), “allows for public disclosures of crops insurance premium subsidies.”
Rep. Kind also wants to remove cotton from the Title 1 insurance programs. Another amendment from him “makes cotton ineligible for the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs under Title 1 and returns cotton to the Stacked Income Protection Program (Stax).”
Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK) wants tobacco farmers to pay for their own insurance. His amendment “amends the federal crop Insurance act to prohibit the Department of Agriculture from subsidizing crop insurance premiums for tobacco. Any saving that occur as a result of this bill must be deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction.”
An amendment from Rep. Blumenauer “creates a payment limit of $125,000 a year for recipients of crop insurance premium subsidies.”
Reps. Keith Rothfus (R-PA), Kind and Sensenbrenner hope to “limit crop insurance subsidies to only those producers that have an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $500,000 or less,” with their amendment.
Similarly, Rothfus and Kind want to “limit commodity and conservation assistance to only those producers that have an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $500,000 or less.”
It’s important to note that not all of these proposed changes will be approved.
“The Rules panel meets late Tuesday afternoon to set the terms of the farm bill debate, and again on Wednesday afternoon to decide which amendments can be considered on the House floor,” Wiesemeyer explains.
REAL left social progressives are still fighting the status of BIG AG-------the only solution to food security for our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE and our 99% new immigrant citizens is to break up these GLOBAL BIG AG monopolies which can easily be done simply using our US CONSTITUTION, BILL OF RIGHTS, 300 years of Federal court ruling precedence----and COMMON LAW.
Instead, those ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% FAKE GREEN ENVIRONMENTALIST groups are telling us we have to beat those global corporations and billionaires at their own game----JOIN IN ON THE FARMLAND REIT DIVIDEND EXPRESS.
CNBC is of course simply global NBC on internet so it is that national FAKE NEWS media we would not take seriously. Please take a look at the media reporters to learn who those 5% global banking media players are -----they would not be working for today's captured global media unless they were players.
When we follow these 5% media players we see the national media captured to LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING our American Republic
'All Stories by Constance Gustke - The Atlantic
Constance Gustke is a freelance writer based in Stone Ridge, N.Y. She has written for CNBC.com, MSNBC.com, CBS Moneywatch.com, and Fortune'.
Quarterly Investment Guide
Farm to market: Taking stock of the agricultural land grab
Constance Gustke, special to CNBC.com
Published 2:05 PM ET Thu, 21 Jan 2016 Updated 2:38 PM ET Thu, 21 Jan 2016 CNBC.com
The farmland bubble may have burst in some Corn Belt states, like Iowa. But acreage prices proved resilient across the U.S. and, if not a bumper year in 2015 — an average increase of 2.4 percent and increases in land value of 8 percent or more in some states — it looks better when compared to the flat year for equities.
But individual investors, for the most part, have stayed away from the big agricultural bets being placed on global food demand increasing over time, driving up land prices even further.
Institutions, like the mega pension fund TIAA-CREF, the super-wealthy investor set and overseas agricultural giants are still snapping up land this year, and potentially scouting what will seem like bargains years from now as farm real estate values have started to decline.
Daniel Acker | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The situation leaves Paul Pittman, CEO of Farmland Partners (FPI) REIT, frustrated. His company's stock price has been badly beaten up — down more than 20 percent since its 2014 IPO. Yet the dividend has been hiked up three times, Pittman said, and now yields close to 5 percent.
The farmland REIT continues to acquire more acreage. Farmland Partners currently owns 257 farms with an aggregate of 107,838 acres (including 126 farms totaling 32,963 acres under contract), including acreage in Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. And Pittman is continuing to bag more land in undervalued areas, like the Southeast.
"There's an excess amount of water there," said Pittman, whose REIT doesn't own farmland in water-challenged California.
Yet the stock trades at a substantial discount to its net asset value, according to Daniel Altscher, a senior research analyst at FBR Capital Markets. He has a buy rating on the stock. "Everything is going well," he said.
"This is a new asset class, and so it's misunderstood," said Pittman, a former investment banker. "These are still early days for farmland REITs."
Farmland REIT Gladstone Land Corp. (LAND) has also been hit hard — the stock price has sunk 30 percent in the past year. Yet it owns 34 farms in five states, including California, where vegetables and berries are grown. The REIT has also been snapping up more farmland in California, Florida and other states.
Due to its large landholdings, Gladstone is also very undervalued, said Maxim Group analyst Michael Diana in a recent research report. He has a target price of $14 on the stock, which yields 5 percent.
Pittman doesn't like the comparison to other farm REITs, and the Farmland Partners CEO has a point: His REIT's shares are only down 5 percent in the past year, compared to the 30 percent dive in LAND shares and 27 percent decline in shares of American Farmland (AFCO).
"We are trading ... let's say, less disappointing than the others," Pittman said.
Red alert: A $1 trillion stock bubble ready to pop
All the farmland REITs suffer from one key headwind related to stock market dynamics: They are small REITs and can be volatile and illiquid in trading. Buying just 1,000 shares in Farmland Partners can move the stock up or down by a lot.
"That's a risk," Altscher said. It's also a risk exacerbated by the lack of institutional money in these REITs. Because they are micro-cap stocks — with market caps ranging from $75 million to $125 million — institutions cannot easily invest. Most institutional investors are barred from holding large stakes in any one stock, and the size of these REITs makes it impossible for institutions to invest without breaching single-stock holding limits.
