These three interventions were intended to be temporary until the country came out of the economic crisis. But the Great Depression gave way to World War II, and the country still needed its agricultural sector performing, so the supports were extended. Then came the rebuilding of Europe and the Korean War, and eventually the New Deal became an accepted part of Farm Bill policy.
THE FARM BILL
Essentially, the goal of the Farm Bill is to ensure a reliable and safe food supply for the nation. It has typically been divided into three parts: supplemental nutrition (about 70 percent of the funding); income/price supports for commodity crops (about 20 percent of the funding); and conservation incentives (about 5 percent of the funding). Supplemental nutrition tends to be a concern for the more urban states while the price supports are a concern for rural states. Subsidies have always been a hot button issue, so let’s look at a few of the facts before entering a discussion.
Typically, farm subsidies account for about 3–5 percent of the federal budget. Sixty percent of all farmers receive no subsidies. The top 1 percent of all farms received 20 percent of the subsidies. The top 15 percent receive 50 percent. Ten states received 66 percent of the subsidies yet produced only 33 percent of ag GDP. California, tops in ag production of all the states, received 10 percent of subsidies. Cotton has, by far, been the most subsidized of all crops.
Clearly there have been inequities in the distribution of subsidies, which adds to the controversy. Beginning in 1996, Farm Bills have increasingly attempted to eliminate subsidies and replace them with crop insurance. With crop insurance, the farmer receives payments for losses due either to nature or adverse market conditions. The 2014 farm bill has eliminated direct payment subsides (i.e., paying farmers not to farm), but some critics feel various crop insurances look similar to the direct payment subsidies in the way they are structured.
Farm Bills are some of the most complicated pieces of policymaking our government engages in, with very big consequences on the economic health of the nation. As citizens, we want to pay attention to this legislation as it’s being enacted.
THE GREEN REVOLUTION
The Green Revolution is a term generally referring to a dramatic increase in agricultural productivity that occurred from 1950 to 1970. According to David Danborn, the increase was the result of technological innovation across three broad areas: plant and livestock breeding; mechanization; and synthetic chemicals. While these innovations peaked in the second half of the century, they begin at the turn of the century and continue to this day.
The term Green Revolution originated as a geopolitical manifesto to develop plant varieties that would assist Third World countries in achieving agricultural self-sufficiency. The work of Norman Borlaug, winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, is a prime example of this use of the term. Beginning in the 1940s, Borlaug developed wheat varieties in Mexico that would raise the nutritional standards of millions of starving farmers in Africa and India. However, his wheat also improved production in First World countries, leading to the broadening of the term Green Revolution to mean any significant increase in agriculture as a result of a scientific approach.
For corn, this began in 1926 when Henry Wallace developed the first closed pollinated corn hybrid that increased corn production by 20 percent. To stay competitive, farmers had to buy the hybrid, and they had to return every year to buy it since it can’t reproduce naturally. Thus began an industry that led to GMOs and seed and gene patents. Livestock followed a similar pattern, most notably with artificial insemination, which greatly increased the advantages of selective breeding. Milk production doubled in the second half of the twentieth century due to selective breeding. This has had profound implications as concerns arise about intellectual property rights and the long-term consequences of injecting synthetic or altered substances into natural systems.
Mechanization also saw dramatic increases in the latter part of the twentieth century. While cars were well established in the American landscape by 1920, tractors did not find acceptance. Largely, this was because pull-behind farming implements had to be raised and lowered at every turn in the field, proving unwieldy compared to horses, and they were tied to the speed of the tractor. In 1926, the addition of the power take-off (PTO) to the tractor allowed machinery to operate at the speed of the engine rather than the speed of the tractor, greatly improving the utility of tractors. Unfortunately, the improvement came as farmers were facing severe capital restrictions from the Depression, delaying the roll out of tractors. In 1939, there were still only two tractors for every nine farmers. By 1970, there were 1.6 tractors for every farmer. Perhaps the greatest leap forward in labor-saving machinery was the self-propelled combine, introduced in 1948.
The down-side to mechanization is that farmers became increasingly dependent on fossil fuels to the point that fossil fuels are now essential for the nation’s food supply. Fossil fuel is not only critical for mechanization, it also is vital to the third area: synthetic chemicals. Of the three nutrients necessary for plant production (phosphate, potassium, and nitrogen), nitrogen is most critical and most easily leached from soils by rain, meaning it needs to be supplemented. In 1909 in Germany, Fritz Haber produced the first synthetic nitrogen using methane derived from natural gas. In 1943, America began its first large scale commercial production of ammonia nitrate in Muscle Shoals. Today, synthetic fertilizers are abundant and cheap, freeing the farmer from the slow composting process in organic fertilizer. This has greatly increased crop yields, but at a cost to the environment, upsetting the pH of fragile ecosystems.
Another production benefit of the synthetic chemical industry has been the introduction of potent herbicides and pesticides. Insecticides were introduced in WWII to relieve soldiers of irritation from lice and mosquitoes. They were used heavily on farms after the war, resulting in considerable health and environmental damage. Some insecticides have simply been eliminated as too detrimental, but others remain an indispensable part of high-production farming, which attempts to manage the risks these poisons always pose. Herbicides are even more necessary for their labor-saving advantages, but they are just as problematic and their use should always be judicious, if at all.
