Limitedclear wrote: futuremodal wrote: tiskilwa wrote:Many pages ago I made a comment in passing about price support to farmers. Immediately afterwards, someone (Futuremodal) seized on that comment, totally ignoring the main point of my post (which was regulation), and since then we've had 10 or so pages of talk about homesteading (yawn) and now Montana wheat (very big yawn).So I would like to apologize to everyone for mentioning the word "farmer" which started this off-topic discussion, and I promise never to mention farms, farming, wheat, or farm subsidies ever again on this Trains.com forum!!! Rookie! Thing is, you can't have a discussion about railroad regulation without mentioning the cause celebre as to why we end up with said regulation - aka captive shippers and natural monopolies. You were actually right on topic to mention agriculture, it's just that you skewed the subject by claiming a double standard of federal aid for ag vs no federal aid for railroads. That's where you screwed up, not in the mention of farms, farming, wheat, or farm subsidies..... All that spinnin' is makin' you dizzy FM. You are the one who is alleging farmers are mistreated, the rest of us recognize the power of the farm lobby and the many advantages it brings to agribusiness... Railroads, on the other hand must not only rely largely upon their own resources, but bear heavy tax burdens as well... LC
futuremodal wrote: tiskilwa wrote:Many pages ago I made a comment in passing about price support to farmers. Immediately afterwards, someone (Futuremodal) seized on that comment, totally ignoring the main point of my post (which was regulation), and since then we've had 10 or so pages of talk about homesteading (yawn) and now Montana wheat (very big yawn).So I would like to apologize to everyone for mentioning the word "farmer" which started this off-topic discussion, and I promise never to mention farms, farming, wheat, or farm subsidies ever again on this Trains.com forum!!! Rookie! Thing is, you can't have a discussion about railroad regulation without mentioning the cause celebre as to why we end up with said regulation - aka captive shippers and natural monopolies. You were actually right on topic to mention agriculture, it's just that you skewed the subject by claiming a double standard of federal aid for ag vs no federal aid for railroads. That's where you screwed up, not in the mention of farms, farming, wheat, or farm subsidies.....
tiskilwa wrote:Many pages ago I made a comment in passing about price support to farmers. Immediately afterwards, someone (Futuremodal) seized on that comment, totally ignoring the main point of my post (which was regulation), and since then we've had 10 or so pages of talk about homesteading (yawn) and now Montana wheat (very big yawn).So I would like to apologize to everyone for mentioning the word "farmer" which started this off-topic discussion, and I promise never to mention farms, farming, wheat, or farm subsidies ever again on this Trains.com forum!!!
Rookie!
Thing is, you can't have a discussion about railroad regulation without mentioning the cause celebre as to why we end up with said regulation - aka captive shippers and natural monopolies. You were actually right on topic to mention agriculture, it's just that you skewed the subject by claiming a double standard of federal aid for ag vs no federal aid for railroads. That's where you screwed up, not in the mention of farms, farming, wheat, or farm subsidies.....
All that spinnin' is makin' you dizzy FM. You are the one who is alleging farmers are mistreated, the rest of us recognize the power of the farm lobby and the many advantages it brings to agribusiness...
Railroads, on the other hand must not only rely largely upon their own resources, but bear heavy tax burdens as well...
LC
Yes, it must be quite a burden to bear - having half a dozen megacorporations granted their own regional rail fiefdoms with anti-trust exemption by the federales and frequent subsidies from the Taxpayers.
Nice work if you can get it.
solzrules wrote:Okay, maybe I'm an internet moron but what the heck does FOFLMAO mean? I can figure out the simple acronyms but this one's keeping me from sleeping at night.
Okay, maybe I'm an internet moron but what the heck does FOFLMAO mean?
I can figure out the simple acronyms but this one's keeping me from sleeping at night.