"These are relatively small market-cap stocks, so attracting broad-based institutional attention is much tougher than retail," Altscher said.
Farmland Partners does have more than 20 institutions in its stock and said its shareholder makeup is at least 40 percent to 50 percent institutional, but Pittman said there are no "household names" among those investors. "Someone who has to make $20 million allocation can't come into a $120 million float company," he said.
US crops: Beans hit hardest 1:49 PM ET Mon, 12 Jan 2015 | 01:39
Right now the biggest issue for Farmland Partners and the other farm REITs is crop prices, which have plummeted. These REITs generate income by leasing its land to tenant farmers. But rents can slump when crop prices are soft. And wheat and corn prices, among other crops, have all plummeted.
Pittman said the entire agricultural stock complex, from Deere and Monsanto to the farm REITs, has been hit in the commodities slump. "The rate of growth is going down, but not consumption," he said. "It's not too low demand, but it's too much supply while the increase in demand growth is slowing."
The average investor may assume it's a one-to-one relationship, and bad corn price means bad results for all agriculture, from tractor and seed sales to the farm REITs, but Pittman said it's not that simple.
"The farmer still has to rent. The farmer can decide they are not buying another tractor, and the farmer can fight about rent, but can't just say, 'No, I won't rent land."
Crop insurance, which has become more sophisticated in recent years, protects rent in the short term, though longer term, if they remain low, "crop prices will impact farmland rents," said David Rodgers, senior real estate analyst at Robert W. Baird.
Farmland Partners is also diversifying into less volatile specialty crops. Now corn, soybeans and wheat are mostly grown on the REIT's farms, said Pittman. But lately Farmland Partners has been buying up blueberry farms in Michigan. The company has also started doing solar power projects on land it owns, as well as natural gas pipeline easements.
Aging farmers also offer more farmland buying opportunities, Altscher said, adding that the average age of today's farmer is 58, so lots of farmland will hit the market in the next several years as farmers retire.
"We'll keep buying high-quality farms," Pittman said, "and build a large portfolio."
Altscher said a major concern among investors that's kept these stocks down is the chart on farmland prices being extremely high relative to historical levels. Some investors are worried that farmland is in a bubble. "Headlines everywhere are saying asset values are at an all-time high and the price of corn was ripped apart," Altscher said.
He added that from this point of view, things can't end well. If farmland rents go down, then the value of the real estate goes down, and ultimately, a business that operates with as much as 50 percent leverage — considered a normal level of debt in farming — can't continue to operate profitably. "Farmers can sustain a year or two of low prices, but if it's lower for a decade, I would be worried," he said.
Don't let big Dow drop turn you off these stocks
Farm sector profitability declined for the second straight year in 2015, according to the USDA's Economic Research Service, with net farm income projected to be $55.9 billion and down about 38 percent from 2014 levels, according to a November 2015 analysis. If the projection is correct, it would represent a drop of 55 percent from the recent high of $123.3 billion in 2013.
Crop receipts were projected by the USDA in November to decrease by $18.2 billion (8.7 percent) in 2015, led by projected declines of $8.6 billion in corn receipts, $5.7 billion in soybean receipts and $2.7 billion in wheat receipts.
A lower-for-longer worst-case scenario explains why analysts say the farmland REITs are trading at below net asset value.
"I don't believe that," Altscher said, but he added the situation could take a long time to sort out, and these are slower-moving businesses. "It's not a get-rich-quick scheme. Owning it is a long-term investment and not a flip."
Pittman said that his company — and its investors — do need to be willing to accept that maybe it can't grow for a while, and the challenge is to get investors to understand that farmland is not going to massively devalue because farmer profitability suffers for a few years. "When you have a bad Christmas sales season, the retailers get dinged, not the mall REITs," he said.
But he said there's no simple answer now, because farmland values could be flat for a few years.
The worst farm bubble ever was in the 1980s and lasted five years.
Saudi Arabia is buying up farmland in US Southwest
Some investors have stuck with timberland REITs, which have been around longer and are much bigger. For example, Plum Creek Timber (PCL) has a $7.29 billion market capitalization and yields more than 4 percent. Revenue comes from cutting down trees and selling acreage.
"With these REITs, housing and packaging needs drive demand," Rodgers said.
Morningstar expects lumber consumption to surge for several years, though, driven by significantly rising housing starts, according to Morningstar analyst Daniel Rohr. The housing peak won't come until 2019, the report stated.
Miracle Mile Advisors portfolio manager Duncan Rolph prefers timberland REITS to farmland. "They have been pretty popular," he said. "And they will continue to do well. But it's a bit early for farmland REITs. They need to be more liquid."
Yet year-to-date and in the past one year, Plum Creek Timber has fared no better than Farmland Partners, and it's suffered much more amid the current bearish market sentiment, down 16 percent already this year, to a 52-week low level, and compared to FPI's 7 percent year-to-date decline.
Even Rolph admits, though, that farmland has had double-digit returns for the last 10 years. "That's a nice premium. And farmland REITs have a more attractive yield than bonds," he said. But, he cautions, take a long-term perspective. "Demographics are in your favor," Rolph said.
