Couple Andy's story with Wendy Johnson's recent share of the forces that incentivize farmers to squeeze out as much production as possible and one sees that the current system needs a major reworking. Thanks, Beth, for being one of those who advocate for a better policy.
Beth, thanks. Yes, I agree, of course, with Arlyn’s moral case for improving our water and soil quality by reducing production. Some proposals take the pressure off of farmers by calling for reducing bushels produced, rather than acres planted (i.e. NFFC). Farmers didn’t create today’s overproduction, agribusiness and Congress, (led by Republicans,) did, by reducing and ending New Deal style farm programs to reduce farm prices so farmers would subsidize agribusiness/CAFOs, with the U.S. losing money on farm exports. (Farmers themeslves can’t rationally reduce supply.) Farmers then lost their livestock/poultry, to then lose the diversity of sustainable livestock crops, especially the low input sod crops, pasture on cropland and hay, (i.e. a reduction of 52 million acres in the Mississippi River watershed, plus 61 million acres of small grain nurse crops). There is massive evidence of farmer support for major supply reduction, for example for supply reductions that I mentioned as being twice as big as those in the 1985 farm bill. See slides 21 to 25 here, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/democratic-party-farm-programspdf/256537282. The Harkin proposals were farmer led and supported by all of the major authentic farm organizations, National Farmers Organization, American Agriculture Movement, National Farmers Union, North American Farm Alliance, and the related state alliances and organizations, including the Iowa Farm Unity Coalition. NFU, NFFC, Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment and others have current proposals. IFU should be strongly teaching this. Tens of thousands of farmers from 48 states elected well over 1,000 delegates to the United Farmer and Rancher Congress, which approved resolutions on this matter. https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Delegate%20Approved%20Resolutions.pdf
If you consider what the majority of Iowa and other farmers have repeatedly emphasized over the decades, you get a different perspective on the core question here. First, farmers have supported significant supply reduction programs, and opposed overproduction. Even the Republicans enacted reductions of about 56 million acres in 1987, as part of the 1985 farm bill. That farm bill was considered the worst in history up to that time, however, and Democrats, in the Harkin-Alexander and Harkin-Gephardt farm bill proposals that farmers had formulated called for doubling the reductions, (planted to sod crops, grass and crops like alfalfa). From this there is a second consideration: U.S. farm bills, in increasingly supporting agribusiness buyers and input sellers, and opposing what farmers wanted, reduced and ended supply reduction programs, and lowered the minimum farm price floor programs that were part of them. This created oversupply, and Republicans tended to mismanage the programs, creating even more oversupply, including during the Reagan years of the 85 farm bill. Oversupply causes cheap, below cost prices, and the US, as the dominant exporter, set global market prices lower and lower. Meanwhile, 80% and more of the global “undernourished” were rural, in need of higher incomes, especially fair farm prices. So oversupply starves the world. It doesn’t feed the world. The WTO Africa group is among many who have supported adequate market management programs, like U.S. farmers. https://znetwork.org/zblogs/wto-africa-group-with-nffc-not-ewg-by-brad-wilson/
Thanks for your comments Brad. I don’t think there is much evidence for your idea that “farmers have supported significant supply reduction.” Of course there are people who do, but as a group, they are the ones who have created overproduction by growing more on their farms. Even if the nation stored grain, as I know your promote as a solution, it would not change the fact that corn and soybeans are over produced. We simply do not need so much corn or soy to “feed the world.”
Arlyn is saying that it is morally defensible to use less inputs—less nitrogen, less chemicals—and to grow more diversity of crops, even if it means that we yield less. That is an important point I don’t think your comment addresses. He is saying that we have a moral responsibility to the public good, to the improving our water and soil quality, by growing LESS.
Couple Andy's story with Wendy Johnson's recent share of the forces that incentivize farmers to squeeze out as much production as possible and one sees that the current system needs a major reworking. Thanks, Beth, for being one of those who advocate for a better policy.
Beth, thanks. Yes, I agree, of course, with Arlyn’s moral case for improving our water and soil quality by reducing production. Some proposals take the pressure off of farmers by calling for reducing bushels produced, rather than acres planted (i.e. NFFC). Farmers didn’t create today’s overproduction, agribusiness and Congress, (led by Republicans,) did, by reducing and ending New Deal style farm programs to reduce farm prices so farmers would subsidize agribusiness/CAFOs, with the U.S. losing money on farm exports. (Farmers themeslves can’t rationally reduce supply.) Farmers then lost their livestock/poultry, to then lose the diversity of sustainable livestock crops, especially the low input sod crops, pasture on cropland and hay, (i.e. a reduction of 52 million acres in the Mississippi River watershed, plus 61 million acres of small grain nurse crops). There is massive evidence of farmer support for major supply reduction, for example for supply reductions that I mentioned as being twice as big as those in the 1985 farm bill. See slides 21 to 25 here, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/democratic-party-farm-programspdf/256537282. The Harkin proposals were farmer led and supported by all of the major authentic farm organizations, National Farmers Organization, American Agriculture Movement, National Farmers Union, North American Farm Alliance, and the related state alliances and organizations, including the Iowa Farm Unity Coalition. NFU, NFFC, Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment and others have current proposals. IFU should be strongly teaching this. Tens of thousands of farmers from 48 states elected well over 1,000 delegates to the United Farmer and Rancher Congress, which approved resolutions on this matter. https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Delegate%20Approved%20Resolutions.pdf
If you consider what the majority of Iowa and other farmers have repeatedly emphasized over the decades, you get a different perspective on the core question here. First, farmers have supported significant supply reduction programs, and opposed overproduction. Even the Republicans enacted reductions of about 56 million acres in 1987, as part of the 1985 farm bill. That farm bill was considered the worst in history up to that time, however, and Democrats, in the Harkin-Alexander and Harkin-Gephardt farm bill proposals that farmers had formulated called for doubling the reductions, (planted to sod crops, grass and crops like alfalfa). From this there is a second consideration: U.S. farm bills, in increasingly supporting agribusiness buyers and input sellers, and opposing what farmers wanted, reduced and ended supply reduction programs, and lowered the minimum farm price floor programs that were part of them. This created oversupply, and Republicans tended to mismanage the programs, creating even more oversupply, including during the Reagan years of the 85 farm bill. Oversupply causes cheap, below cost prices, and the US, as the dominant exporter, set global market prices lower and lower. Meanwhile, 80% and more of the global “undernourished” were rural, in need of higher incomes, especially fair farm prices. So oversupply starves the world. It doesn’t feed the world. The WTO Africa group is among many who have supported adequate market management programs, like U.S. farmers. https://znetwork.org/zblogs/wto-africa-group-with-nffc-not-ewg-by-brad-wilson/
Thanks for your comments Brad. I don’t think there is much evidence for your idea that “farmers have supported significant supply reduction.” Of course there are people who do, but as a group, they are the ones who have created overproduction by growing more on their farms. Even if the nation stored grain, as I know your promote as a solution, it would not change the fact that corn and soybeans are over produced. We simply do not need so much corn or soy to “feed the world.”
Arlyn is saying that it is morally defensible to use less inputs—less nitrogen, less chemicals—and to grow more diversity of crops, even if it means that we yield less. That is an important point I don’t think your comment addresses. He is saying that we have a moral responsibility to the public good, to the improving our water and soil quality, by growing LESS.
Thanks again!