PrestonSturges wrote:Keep in mind that under decades of executive orders, the President can take take over all aspects of agricultural production in case of national crisis. I'm sure someone would rather let their cows die than let the National Guard bail [sic] hay for them, but I don't think there would be a choice. Obviously it's not a solution for more than a couple seasons.
Tell me how the National Guard is going to know when to show up to bale hay. Hay is cut, fluffed, baled, and moved with mechanical equipment, generally pulled by a tractor. It does not take the National Guard; it just takes the farm family. Most hay is put up in large round bales these days with a minimum of actual physical labor. Cattle operations are generally small scale, the average cattle ranch being only 250 A, so even if that is all pasture and hay fields, you are talking about only 75 or so in the herd, and probably less.
But your input shows why government taking over agriculture would result in lower production. The bureaucrats don't know any more about operating a cattle ranch than you do, and that is where the problem lies. This is why the Soviet centrally controlled agriculture system could not even feed the Soviet population, with some of the best agricultural land in the world.
If food becomes scarce to the point that many people cannot be saved from starvation, then I fully expect that government will attempt to seize agricultural production, under the pretense of feeding the needy, but as usual those in power will keep it for themselves and their friends. Farmers need to survive too, and they certainly will not look kindly on having their production taken from them, no matter what the national emergency. Judging from my own reaction and knowing the attitude of my neighbors, I can say with some certainty that confiscation of our agricultural output would precipitate revolution.