Real estate/Real asset annualized returns, 1995–2014
Farmland: 12.7 percent
Total REIT return: 11.3 percent
Apartments: 9.8 percent
Commercial real estate: 9.6 percent
Timber: 8.1 percent
Gold: 5.8 percent
(Sources: National Council of Real Estate Fiduciaries — NCREIF, MSCI US REIT Index, Bloomberg)
In November, the USDA's Economic Research Service projected a 1.6 percent decline in farmland values for the full year 2015 (that compares to the 2.4 percent national increase in land value based on actual completed transactions when the USDA-NASS ran farm values in June).
The Farmland Partners CEO said the current on-the-ground view that takes in the entire buying season through December is worse, with land prices down 5 percent in most markets and as much as 10 percent in others, and he is prepared for a further decline this year that could take as much as another 5 percent off land values. "We're in a consolidation phase; things were going aggressively, so it's healthy to take a pause and take out some froth," he said.
He added that farmland prices may not turn around for a year or even two. But Pittman is nonplussed about the current slowdown: "I'm not scared about the fundamental revenue stream underneath my rents," he said. "People will still be eating, and even if crops are not getting sold at same prices."
The Farmland Partners CEO said his current analysis of the market assumes that profitability could be down by 10 percent to 15 percent but it isn't going to zero. "I've done this for 15 years. I've been through these cycles. There's a reason I'm a landlord and not a farmer. It's much more stable," Pittman said.
Pittman said the forward-looking view of global food demand and land scarcity are the big macro drivers. "We think it's a multi-decade trajectory of population growth and GDP per capita growth. If you think there will be no additional demand or declining demand for food, by all means bail on farmland REITs and Deere and Monsanto," Pittman said. "It's awfully hard for me to believe that," he added. "We're not making more land."
OH, YEAH MR ALPEROVITZ -------we KNOW to where that FAKE GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION UNITED NATIONS corporate sustainability controlling the food controlling the people POLICY GOALS will lead.
When we shouted a PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD led by a RAWLINGS-BLAKE as MAYOR OF BALTIMORE-----told us this was FAKE 5% PLAYER GREEN NEWS------this is why. Maryland is top gun with REITS of all colors----it is top gun on being far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE MAOIST MOVING FORWARD as GREAT LEAP FORWARD.
Alperovitz is simply identifying public policy advancing ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE 'OUR REVOLUTION' for only the global 1%----their great revolution is opposite of our 99% WE THE PEOPLE revolution.
'Watch Full Show'---it is a great big SHOW---all KABUKI THEATER by 5% global banking 5% players ----
Gar Alperovitz’s Green Party Keynote: We Are Laying Groundwork for the “Next Great Revolution”
StoryJuly 16, 2012 Watch Full Show
At the Green Party’s 2012 National Convention in Baltimore over the weekend, Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and anti-poverty campaigner Cheri Honkala were nominated the party’s presidential and vice-presidential contenders. We air the convention’s keynote address delivered by Gar Alperovitz, a professor of political economy at the University of Maryland and co-founder of the Democracy Collaborative. Alperovitz is the author of “America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy.” In his remarks, Alperovitz stressed the importance of third-party politics to challenge a corporate-run society. “Systems, in history, are defined, above all, by who controls the wealth,” Alperovitz says. “The top 400 people — not percent, people, 400 — own more wealth now than the bottom 185 million Americans taken together. That is a medieval structure.” [includes rush transcript]
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the 2012 election. The Green Party has officially nominated Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and anti-poverty campaigner Cheri Honkala as its presidential and vice-presidential contenders. Dr. Stein’s ticket easily won with over 190 delegates, compared to 72 for her closest competitor, the comedian Roseanne Barr. Stein and Honkala are running on a platform called a Green New Deal.
GAR ALPEROVITZ: First thing I want to say is I’m from Wisconsin—some Wisconsin people back there. And Wisconsin knows something about third parties. The Republican Party, original Republican Party--
AMY GOODMAN: …to go to Gar Alperovitz, but I first I want to introduce him. Dr. Stein and Cheri Honkala accepted their nominations on Saturday, and then the keynote address was given by—at the Green Party’s national convention in Baltimore, by Gar Alperovitz. Gar Alperovitz is a professor of political economy at the University of Maryland, co-founder of the Democracy Collaborative, author most recently of America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy.
GAR ALPEROVITZ: First thing I want to say is I’m from Wisconsin—some Wisconsin people back there. And Wisconsin knows something about third parties. The Republican Party, original Republican Party, was a party to end slavery, started in Ripon, Wisconsin. And indeed the—and it got lost along the way, but it showed one big push on the really important issue of slavery in its early days. Fighting Bob La Follette from Wisconsin, another historical issue that you may remember coming out of that state and starting very small and making a powerful impact. And third, if you look closely at what became the best parts of the New Deal—the labor law legislation, some parts of Social Security, some parts of healthcare and some parts of the other welfare programs—a lot that came up and was was incubated in Wisconsin. Now, I take that—you know, I’m kind of proud to be a Wisconsin guy, but the bottom line there is not about Wisconsin. It is about historical change, how you begin fighting small, and you expand when the time is right, and you make an impact because the other things are failing. That’s what’s happened in many, many cases. Revolutions are as common as grass in world history, and they begin in rooms like this.
GAR ALPEROVITZ MUST BE AGHAST THAT HIS FARM AND LABOR PARTY AS IN MINNESOTA HAS BEEN TAKEN BY FAR-RIGHT WING NEO-CONSERVATIVES ------WORKING FOR GLOBAL BANKING 1% AND OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. YET, WE HAVEN'T HEARD A THING ABOUT THAT FROM OUR FAKE GREEN PLAYERS.
So, I say that, you know, really as a historian, not as trying to kind of blow smoke in your ear. That’s how it works. That’s how it works. So, when I say I take you all seriously, first, I’m talking to the person in your personal seat. So, when I say I take you seriously, you, more seriously maybe than you take yourself, I mean to say that the beginnings of the next great historic change come from us taking ourselves that seriously. So I urge—and I think many people here do—but I urge that you sit back and say, “Yeah, am I up to that, or am I just doing politics, or am I really up to that?” Now, the “that” is transforming the most powerful corporate capitalist system in the history of the world. That’s what it’s about. And to say that I take you seriously is to say that that is what you’re stepping up to—not simply a gesture, not simply a new party, not simply a green movement. It is that, and that is the challenge.
Now, I’m a very cold-eyed realist. I did run House and Senate staffs. I’ve even done stuff, for my pains and for my sins, planning U.N. policy in the State Department, before I left that world many years ago. I’ve been involved in the nitty gritty of ugly politics. I’m no naive guy. And I say to you again that we have the possibility, if we look at the stage we are at and what is happening to the era and who we are existentially—I am talking to the person in your chair—and if we know who we are and take ourselves that seriously, we have that possibility.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Gar Alperovitz delivering the keynote speech at the Green Party’s 2012 national convention in Baltimore, Maryland, where the party nominated Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and anti-poverty campaigner Cheri Honkala as its presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Visit democracynow.org for our interviews with Stein and Honkala. Gar Alperovitz is professor of political economy at the University of Maryland. His latest book, America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy.
'By Rob Dietz, Special Project Manager and
Erin Roach, Vice President,
Investor Relations & Marketing,
When our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE are made to think all of this MOVING FORWARD has gone too far-------it really has not. CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has been a few decades of MASSIVE GLOBAL BANKING FRAUD-----the government transactions tied to our state and local real estate are filled with fraud and corruption. WHOSE LAND IS AMERICA----IT IS OUR LAND----99% WE THE PEOPLE. Stand up today and start breaking down these real estate monopolies and STOP MOVING FORWARD global corporate campus building in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---SANCTUARY STATES/CITIES---SAME THING.
Those dastardly global banking 5% freemason/Greek players say----WE KNOW---WE DON'T CARE!
REIT, Drink, and Be Merry: Farmland LP’s Fund Gives Investors, Enviros, and Foodies Something to Cheer About
Back to November 2014
By Rob Dietz, Special Project Manager and
Erin Roach, Vice President,
Investor Relations & Marketing,
As the rising sun takes the chill off an early autumn morning, the new daylight illuminates the fields of two Oregon farms. A quick glance at each farm reveals clear differences. Several hundred head of sheep roam one farm’s lush, green pastures along a riparian corridor of big leaf maple and white oak trees. These sheep are all ewes, putting on weight and gaining strength for the upcoming breeding season. The other, a conventional farm, bears the signs of heavy machinery — tractors have pulverized the soil into fine bits and spread a batch of synthetic fertilizer after a recent wheat harvest. A breeze kicks dust into the air as a wheel line crawls across the field’s surface to irrigate the bare dirt in preparation for next year’s crop.
The differences between these two farms run much deeper than what’s readily visible. The sheep pastures on the first farm provide only a small indication of Farmland LP’s model of farm ownership and management -- a model that stands in contrast to the soil depletion and importation of chemical inputs on conventional farms. Investors, the broader business community, scientists, and proponents of sustainable agriculture are taking notice.
Farmland LP (www.farmlandlp.com ) is an investment fund that buys conventional farmland, converts it to organic using a pasture and crop rotation, and then manages the farmland for an optimal mix of environmental health, food production, and financial returns. It’s a surprisingly simple model with far-reaching effects. The Fund began in 2009 and purchased its first property in 2010, starting with a 150-acre farm in Oregon’s Willamette Valley between the Cascade and Coast Range Mountains. The fund quickly attracted interest, and today owns and manages a $50 million portfolio of farms with 6,750 acres in both the Willamette Valley and the Sacramento Delta fifty miles east of San Francisco. Craig Wichner, one of Farmland LP’s two cofounders, says, “Our first step was to scale up to a size where we could generate higher returns from using sustainable farming best practices.” With proof-of-concept in hand, the fund is taking the next step—a much bigger step—by establishing a $250 million real estate investment trust (REIT).
