SATURDAY NIGHT AT THE WESTERNER

Hearts, candy, flowers... and chicken feathers

By Julie Carter

Saddle up boys, here it comes again. Valentine's Day is just around the corner. Commercialism has painted the world with red and pink hearts and accented it with chocolate.

Some will attest to the theory that Valentine's Day was invented as a clever ploy to stimulate the economy in an otherwise financially sluggish time of year. Greeting card companies, florists, jewelers and chocolate manufacturers who flourish because of the promotion would have to agree.

Valentine's Day advertisements, even locally in a rural part of the world, promise evenings of lasting romance and adoration if you will just come dine with them for only $175 a couple. I don't believe too many pickup trucks will be leaving the ranch for that offer.

There will be some "romantic" gestures made out there on the range. It may not be wine and roses but a cowboy on a Valentine's Day date will offer his heart's delight a romantic late night walk through the frosty pastures for a "just once more" check of the heifers. After all, it is calving season.

I know a gal who books her husband and herself into the dentist for a teeth cleaning every Valentine's Day. "Nothing says 'I love you' like a plaque-less kiss," she claims.

But this year's top story demonstrating "true love" in the best way they know how comes from a local ranch. Recently the rancher left home in the morning as usual to go make his rounds feeding cattle and checking waters.

Millie, the Border collie, was pleased he was going alone because that meant she got to sit up front and ride shotgun in the feed pickup.

Quite a distance into the feed route and miles from the house, the rancher happened to catch a glimpse of something in his rear view mirror. He stopped the pickup and walked to the rear only to find one of his wife's beloved chickens on the back of flatbed pickup.

At this point in time, this man had many options before him, none of which would have been good for the chicken. Most men would have, at the very minimum, denied all knowledge of ever seeing the hen and more than likely left her in the pasture to the natural order of the food chain in the wild. Chickens usually rank pretty low on the compassion scale for most.

But knowing how much his wife adored her birds of all kinds and especially her hand-raised chickens; he gathered the hen up and put her in the front of the pickup on the seat between Millie and himself.

Millie was indignant and completely insulted. She turned her head, nose in the air, and stared out the passenger window the remainder of the trip trying her best to pretend there was NOT a chicken in the seat next to her.

The rancher finished his feed route and returned home a few hours later, the hen nestled tight against him for warmth.

The sight had to be one of those rare moments that none of us actually ever see. The visual of this guy driving down the road with his dog and his wife's chicken in the front seat of the pickup is enough to put anyone into fits of laughter.

It also makes a good "true love" story. Not many, chicken lovers or not, will miss the depth of the affection it took to agree to cozy up to a chicken, even for the little woman.

© Julie Carter 2006

Golden eggs

by Larry Gabriel

Some people think the "farm subsidy program" is the goose that lays golden eggs for farmers.

I certainly won't dispute that Congress knows how to lay an egg, and sometimes they are golden, but the gold is not going into the pocket of the farmers.

The government says the money goes to "the farm" as that is listed in their data base. However, a 5,000-member cooperative can be listed as a single recipient in that data base. USDA says they are fixing that.

The first line of a recent Associated Press news story said, "Federal subsidies for farmers in Minnesota jumped 35 percent last year to nearly $1 billion..."

Does that sound like Minnesota farmers pocketed a billion dollars from the government? Sure it does, but the farmers really don't get to keep that money. They are just a conduit.

Most of that money ends up in someone else's pocket when the farmer buys livestock, seed, fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, machinery, repairs, rentals and labor.

In South Dakota about 85-87 cents out of every dollar received by farmers (including government subsidies) goes for operating costs.

So, of all the subsidy money said to be "for farmers", the farmers might get to keep 15%. One might just as well say this is a subsidy "for the local REA", or "for the bankers", or "for the oil companies", or "for the equipment manufactures" as to say "for the farmers".

The $4 billion South Dakota farmers spend annually on production goes for this: $336 million on feed, $337 million on livestock, $289 million for seed, $240 million for fertilizer and lime, $199 million on pesticides, $168 million on fuel, $100 million on electricity, $269 million on repairs, $294 million in interest, $124 million for labor, $363 million to landlords, $222 million in property taxes, $430 for capitol investments and the rest for miscellaneous costs.

If this subsidy were called a "rural America subsidy", that would be far more accurate than calling it a "farm subsidy" or "subsidy for farmers".

As it is now, the press just keeps saying these farmers are getting all this money and a few people at the top are getting most of the money. Those things are simply not true. The farmers whose names are being published on the internet get only a small portion of that money, and the biggest "farmer recipient" is in some states a cooperative with thousands of members.

The support industries, equipment dealers, fuel distributors and the local county commissioners who impose property taxes do not have their names posted in the "farm subsidy" database. The farmer getting 15% takes the political heat for all of them.

I have written on government subsidies before. I am not a big fan of government subsidies, but let’s be fair about it.

Larry Gabriel is the South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture