Seriously, WTF is California Doing?

[smockers83]

State representatives don't watch TV?

If I were a representative, every commercial I saw that advertised something explicitly in another state, I would get upset because it would take money out of my own state. On the contrary, if there was some deal made, then who knows.

Noted.

[audtatious]

Guys, if they don't show it then stupid bumpkin rednecks like those in the red states won't know what they are missing.

[DJ Raijin]

Guys, if they don't show it then stupid bumpkin rednecks like those in the red states won't know what they are missing.

We have plenty of fresh dairy products here in rural Pennsylvania. There's about 3 major milk producers in this area, all of them have fine products that keep for over a month. This is a largely agricultural area with countless dairy farms. Galliker's for example, has the best milk I've tasted anywhere and I've lived all over from here around the Mason-Dixon line to southern Georgia/northern Florida. I have never seen a Galliker's commercial anywhere.

Yet I see these stupid a** cows on my tv. I barely consider Califailnia a part of the United States. It's a TRUE Red State (Hammer & Sickle style) and as such I will not give them my money just because they make some "cute cow commercials".

Why should I? There's plenty of local producers to support here and they do just fine for themselves. California has a much larger population density than Pennsylvania too, and as such, should be able to yield much larger gains for their agricultural sect.

So why do they feel the need to reach out to other states on the other side of the nation to peddle their product? I'd rather see another FreeCreditReport(dot)com commercial than those stupid heifers.

[C-Kwik]

California farmers have their irrigation subsidized so much so that it's essentially free. Without this free irrigation, California wouldn't be nearly as arable as it is, which is a huge waste of resources. It's a huge waste of water and a waste of money. All the s*** that's grown (and milk) in California can be grown much cheaper elsewhere in the country. In fact, it already is. California is trying to become the breadbasket and dairy capital of the country. Why?

CA is already the dairy capital. CA provides some 21.7% of the nation's milk while WI is second at only 12.9% according to the CA department of Food and Agriculture. Or to put it into abigger perspective, that's 41 Billion gallons of milk produced in CA vs WI's 24 Billion.

Secondly, only 14.3% of CA milk is utilized as a liquid. The largest utilization is for cheese, butter and dry milk at 77%. So when you think about milk products, you can't limit it to the liquid milk. I doubt much liquid milk from CA will be making it that far from CA. Most states have some level of milk production. The question is where does it all go? It would seem to me that much of it goes into processed foods. Most of this can be shipped anywhere.

That's fine if they can produce good milk. That's not my argument nor my issue. My issue is the heavy subsidization involved while they are in budget crisis and they're wasting money advertising it.

Try comparing the amount of subsidies for dairy between California and Wisconsin:

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progd...&page=

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progd...&page=

Cliff notes - California dairy received almost 287 million in subsidies between 1995-2006. Wisconsin's dairy subsidies are about 729 million for the same years.

One would think the production would be somewhat proportional to the subsidies. While it would seem to not make sense advertising it, it would seem to me that 41 billion gallons of milk can be a great source of income for the state's government. Not sure who is actually funding the commercials, but even if they can't make money, reducing the need for subsidies is just as important.

We have plenty of fresh dairy products here in rural Pennsylvania. There's about 3 major milk producers in this area, all of them have fine products that keep for over a month. This is a largely agricultural area with countless dairy farms. Galliker's for example, has the best milk I've tasted anywhere and I've lived all over from here around the Mason-Dixon line to southern Georgia/northern Florida. I have never seen a Galliker's commercial anywhere.

I'm not sure I'd be so confident about your state's dairy. They produce substantially less milk than California and have received more subsidies between 1995 and 2006; $302 Million:

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progd...&page=

Keep in mind, this isn't about what state is better. I doubt the dairy industry is simple enough to make any direct correlations from the stats I posted. But to make the inference that CA is doing things wrong simply because they are airing commercials in your state has a large number of fallacies. Especially without providing evidence or logical reasoning based on facts to support it.

[smockers83]

Please reread my original post. You are mixing and matching my statements.

I said I was sick of the commercials. There is no logic behind hatred.

To the mixing and matching. California is #10 in the Union in the farm subsidies it receives. Wisconsin, #15, has received $2 billion less than CA over the time period the website uses. I'm not divying it up between dairy, corn, rye, pigs, chickens, what have you. I said I hated the commercials and I said they are heavily subsidizing farms in CA. What I didn't say was dairy farms.

[C-Kwik]

Please reread my original post. You are mixing and matching my statements.

Its not mixing and matching. I merely quoted poor arguments you made and provided counter-arguments to those specific points.

I said I was sick of the commercials. There is no logic behind hatred.

Sure. But you tried to use reasoning to support/justify your hatred. I simply called you on it.

To the mixing and matching. California is #10 in the Union in the farm subsidies it receives. Wisconsin, #15, has received $2 billion less than CA over the time period the website uses. I'm not divying it up between dairy, corn, rye, pigs, chickens, what have you. I said I hated the commercials and I said they are heavily subsidizing farms in CA. What I didn't say was dairy farms.

No, you didn't say dairy farms. But since that was what the topic was about, that is what I focused on. BUT, if you'ld like to view it in a more macro aspect, consider that CA made up 13% of the nation's farm income in 2004. That's nearly $32 Billion. As far as I can tell, the next highest was TX as a little more than $15 Billion.

http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/ab...2.php

But what is more important is the percentage of farm income that is subsidized. For California, they subsidized 1.4 cents for every dollar of farm income in 2004. Wisconsin, since we were discussing that state already, was at 4.2 cents per dollar made. To put both in perspective, in 2004, Iowa had the highest subsidy in agriculture. But its farm income was such that it subsidized 8.5% for every dollar made. I don't know if Iowa is ranked highest in this regard (I can't find a specific statistic for this and I don't want to calculate it all myself), but considering it received the most subsidy in 2004, it is quite a cause for concern. CA should be the last of yours at this point. Hate on CA all you want. I don't care. But not for this reason.

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progd...tates

*Note: I used 2004 statistics as that is what I could locate.in a relatively quick search*