A REIT is an innovative structure that lets investors own part of a portfolio of professionally managed properties in the same way that investors buy shares of a company. REITs have achieved a solid financial track record over the last 35 years, consistently outpacing the S&P 500. Historically REITs have targeted commercial real estate, such as office buildings, but the structure works equally well with agricultural properties. Farmland LP has applied know-how from the commercial real estate business not only in using the REIT structure, but also in its overall approach to managing land. For example, a company that needs office space today doesn’t typically purchase its own office building. Instead, it leases space in a building owned and managed by a professional real estate company. The real estate company brings in the best combination of tenants to ensure full utilization of the building, generating solid returns for the investors. Similarly, Farmland LP acts as a professional real estate manager, entering into leases with a variety of farmer-tenants who produce food in rotations of organic pasture, livestock, specialty crops, and grains. These rotations, which are designed to enhance soil fertility and ecological health, also produce more revenue and profits per acre than conventional mono-cropping practices. Both farmers and investors prosper from improved farmland management.
Sheep and cattle may not care about REITs or financing mechanisms, but they’re direct beneficiaries of Farmland LP’s choices. The pastures owned by the fund provide a healthy habitat. As ruminants, sheep and cattle have guts designed to digest a variety of grassland plants, rather than the diet of grain pellets they might get on a feedlot. But the pastures do more than produce sustenance; they offer livestock the space to live natural lives. Lambs and young cattle often behave like hyperactive children at recess, sprinting, bucking, and jumping across fields. And for food connoisseurs, the first bite of grilled lamb or beef instantly reveals another benefit of pasture.
Just as pasture is a key to meat quality, it’s also a key to Farmland LP’s organic conversion process and long-term management strategy. According to Jason Bradford, Farmland LP’s other cofounder who holds a Ph.D. in Biology, the perennial plants that make up a pasture build long-term soil fertility. Plants such as red and white clover, forage plantain, chicory, and assorted grasses, when cultivated together, can achieve impressive results. For starters, a healthy pasture lasts between 4 and 7 years, meaning that once planted, the soil experiences less disturbance than conventionally farmed land that is tilled, planted, and harvested annually. Conversion of conventional cropland to pasture also adds key nutrients to the soil, both from nitrogen-fixing plants and from the manure of grazing livestock. Bradford says, “In natural ecosystems, perennial plants tend to dominate annuals. Their deeper roots give them an advantage, and the deep root structures help build soil.” Farmland LP leases its organic pasture to farmers and ranchers who raise premium livestock. At the end of a pasture’s life cycle, the land will have stored enough nutrients so that it can be planted in specialty crops, such as organic squash, without the need for expensive fertilizer inputs. After growing specialty crops for two or three years, the land is replanted in a pasture mix to continue the process of regenerating fertility.
Farmland LP’s management methods make ecological sense, but they also make financial sense. Farmer-tenants who can lower their input costs and get price premiums for pastured and organic food are able to pay higher lease rates to the landlord. And as the landlord, Farmland LP strives to align its goals with those of its tenants by cultivating close relationships and establishing revenue-sharing leases. This model is proving to be especially effective because of what’s happening in the organic food market.
The $35 billion-per-year organic market has grown by an average of 14 percent each year since 1990, and now represents about four percent of the U.S. food budget. The main factor holding back this market from even more rapid growth is the limited supply of land used to produce organic food. Only one percent of U.S. cropland has been certified organic, and the pace of conversion is only eight percent per year, meaning there’s a substantial shortfall. Farmland LP has estimated that the supply gap equates to $80 billion worth of U.S. farmland, far exceeding the REIT’s initial fundraising goal of $250 million.
The shortfall of organic land in the U.S. has arisen at a time when concerns are mounting about environmental problems caused by conventional management of farmland—problems such as loss of soil fertility, impaired water quality, and emission of greenhouse gases. The Union of Concerned Scientists and researchers at many universities have reported the need for agriculture to adopt sustainable practices.
Scientists and the market agree: more land needs to be converted to organic, but two high hurdles stand in the way. First, the average commodity crop farmer owns $4 million to $8 million in land, equipment, and structures — any new or expanding farmer needs access to some serious capital to compete. Second, it takes organic farmers three years to convert conventional farmland to organic, creating a large financial disincentive and slowing down their ability to respond to increased demand. Farmland LP addresses both obstacles by raising the capital to purchase farmland and infrastructure, managing the organic conversion process with perennial pastures, and providing affordable leases to access organic land.
IT'S ALL ABOUT ORGANIC FARMING SAYS GLOBAL HEDGE FUNDS AND GLOBAL INVESTMENT FIRMS CONSOLIDATING US LAND FOR US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE GLOBAL FACTORIES.
Bill Niman is a rancher and a pioneer in the business of humanely and sustainably raised meat. His company, BN Ranch, grazes Angus beef cattle on Farmland LP’s pastures to produce premium meats. Niman says, “My life’s work has been to change the way food is produced and animals are treated in our country. Through partnerships like the ones between Farmland LP and the farming and ranching communities, we can restore a more sensible way of feeding people and help preserve our nation’s most precious natural resources — water and topsoil.” Maintaining two-thirds of its acreage in pasture may have a calming effect on Farmland LP’s lands, but it has an energizing effect on business. Companies such as BN Ranch can expand operations and meet the market demand for organic and pastured meat without having to find the considerable capital needed to buy land. Niman found the Farmland LP model so sensible that he became an advisor to the fund.