Limitedclear wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Limitedclear wrote: Haven't seen you quoting too many REAL authorities lately beyond your "Big Library" Mr. Knowitall... Of course you and your interestingly private studies of a couple of counties in the boonies proves you an expert (NOT!). And don't get me started on your alleged qualifications that change with the direction of the breeze... FOFLMAO... You never prove anything. Of course on your JOP bench, I'm sure nobody proved anything either... LOL... LC NOT! FOFLMAO LOL LC SOP ... the usual. The nice thing about my "alleged qualifications" anybody can look me up at any time. They can't do that with a 14 year old hiding behind a fake name can they? Anybody with your claimed credentials would do a lot better than to cite Ed Blysard and a Park Service on-line pamphlet in support of their "proposition" about a historical period of which a great deal of actual scholarly work has been published. That's why I happen to think your claimed credentials are bogus, and also why you hide behind a fake name -- nothing you write, and the way you write, rings with any authenticity. Nearly everyone I have known with the backgrounds you claim would have better things to do than to troll up and down internet forums just to name call and continally spout FOFLMAO and LOL like they are the only forms of communication you learned, or are learning, in high school. You're right Mikey. Spending time dealing with your worthless gab is a complete waste of my time. I'm not wasting my time fencing with you about Homesteading anymore. I'm well satisfied with the conclusions I have reached. I'm equally satisfied that you will argue endlessly about how you are correct without citation to any meaningful authority. As far as your qualifications, I'm not wasting my time although I did enjoy reading about that appeal to the Montana Supreme Court your partner did for you...LOL... Have a lovely day... LC
MichaelSol wrote: Limitedclear wrote: Haven't seen you quoting too many REAL authorities lately beyond your "Big Library" Mr. Knowitall... Of course you and your interestingly private studies of a couple of counties in the boonies proves you an expert (NOT!). And don't get me started on your alleged qualifications that change with the direction of the breeze... FOFLMAO... You never prove anything. Of course on your JOP bench, I'm sure nobody proved anything either... LOL... LC NOT! FOFLMAO LOL LC SOP ... the usual. The nice thing about my "alleged qualifications" anybody can look me up at any time. They can't do that with a 14 year old hiding behind a fake name can they? Anybody with your claimed credentials would do a lot better than to cite Ed Blysard and a Park Service on-line pamphlet in support of their "proposition" about a historical period of which a great deal of actual scholarly work has been published. That's why I happen to think your claimed credentials are bogus, and also why you hide behind a fake name -- nothing you write, and the way you write, rings with any authenticity. Nearly everyone I have known with the backgrounds you claim would have better things to do than to troll up and down internet forums just to name call and continally spout FOFLMAO and LOL like they are the only forms of communication you learned, or are learning, in high school.
Limitedclear wrote: Haven't seen you quoting too many REAL authorities lately beyond your "Big Library" Mr. Knowitall... Of course you and your interestingly private studies of a couple of counties in the boonies proves you an expert (NOT!). And don't get me started on your alleged qualifications that change with the direction of the breeze... FOFLMAO... You never prove anything. Of course on your JOP bench, I'm sure nobody proved anything either... LOL... LC
Haven't seen you quoting too many REAL authorities lately beyond your "Big Library" Mr. Knowitall...
Of course you and your interestingly private studies of a couple of counties in the boonies proves you an expert (NOT!). And don't get me started on your alleged qualifications that change with the direction of the breeze...
FOFLMAO...
You never prove anything. Of course on your JOP bench, I'm sure nobody proved anything either...
LOL...
NOT!
FOFLMAO
LOL
SOP ... the usual. The nice thing about my "alleged qualifications" anybody can look me up at any time. They can't do that with a 14 year old hiding behind a fake name can they?
Anybody with your claimed credentials would do a lot better than to cite Ed Blysard and a Park Service on-line pamphlet in support of their "proposition" about a historical period of which a great deal of actual scholarly work has been published. That's why I happen to think your claimed credentials are bogus, and also why you hide behind a fake name -- nothing you write, and the way you write, rings with any authenticity.
Nearly everyone I have known with the backgrounds you claim would have better things to do than to troll up and down internet forums just to name call and continally spout FOFLMAO and LOL like they are the only forms of communication you learned, or are learning, in high school.
You're right Mikey. Spending time dealing with your worthless gab is a complete waste of my time. I'm not wasting my time fencing with you about Homesteading anymore. I'm well satisfied with the conclusions I have reached. I'm equally satisfied that you will argue endlessly about how you are correct without citation to any meaningful authority. As far as your qualifications, I'm not wasting my time although I did enjoy reading about that appeal to the Montana Supreme Court your partner did for you...LOL...
Have a lovely day...