Finally, the use of antibiotics and steroids has led to some of the most dramatic improvements in production from the chemical industry. They may yet prove to be some of the most destructive as well. They are currently under intense scrutiny from the scientific community, but initial findings suggest extreme caution, if not total elimination, of their prophylactic use in farming.
COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA) AND THE ORGANIC MOVEMENT
A CSA is a group of subscribers who pay an up-front fee to share in a farmer’s harvest, usually of produce. In its simplest form, it is seed money and crop insurance for small farmers. The farmer receives money for the planting and is guaranteed that a certain percentage of the crop will sell. The subscribers are sharing in the risk of farming, but are likely to receive good value for their investment, if for no other reason than the elimination of a middleman. As noted, this is the simplest form of a CSA. It is a very flexible construct that is limited only by the creativity and cooperation of the people committing to the contract. For example, the investors may exercise varying levels of control over what gets planted, how it will be farmed, who is doing the farming, and where the farming takes place.
CSAs owe their legacy to the “biodynamic agriculture” philosophy of Rudolf Steiner. In the 1920s, Steiner introduced notions of ecology and soil sustainability that eschewed the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. He viewed the farm as an “organism” within a natural context—a fully self-sufficient system within nature. He also incorporated elements of mysticism, such as astrologically guided planting. The term “organic” is credited to Lord Northborne, who used it to refer to farming practices that use Steiner’s farm-as-organism approach. However, Sir Albert Howard, with his application of scientific methodology in the 1930s, gave organic farming its fir
st big push forward.
Jan Vander Tuin, a proponent of biodynamic agriculture, created one of the first CSAs on a farm in Massachusetts in 1986. That same year, Anthony Graham and friends created a CSA in New Hampshire, launching the CSA movement. CSAs continue to evolve, challenging traditional models of economics and private property in producing food and culture.
SUMMARY
America is doubly blessed by having the largest amount of arable land of any country and the most efficient farmers in history. This results in Americans enjoying the lowest food prices of any industrialized nation and the highest standards of living in the history of the world. I know that sounds inflated, but consider: the average American lives better than most kings have throughout most of history. Just look in your refrigerator if you want proof.
That efficiency is the result of a very competitive business model, and anyone considering farming as an occupation should be aware of these facts. Farming is a high-capitalization, low-profit, high-risk business that depends on large scale to achieve profitability. Because of the risk, it is in the interest of all Americans to use government support to stabilize commodity markets and reduce that risk. Without supports, shocks in the commodity markets ripple through the broader economy—meaning everyone suffers. Of course, finding the right balance of government support without creating dependency is the reason Farm Bills are so contentious.
There is a long-term trend toward consolidation in which big farms are getting bigger to survive. This also means there are fewer farmers on the land, meaning rural communities are getting smaller and more isolated. Increasingly, mid-size farmers are being forced to take second jobs off the farm to stay viable. Small farmers have always had jobs off the farm.
The high cost of farming creates a variety of social problems. For farmers, it creates enormous problems with legacy. If farms need to get bigger to survive, then it isn’t a viable practice to break them up to give to your children. Further, since they are getting more efficient, it means the family farm can support fewer people in the family. The bigger and more expensive farms get, the harder it is for young people to afford the buy in, meaning it can take a lifetime to afford the family farm. All of that makes it hard for farmers to achieve equity with their children when they want to retire.
Shrinking rural communities also makes it less desirable to live in the country. Fewer people on the farm results in a negative spiral of less money in the community, which leads to fewer resources and less opportunity. It also means less political clout to get anything accomplished.
Recognizing these economic realities, there are lots of reasons to choose to live in the country—many of which I’ve mentioned in my farmoir. What is clear is that if you are not going to run a large-scale farm operation, you need to find that niche. The Internet is a vital tool for finding markets and testing niche agriculture. It may prove as necessary to the next generation of farmers as electrification was to the previous generation. To my continued amazement, young farmers are using old farm technology in novel ways. Guided by a vision of renewable farming, they are transforming the rural landscape, producing new models of food production and reinvigorating rural communities. None of my young acquaintances are on a path to monetary wealth, but they are certainly finding a richness of life and a sustainable way of living.
I still occasionally encounter that subset of big ag farmers, espousing their Ayn Randian view that only big farmers should be allowed in the sandbox. According to them, only big ag is efficient, and efficiency is the only metric that matters. They tend to be most vociferous around political issues where they perceive threats to their subsidies and too often they use their wealth to stifle discussion. Thankfully, they are a minority of the big ag farmers. I think there’s room for both big ag with its efficiency and small ag with its choices, but it will take support from an informed public to ensure the survival of small ag and the preservation of heritage farming. If you agree, I hope you will look for opportunities to support small ag through farmer’s markets, CSAs, and, of course, farm stays.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Besides family, friends, and neighbors who supported us on the farm, there have been several people of note who made this book possible. Foremost is our agent, Christopher Rhodes, who believed in this story from the beginning, providing us with guidance and support when it was most needed. Also, our editor, Maxim Brown, with Skyhorse Publishing, whose patience and critical insights converted a rough manuscript to a finished book. Other notables include Kristi Crawford, for the wonderful cover photo; Sonya James, who graciously modeled in our barn’s hayloft on a blustery January day; Paul Deatherage and Joanna Lezak for sharing their personal photos; Kate and Dennis Rivera for providing a visual diary of our farm; and Justin and Teagan Moran for shepherding our farm into a more organic future.
Country Grit: A Farmoir of Finding Purpose and Love Page 18