Just as Farmland LP’s model provides BN Ranch with access to raise cattle on organic farmland, the REIT structure provides investors with unique access to own high quality, sustainably managed farmland. The average age of farmers in the U.S. is 58 years old, and as they retire an estimated one to four percent of farmland is expected to change hands each year over the next decade. Based on these estimates, $240 billion to $1 trillion worth of U.S farmland (out of a total of $2.4 trillion) will be sold in the next ten years. This massive transition provides an unprecedented opportunity for the REIT to acquire farmland and manage it for long-term financial and ecological health. Although the REIT will initially be private and require investments from accredited and institutional investors, Farmland LP plans to take the REIT public as soon as revenues and distributions reach a sufficient scale. Such a public offering would open access to people of all income levels who are interested in owning shares of sustainably managed organic farmland.
The business community is taking notice of the fund’s combination of financial returns, environmental benefits, and social impacts. Fast Company named Farmland LP one of “The World’s 50 Most Innovative Companies.” ImpactAssets named it one of top 50 fund managers worldwide who create positive social and environmental impacts while generating strong returns. B Corp, the organization that certifies Benefit Corporations, has awarded Farmland LP “Best for the World” status two years in a row.
Farmland LP is sowing the seeds of an agricultural system that builds soil fertility and supports ecosystems while providing farmers with access to in-demand organic land and consumers with access to premium local food. It’s a unique model that cares for people and planet while generating profits. What could be a better investment than that?
For more information on Farmland LP please contact- Erin Roach (email@example.com ) or Craig Wichner (firstname.lastname@example.org ).
Article by Rob Dietz, Special Projects Manager and Erin Roach, Vice President, Investor Relations & Marketing, at Farmland LP
Mr. Dietz is a leading expert on the economics of sustainability. Before joining Farmland LP, he coauthored the bestselling book, “Enough Is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources”. As Special Projects Manager, he puts his multidisciplinary background in environmental science, economics and conservation biology to good use. He analyzes potential farmland acquisitions and develops models to optimize productivity, ecological health and financial returns. Mr. Dietz was the first executive director of CASSE (steadystate.org), taking it from an unfunded start-up organization to an internationally respected leader on new economic thinking. He is a former Presidential Management Fellow, with an appointment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He received a master’s degree in environmental science and engineering from Virginia Tech and an undergraduate degree in economics and environmental studies from the University of Pennsylvania.
Ms. Roach is VP of Investor Relations and Marketing and is responsible for marketing strategy, public relations and investor communications. Prior to joining Farmland LP, Ms. Roach was Director of Marketing and Recruitment of Social Venture Network, the nation’s premier membership organization for CEOs of socially responsible business and impact investors. She formerly ran the Experiential Learning program at Presidio Graduate School, was a co-founder for an online parent community called GoCityKids.com, (acquired by Viacom in 2005) and was a member of the West Coast management team for Work/Family Directions, a consultancy assisting multi-national corporations develop a new generation of employee benefits and services that especially addressing the needs of working families. Most significantly, Ms. Roach was a member of the start-up team for Bright Horizons Family Solutions, a widely recognized model for socially responsible business, and, for nearly 10 years, helped grow the company to IPO stage. She received her B.A. in Sociology from the University of California at Los Angeles.
We have read APPLEBAUM's account of RED FAMINE as many historical FICTIONS is paints those FASCIST CRAZY DICTATORS sold as left farmer/labor-----as being PUPPETS to those global 1% and their 2% living in CITIES----here it is USSR cities----for MAO it was Chinese cities. The picture being painted ---all myth-making and propaganda ----is that Stalin/Mao of course purged all those population groups one by one from CITIES having wealth creating this extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.
Red Famine by Anne Applebaum review – did Stalin deliberately let...www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/25/red-famine-stalins-war-on-ukraine-anne-applebaum-review
Aug 25, 2017 ... The famine followed agricultural collectivisation at the end of the 1920s, ... and peasants fleeing the hungry villages were shut out of the cities. ... in her bibliography (although my Stalin's Peasants is not included, ... Her estimate of famine losses in Ukraine – 4.5 million people – reflects current scholarship.
Fast forward to today in US-----we are watching as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA making US FAILED STATES of our US cities---pushing those population groups out of the city-----and now filling these US cities with global 1% and their 2%------having a goal of global corporate campuses being FED as with STALIN and MAO-----
The difference of today's MOVING FORWARD from GREAT LEAP FORWARD is this-----whether Russia was USSR or RUSSIA-----whether China was Soviet China or capitalist CHINA-----the winners were always those same global 1% and their 2%.
Today's US is being made a colonial tribute state-------filled with US 99% WE THE PEOPLE as REMITTANCE men and women---yes, even those 5% global banking players. The only people who will be dancing with STALIN OR MAO inside US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. Those global 99% of white collar professsionals-----global factory workers-----may be fed their meal given their bed-----until SMART CITIES eliminates that need to FEED THE PEOPLE.
The people beating at the city gates for food in RED FAMINE will be all of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE---black, white, and brown citizens.
SORRY, NO SECRET KNOCKS---NO SECRET HAND SIGNS for those 5% global banking players thinking they will be inside the SMART CITIES CASTLE.