Limitedclear wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Limitedclear wrote: Haven't seen you quoting too many REAL authorities lately beyond your "Big Library" Mr. Knowitall... Of course you and your interestingly private studies of a couple of counties in the boonies proves you an expert (NOT!). And don't get me started on your alleged qualifications that change with the direction of the breeze... FOFLMAO... You never prove anything. Of course on your JOP bench, I'm sure nobody proved anything either... LOL... LC NOT! FOFLMAO LOL LC SOP ... the usual. The nice thing about my "alleged qualifications" anybody can look me up at any time. They can't do that with a 14 year old hiding behind a fake name can they? Anybody with your claimed credentials would do a lot better than to cite Ed Blysard and a Park Service on-line pamphlet in support of their "proposition" about a historical period of which a great deal of actual scholarly work has been published. That's why I happen to think your claimed credentials are bogus, and also why you hide behind a fake name -- nothing you write, and the way you write, rings with any authenticity. Nearly everyone I have known with the backgrounds you claim would have better things to do than to troll up and down internet forums just to name call and continally spout FOFLMAO and LOL like they are the only forms of communication you learned, or are learning, in high school. You're right Mikey. Spending time dealing with your worthless gab is a complete waste of my time. I'm not wasting my time fencing with you about Homesteading anymore. I'm well satisfied with the conclusions I have reached.
You're right Mikey. Spending time dealing with your worthless gab is a complete waste of my time. I'm not wasting my time fencing with you about Homesteading anymore. I'm well satisfied with the conclusions I have reached.
Of course you are.
MichaelSol wrote: Limitedclear wrote: It's easy to criticize sources for no good reason. You would know. You haven't told me that any of the quotes I have presented are inaccurate statements of the statute or of the authorities. The "authorities"? Ed Blysard? Ha! You only disagree with my position as to the facts, without offering any substantial argument in your favor Mikey. So, as usual you have no contrary law, no contrary facts and are once again just pounding on the table. Why don't you just spare us the blather.. Two points: detailed examination of a homesteaded county that shows homestead land was ultimately purchased, rather than "proven" and scholarly study of the larger era that shows that the railroads, by and large, vitiated any positive effects that the Homestead Act might have achieved by the terms of their own grants, and by the actual results of homesteading -- which showed little actual "proved" homesteading in good agricultural areas -- as well as a profoundly high failure rate where they did establish -- no doubt due to the lower quality of the land and the lack of credit. Don't know what you "proved" Curly Joe.
Limitedclear wrote: It's easy to criticize sources for no good reason.
It's easy to criticize sources for no good reason.
You would know.
You haven't told me that any of the quotes I have presented are inaccurate statements of the statute or of the authorities.
The "authorities"? Ed Blysard? Ha!
You only disagree with my position as to the facts, without offering any substantial argument in your favor Mikey. So, as usual you have no contrary law, no contrary facts and are once again just pounding on the table. Why don't you just spare us the blather..
Two points: detailed examination of a homesteaded county that shows homestead land was ultimately purchased, rather than "proven" and scholarly study of the larger era that shows that the railroads, by and large, vitiated any positive effects that the Homestead Act might have achieved by the terms of their own grants, and by the actual results of homesteading -- which showed little actual "proved" homesteading in good agricultural areas -- as well as a profoundly high failure rate where they did establish -- no doubt due to the lower quality of the land and the lack of credit.
Don't know what you "proved" Curly Joe.
TimChgo9 wrote: Okay, and we will hold you to it..... While we are at it don't mention: DM&E, "Open Access", Global Warming, or "Piggy back vs Container" either, and I think we will be okay....
Okay, and we will hold you to it.....
While we are at it don't mention: DM&E, "Open Access", Global Warming, or "Piggy back vs Container" either, and I think we will be okay....
Better add "subsidy" and "paper barrier" to the list...lol...
jeaton wrote:Oh, I thought those numbers on receipts per acre were to the farmer. After all, this is a discussion on the economics of growing wheat in Montana vs. other areas. If those numbers don't show money to the farmer, what is the relavance?
Jeaton: There is no rational free market economic justification for growing crops on this land. The soil is poor, the climate is iffy, it is geographicly the most remote from markets, the volume of the product produced is insufficient to support the most economic or cost effective methods of rail transport, and the potentially cheaper option of water transport is not there. If it were not for federal government subsidies, there would be either no or substantially less Montana land in grain crops.
