BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Kathryn Kerby <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:26:30 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
Most of the USDA's programs and funding allocations are driven by the ag statistics for that county, crop, specialty and/or region.  So for instance, if the USDA had $100,000 to spend on bees nationally (just making up a number), and surveys like this indicated that 90% of the nation's beekeepers are located in OutOfTheWay Junction, Missouri, then $90,000 of that funding would go towards bee programs for that location, and the entire rest of the country would have to fight over the other $10,000.  That's a severely simplistic response, but you get the idea.  

One of the problems with modern small-scale ag is that the USDA simply doesn't have good data on who's doing what and where.  For instance, it's easy to figure out the big players in any given specialty, where they are, and what they're doing, simply because their sheer size makes them stand out.  But if the USDA wants to provide support for the little guys, they have to figure out where they are first.  I know that a lot of part-time farmers and even a sizeable percentage of smaller full-time operations really hesitate to provide data for these surveys.  They're concerned that Big Brother is going to find a reason to shut them down.  Sadly, that lack of response is interpreted by the USDA as "no activity in that area any more", which leads to long-standing programs and offices being shut down in areas that are still very active.  In our own area, the large-scale commercial operations have dropped off in number dramatically, but the actual numbers of acres in production and livestock populations have actually gone up.  The difference is that instead of 5 big players, now we have 2000 little players.  When those 2000 don't fill out the survey, the USDA only sees the losses at the big player level, and is forced to conclude that ag must simply have given way to suburbia.

So filling out the survey is one very powerful way to ensure that USDA dollars still flow into ag areas, and programs for any given area's specialties are still available.  Easier said than done when folks are generally suspicious of anyone asking questions about their operation.  We're guilty of not filling out that survey in past years, because we simply didn't think it was anyone's business what we were doing.  But after seeing several local offices closing down, supposedly for lack of ag interest in the area, yea we'll be filling out the next one.
Kathryn Kerby
Frogchorusfarm.com
Snohomish, WA

-----Original Message-----
From: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geo How
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 11:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BEE-L] USDA/NASS Inquiry

 
My question on this is what/why do they care about the cost of either??  What possible value could that provide?


             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
  

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2