'The farmers suffered less because while the city
The Farmers suffered less because while the city people were starving, it was easier for the rural people to get a hold of food. However, the city was just big buildings and empty land, full of lots and lots of people. The city depended on the rural farmers for their food and necessities'
Our US national media and all those 5% ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT FAKE labor and justice organizations all have today's politics tied to returning to FDR NEW DEAL days responding to the last GREAT DEPRESSION. We read in history books that US CITIES were fed via food lines et al------we are told farmers not tied to DUST BELT did fine in feeding their families. But here is the difference today as super-duper GREAT DEPRESSION global economic collapse approaches from that of last century's GREAT DEPRESSION.
The US last century was a nation still growing-----there was plenty of land----plenty of fertile soil and fresh water----plenty of regions able to be made US bread baskets when mid-west and west coast became DUST BOWLS. FDR created NEW DEAL SAFETY NETS to be those food security agencies---today CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA spent these few decades dismantling all these safety nets leaving $20 trillion in national debt to assure future US Presidents will use that as an excuse for not helping during this coming GREAT DEPRESSION.
Today, US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones are being filled with GLOBAL NGOS FEED THE CITY found in third world feeding refugees-----that will be the only structure feeding US CITIZENS made REFUGEES.
SORRY, NO FDR SMALL FARM DEALS FOR YOU SAY FARMLAND REITS GLOBAL CORPORATIONS UNLESS YOU ARE SERFS AND SLAVES.
Remember, those SMART CITIES built as US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES already have plans for those global labor pool 99% being used on global corporate campuses to be those FREE LABOR FARMERS inside HIGH-RISE ECO-DOME GREENHOUSES.......but that will be AFTER this weapon of mass starvation.
Stunning photos show what America looked like during the Great Depression
By Ana Swanson
November 13, 2015
It’s sometimes said that “the past is a foreign country.” That may be the feeling you get when you look at these photographs below, of America during the Great Depression and the years immediately following.
The U.S. in the 1930s was a very different place, as the photos show. In terms of per capita income, the U.S. then was poorer than Mexico is today. The Civil Rights movement had not yet occurred, and Jim Crow laws still ruled the South. Women had been voting in national elections for fewer than two decades.
The photographers who snapped these images were charged with documenting America, often its poor and vulnerable communities. The project, sponsored by the United States Farm Security Administration and Office of War Information between 1935 to 1945, was meant to build support for government programs, such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Resettlement Administration act of 1935, which aided the poorest third of farmers displaced by the Great Depression. It is the largest photography project ever sponsored by the U.S. government.
Remember, WILSON, COOLIDGE, AND HOOVER were the ROBBER BARON US PRESIDENTS last century----it was during HOOVER'S term that the ROARING 20s Wall Street frauds bringing on the GREAT DEPRESSION occurred----so it was nice of HOOVER to install soup kitchens for our US 99% left starving after the economic crash he manufactured-----they were last century's REAGAN/CLINTON/BUSH with OBAMA and his NEW NEW DEAL replacing FDR'S NEW DEAL.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression
Definition and Summary of Soup Kitchens for kids
Summary and Definition:
The Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression served free meals to hungry men, women and children. The soup kitchens were run by volunteers from charitable organizations and local communities with food supplies provided by benefactors and people in the neighborhood from their 'Soup Gardens'. Before 1935, as unemployed soared to over 25%,Soup Kitchens sprang up in every major town and city in America as there were few welfare programs to help the unemployed, starving and destitute people.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression
Herbert Hoover was the 31st American President who served in office from March 4, 1929 to March 4, 1933. One of the important events during his presidency was the emergence of Soup Kitchens during the Great Depression.
1929-1945: Depression & WW2
US American History
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression
Soup Kitchens Facts for kids: Fast Fact Sheet
Fast, fun facts and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) about Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression
What were the Soup Kitchens during the Great Depression?
The Soup Kitchens during the Great Depression were places where hungry men, women and children were served a free meal, usually consisting of vegetable soup and bread.
Who ran the Soup Kitchens?
The Soup Kitchens were initially run by volunteers of various charities. The charities were soon unable to meet the demand. In 1932, as the hard times became even worse, President Hoover gave $4 million to the states to open additional soup kitchens.
Where was the Soup Kitchens?
The Soup Kitchens sprang up in every major town and city in the United States.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Facts for kids
The following fact sheet contains interesting facts and information on Soup Kitchens
Facts about the Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression for kids
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 1: The first Soup Kitchens were first established in America the 1870's following the Panic of 1973 that triggered a previous depression that lasted for 6 years.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 2: The idea of soup kitchens were brought to America by Irish immigrants who had memories of the events of the 1845 Great Irish Potato Famine. The Soup kitchens in Ireland, many of which were run by Quakers, to provide the starving people with hot soup.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 3: The Temporary Relief Act also known as the Soup Kitchen Act was passed in February 1847 by the United Kingdom Parliament. It called for the food to be provided through taxes collected by local relief committees from Irish merchants and landowners.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 4: There were few government welfare systems before 1935, there was mass unemployment and people were literally starving. President Hoover believed that private charities and local communities, not the federal government, could best provide for those in need.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 5: Republican Hoover advocated "rugged individualism", the idea that every man should fend for himself and that government handouts to the unemployed did great damage to people's self-esteem. There was no social 'safety net' of welfare and relief programs at the start of the Great Depression.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 6: Due to Hoover's beliefs and his slow response to the Great Depression, the Soup Kitchens provided the main form of sustenance for the poor, needy, unemployed and homeless
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 7: 1930s soup kitchens were initially run and funded by charitable organizations such as churches, religious groups, missions, Ladies Aid Societies, Women's Leagues and the Salvation Army. They were dependent on donations from local businesses and private individuals.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 8: The situation became so dire that in 1932 President Herbert Hoover authorized $4 million to the states to open more soup kitchens.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 9: Centers were established in any suitable halls and typically furnished with long wooden benches and seats that could seat the maximum number of people in the space available (as seen in the above picture). Others used any old furniture donated to charities.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 10: Some soup kitchens sprang up that did not have the facilities or space to serve food at tables. In these instances people lined up with their own buckets which the soups were ladled into.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 11: Women volunteered to work in the soup kitchens that served their communities, improvising cheap recipes for soups that made use of any available local products. Vegetables, boiled together in water, made up the bulk of the soups and stews that were served. As the numbers of people arriving at the kitchens increased more water had to be added to the stews and their nutrition value declined. The soups and stews were cooked in large pots, similar to those shown in the picture.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 12: Communities encouraged more fortunate people to grow "charity gardens" to supplement the supply of fresh vegetables. Some city land was also made available for "charity gardens".