There is no rational free market economic justification for growing crops on this land. The soil is poor, the climate is iffy, it is geographicly the most remote from markets, the volume of the product produced is insufficient to support the most economic or cost effective methods of rail transport, and the potentially cheaper option of water transport is not there. If it were not for federal government subsidies, there would be either no or substantially less Montana land in grain crops.
What is your point?
MichaelSol wrote:I might suggest that anyone interested in the Homestead Act and its implications, go to a source other than "Ed" and LC's online Park Service pamphlets. The quality of those arguments offered is equal to those offering them.A better source showing that most Western lands were auctioned or sold, and the Homesteading through "proving" was a minor aspect in the settling of the West, and mostly a failure, would be Paul Wallace Gates, “The Homestead Law in an Incongruous Land System," The American Historical Review (July, 1936), p. 662-681.Gates was the "dean" of American historians on homesteading, having published, among other extensive works, The Illinois Central Railroad and It's Colonization Work (1934) , Fifty Million Acres (1954), Landlord and Tenants on the Prairie Frontier (1973).Aside from the general economic unliklihood of a homesteader going five long years without a credit source in order to get his "free" land, you will quickly see that the "Blysard -- LC --Diehl" school of history is unaccredited through a more general lack of competence on the subject matter. Not that that ever stops them ...An excerpt from "The Homestead Law ...":"It was not entirely necessary, however, for speculators to resort to these illegal and fraudulent means of acquiring land since Congress proceeded to aid their schemes by enacting a series of laws which went far toward vitiating the principle of land for the landless. By continuing after 1862 the policy of granting land to railroads to encourage their construction, Congress from the outset struck a severe blow at the principle of free homesteads. In the eight years after the passage of the Homestead Law five times as much land was granted to railroads as had been given in the twelve preceding years. Such imperial generosity was at the expense of future homesteaders who must purchase the land. As it was necessary to withdraw all lands from entry in the regions through which such roads were projected to prevent speculators from anticipating the railroads in making selections of land, and as the routes were rarely definitely established when the grants were made, more than double this amount of land was withdrawn from entry and remainded unavailable for settlement for a long period of years."The railroads were, of course, built through undeveloped regions and, other things being equal, routes were selected which would ensure to the companies the largest among of what was then considered to be the best agricultural land. When the alternate government sections were finally restored to market, settlers were frequently outbid for them by speculators, Moreover, the provision in the Homestead Law which confined the homesteader to eighty acres within the limits of a railroad grant was sufficient to send many homeseekers father afield. On the railroad sections, of course, no free homesteading was permitted and thus the prospective settler found it necessary to go far from transportation facilities in order to take advantage of the government’s bounty."
It's easy to criticize sources for no good reason. You haven't told me that any of the quotes I have presented are inaccurate statements of the statute or of the authorities. You only disagree with my position as to the facts, without offering any substantial argument in your favor Mikey. So, as usual you have no contrary law, no contrary facts and are once again just pounding on the table. Why don't you just spare us the blather...
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeaton wrote: And so the adoption or development of superior varieties of red wheat is exclusively within the state of Montana?
And so the adoption or development of superior varieties of red wheat is exclusively within the state of Montana?
No, the price per bushel is the average cost over all varieties. Durum and winter have nothing to do with a superior variety of spring, or vice versa, and which anybody can buy. And it surely had nothing to do with those 1910 figures, does it?
Where it is grown -- precip, humidity, soil type, wheat variety -- affects milling qualities. Same variety different places, different milling qualities. Much like coal -- different source, different qualities.
I think I'll stick with higher yield for the long run.
This is the reducto ad absurdum of production vs. revenue. Of course you would, even if it resulted in lower revenues, because this is a Trains forum where rational economics is not the controlling factor.
Very interesting. I have been under the impression that Montana wheat farmers were being financially devasted by the railroad transportation rates. Looks to me like growers in other locations would like your problems.
I am simply amazed that allegedly experienced people do not look at price. Is revenue per acre different than production of bushels per acre? Absolutely. Jay wishes to produce more bushels, not earn more revenue.
To me, "Bizarre".
Revenue per acre:
2001
1. North Dakota $90
2. Kansas $108
3. Montana $126
4. Oklahoma $90
5. South Dakota $105
2002
1. North Dakota $104
2. Kansas $113
3. Montana $141
4. Oklahoma $94
5. South Dakota $101
2003
1. North Dakota $135
2. Kansas $151
3. Montana $165
4. Oklahoma $129
5. South Dakota $146
2004
1. North Dakota $134
2. Kansas $120
3. Montana $156
4. Oklahoma $116
5. South Dakota $155
2005
1. North Dakota $122
2. Kansas $132
3. Montana $151
4. Oklahoma $107
5. South Dakota $150
Five year average revenue return, per acre, all wheat
1. North Dakota $117
2. Kansas $125
3. Montana $148
5. South Dakota $131
If you want to add Nebraska, a pretty good size wheat grower, the five year average per acre is $123, compared to Montana's $148.
Price per bushel, 2001
1. North Dakota $2.79
2. Kansas $2.69
3. Montana $3.14
4. Oklahoma $2.72
5. South Dakota $2.78
1. North Dakota $3.80
2. Kansas $3.41
3. Montana $4.04
4. Oklahoma $3.37
5. South Dakota $3.81
etc.
Revenue per acre, 2001-2005
This is because revenue is a function of price, not just production.
This followed a general historical trend. Milwaukee Road estimated that a settler in North Dakota was worth $250 in new traffic to the Railroad, annually, but a settler in Montana was worth $350 annually. [ Railway Age Magazine, May 30, 1925, 78:1330]. Notwithstanding that it was drier, it was more productive, oddly enough, apparently due to poor soils and a poor climate according to some astute commentators.
Yet, someone will say this:
There is no rational free market economic justification for growing crops on this land.
How can anyone talk about free market justifications, but not take into account "price"?
jeaton wrote: My views on farming conditions in Montana were partly based on the anecdotal information in my post, but I had previously looked at wheat yields for more recent years. From USDA/NASS reports. Four year average yield per acre, all wheat, 2002 through 2005. North Dakota 34.6 South Dakota 39.1 Nebraska 38.8 Kansas 39.5 Wisconsin 60.1 Minnesota 46.9 Iowa 54.8 Montana 30.5 In 2002, 03 and 04 Montana had the lowest yield of all the states on the list and in 2005 was second from last with 36.8 bushels per acre to North Dakota's 34.4. If I had to, I'd still rather farm somewhere else.
My views on farming conditions in Montana were partly based on the anecdotal information in my post, but I had previously looked at wheat yields for more recent years.
From USDA/NASS reports.
Four year average yield per acre, all wheat, 2002 through 2005.
In 2002, 03 and 04 Montana had the lowest yield of all the states on the list and in 2005 was second from last with 36.8 bushels per acre to North Dakota's 34.4.
If I had to, I'd still rather farm somewhere else.
You're not getting it.
Price -- the value the buyer pays for the product -- is the key. Montana wheat commands a higher price per bushel because of the nature of the soil and climate.
You would rather farm elsewhere, and earn less per acre?
Whew!
You are not looking at price.
From AgLink, Spring, 2001:
Montana wheats ranked best by buyers
A recent report of a 1999 international study ranked wheat grown by Montana farmers better than any others tested. The Overseas Varietal Analysis Project, organized by U.S. Wheat Associates, asked commercial buyers from Asian countries to assess eight hard red spring wheats and nine hard red winter wheats. Buyers in the test made whatever products they normally would from the wheat, including noodles, steam bread or loaves of bread.
“McNeal appears to be the variety that is preferred, most probably because of its mixing properties coupled with a high (water) absorption,” said the summary of the spring wheat project written by scientists at North Dakota State University.
n012944 wrote: MichaelSol wrote:Oh yes, Jay was right on one thing, the climate is "iffy" -- 2005 was a drought year in Montana. Really? Is that why in 2005 Montana had the largest wheat harvest in the last 5 years? http://wbc.agr.mt.gov/Buyers_Processors/Production_reports/topwheat_states.pdf Bert
MichaelSol wrote:Oh yes, Jay was right on one thing, the climate is "iffy" -- 2005 was a drought year in Montana.
Really? Is that why in 2005 Montana had the largest wheat harvest in the last 5 years?
http://wbc.agr.mt.gov/Buyers_Processors/Production_reports/topwheat_states.pdf
Bert
As a matter of fact, yes.
Growers shifted to winter wheat from spring wheat. Even at that, for durum wheat,
"Average yields fell from 33 bushels an acre a year ago to 28 bushels an acre, according to the [USDA], which cited wind, heat and lack of moisture among the reasons."
"Given last fall's seeding conditions, many farmers opted to put in winter wheat instead of waiting to plant spring wheat, he said," and planted more acreage of it, leading to an overall higher wheat crop.
Becky Bohrer, Associated Press, September 30, 2005.
Winter was harvested on 2,100,000 acres, compared to an average of roughly 1,200,000 acres for the preceding 5 years. Spring fell from an average of roughly 3,300,000 acres to 2,550,000 acres.
Winter wheat yields were at 45 bu/acre, but only brought $3.51 per bushel. Spring wheat yielded 32 bu/acre, but brought $3.80. Spring wheat usually brings more than winter, so the shift to winter brought an economic penalty of sorts. Durum, which got killed by the drought, generally brings between $3.80 and $4.50/bu.
The crop increased substantially, the economic value per bushel declined. The Montana figures represented in my prior post, on a per acre basis, represented the effects of lower prices as a result of the switch to winter wheat from higher priced durum and spring.
Yes, the economic return was lower as a result of drought effects.
Notwithstanding drought conditions, Montana still yielded a greater economic return per acre that the other top three states. It is just terrible how poor the soils are and how an iffy climate conspired to make it all uneconomical, no matter what....
An "expensive model collector"
edblysard wrote:The only year he could find the numbers that support his position.
Murphy Siding wrote: MichaelSol wrote: jeaton wrote: There is no rational free market economic justification for growing crops on this land. The soil is poor, the climate is iffy, it is geographicly the most remote from markets, the volume of the product produced is insufficient to support the most economic or cost effective methods of rail transport, and the potentially cheaper option of water transport is not there. If it were not for federal government subsidies, there would be either no or substantially less Montana land in grain crops. This is just bizarre.Here are the production numbers 1910, from the United States Department of Agriculture, Yearbook of Agriculture, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911, p.532. State Average Bushel Production North Dakota 12.1 South Dakota 12.1 Nebraska 17.5 Kansas 14.0 Wisconsin 16.6 Minnesota 13.0 Iowa 14.0 Montana 26.3The soil is among the richest in the country, and produces the highest protein content wheat. It is specifically the wheat preferred by Japanese and Korean purchasers. Relative to the export port and destination, Montana wheat is the most advantageously situated of nearly all grain products.Montana wheat farmers get nothing in federal subsidies compared to Texas cotton farmers at $230 an acre.Not that it matters, because facts don't matter to the gentlemen involved. 1910?
MichaelSol wrote: jeaton wrote: There is no rational free market economic justification for growing crops on this land. The soil is poor, the climate is iffy, it is geographicly the most remote from markets, the volume of the product produced is insufficient to support the most economic or cost effective methods of rail transport, and the potentially cheaper option of water transport is not there. If it were not for federal government subsidies, there would be either no or substantially less Montana land in grain crops. This is just bizarre.Here are the production numbers 1910, from the United States Department of Agriculture, Yearbook of Agriculture, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911, p.532. State Average Bushel Production North Dakota 12.1 South Dakota 12.1 Nebraska 17.5 Kansas 14.0 Wisconsin 16.6 Minnesota 13.0 Iowa 14.0 Montana 26.3The soil is among the richest in the country, and produces the highest protein content wheat. It is specifically the wheat preferred by Japanese and Korean purchasers. Relative to the export port and destination, Montana wheat is the most advantageously situated of nearly all grain products.Montana wheat farmers get nothing in federal subsidies compared to Texas cotton farmers at $230 an acre.Not that it matters, because facts don't matter to the gentlemen involved.
jeaton wrote: There is no rational free market economic justification for growing crops on this land. The soil is poor, the climate is iffy, it is geographicly the most remote from markets, the volume of the product produced is insufficient to support the most economic or cost effective methods of rail transport, and the potentially cheaper option of water transport is not there. If it were not for federal government subsidies, there would be either no or substantially less Montana land in grain crops.
1910?
23 17 46 11
Murphy Siding wrote: 1910?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.