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 13: The quality of the food served depended on various factors such as how big the kitchen was, the type of food that had been donated and how many people there were to feed.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 14: Most centers only opened once a day. However, larger centers were able to open three times a day, seven days a week offering food or coffee for breakfast, lunch and supper. The staple diet of the people depending on the centers was soups, stews and bread. Soups and stews were economical, almost any ingredient could be used and they were simple and easy to cook and to serve. Soups were often greasy and watery but it was all that was available.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 15: There were some variations of the food that was served. Breakfast might consist of just a hot coffee perhaps with biscuits, muffins, toast and oatmeal. Lunch consisted of soup, stews, bread or sandwiches often made with peanut butter, Supper was soups, stews and bread. If fruit was available some of the kitchens would also provide cobblers or pies. Soups were made with combinations of meat and vegetables (mostly vegetables).
Facts about the Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression for kids
Facts about the Soup Kitchens for kids
The following fact sheet continues with facts about Soup Kitchens for kids.
Facts about Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression for kids
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 16: The quality of the food served depended on various factors such as how big the kitchen was, the type of food that had been donated and how many people there were to feed.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 17: Most centers only opened once a day. However, larger centers were able to open three times a day, seven days a week offering food or coffee for breakfast, lunch and supper. The staple diet of the people depending on the centers was soups, stews and bread. Soups and stews were economical, almost any ingredient could be used and they were simple and easy to cook and to serve. Soups were often greasy and watery but it was all that was available.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 18: There were some variations of the food that was served. Breakfast might consist of just a hot coffee perhaps with biscuits, muffins, toast and oatmeal. Lunch consisted of soup, stews, bread or sandwiches often made with peanut butter, Supper was soups, stews and bread. If fruit was available some of the kitchens would also provide cobblers or pies. Soups were made with combinations of meat and vegetables (mostly vegetables).
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 19: The comfort of a hot meal was especially appreciated by the homeless. The shacks that were built in the shanty towns, called Hoovervilles, had limited cooking facilities and many could not afford food to cook. Other homeless people, especially in congested cities, created really primitive types of housing with no cooking facilities - the opposite photo shows a small site in Manhattan, New York.. For additional facts and information refer to Shantytowns and Hoovervilles.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 20: Al Capone's Soup Kitchen: The notorious gangster Al "Scarface" Capone, the wealthy, bootlegging crime boss of the Chicago Mafia sought to clean up his image by financing one of the first soup kitchens in Chicago. He earned a reputation as a 'Modern day Robin Hood' with the poor and destitute in Chicago who rightly said that Al Capone was doing more for the unemployed than the US government. As a benefactor Al Capone attracted newspaper headlines such as "120,000 meals are served by Capone Free Soup Kitchen".
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 21: Al Capone's Soup Kitchen: On Thanksgiving Day in 1930 he provided over 5000 meals in one day. His charitable donations extended to Christmas as he provided Christmas gifts for poor and needy children. His generosity and charitable works also extended to providing coal, clothes and blankets for the poor the during winter months.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 22: Al Capone's Soup Kitchen: Al Capone's Soup Kitchen was located in a store on 935 South State Street, at the corner of 9th and State Street in Chicago. It wasn't tucked out of the way, it was in prominent view to the people of Chicago, as were the lines of unemployed who waited at the storefront. Three meals were provided each day for breakfast, lunch and dinner. For additional facts and information refer to Facts about Al Capone
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 23: In the 1932 presidential election election Hoover was crushed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Democrats. Relief systems to help the needy were at last introduced in President Roosevelt's 'New Deal' that instituted the 3 R's - relief, recovery and reform and the passage of the Social Security Act.
Soup Kitchens in the Great Depression Fact 24: Over 6 million pigs were slaughtered in September 1933 to stabilize prices during the Great Depression as a result of the actions initiated by the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA). Much of the meat went to waste causing a massive public outcry. In October 1933 the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation (FSRC) was quickly created to divert agricultural commodities to relief organizations. Arrangements were made for flour, pork, apples, beans, canned beef to be distributed through local relief channels to the Soup Kitchens, the poor and the needy.