Part 2- Disturbing trends in agriculture

Part 2 Disturbing Trends in Agriculture

       Part 2 -Has to deal with marketing strategies being used by farmers to manipulate the grain market price and fleecing Americans out of tax money while reducing the quality of this year’s grain and in the end showing Americans that indeed farmers as a whole are trending into some very scary areas of supporting their bottom line.

     This arises out of a record harvest and falling corn prices and a program of support for farmers earning less than 750,000 gross dollars on their income. This could easily be the 80 percent of farmers, as farmers now limit their income and start up new LLC ventures to just be able to have these price supports available to them. The federal crop insurance was developed to allow farmers who fell below that 750,000 per year gross income, an insurance for their crop losses in the event of a catastrophic decrease in their farm revenue to conditions like to much rain, hail, and other natural occurrences that would occur making their chances of getting a healthy crop and a fair price almost impossible due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control.

     Instead this has become a back door for government handouts as farmers have learned how to manipulate the local government agencies to pay even when crops are flush and no real reason beside low prices can be seen as a deterrent to removing their crops from the field in a harvest year. This year can be a prime example of government bailing them out in a bountiful year of harvest. A record year of producing corn has dropped the current price of corn from a high of 5.40/ bushel to a present trading price of 3.65 / bushel. The difference reflects a bountiful harvest and limited sales to support this harvest. They say this is the breakeven price for most farmers to just get their money and time back and for others this loss of profit is calling for them to dip into the crop insurance to get their profits they think they deserve at the taxpayers’ expense by leaving their crops in the field and not harvesting. Hoping that time and weather will significantly reduce its value getting the Federally supported crop insurance to step in and pay for damages when in the end they will still harvest and sell to livestock feedlots and others and the deteriorated product will still end up in the system or shipped overseas to other unaware customers.

     I know of a local dairy farmer with considerable holdings who does this on a regular basis as he has other ventures outside of his dairy business to support him and regularly takes advantage of the crop insurance payouts by simply leaving his corn crop in the field till the payments are made, and in the spring before planting, harvest his crop and collects his insurance then feeds his cattle the damaged grain and collect his insurance payment legally, although at any given time with his ability to make it happen, could have easily taken the grain off at any time.

     If the opposite was to happen and If the market price was high I am sure he would have been the first person in line at the elevator to assure he was able to sell his product at that high price. This program as it is run is not perfect, and I doubt you will ever find a government program that is or that someone cannot manipulate but the bottom line it affects consumers who have to eat the 70 percent genetically modified garbage they produce and then have tax money they paid support farmers who are less than honest in their dealings for this reason, then have the garbage in an even worse condition still end up in the system of producing food they need to sustain themselves. I also believe that it should be limited to 100,000 net income for any family operation that collects this money. One hundred thousand is a sufficient amount of money to have, to adequately support a family and also buy seed etc. for the coming year to continually produce and still live comfortably.

    A possible scenario where this would happen would be for corn to drop to the price of 3.65 / bushel as it does now from a high of 5.40 / bushel; the farmer leaves his crop in the field and receives his crop insurance boosting his price back up to almost 5 dollars / bushel after his adjustments are made for the deteriorated crop, and then he harvests and either sends the product to market or feeds it to livestock and still gains. When the product should have been destroyed and the nutrients returned to the field. As one would with brush hogging making sure the claimant only received his insurance compensation.

    Small farmers instead of getting direct financial help in the way of this crop insurance, are encouraged to join others in this back handed system of government handouts where figures are manipulated to provide false price supports. This whole scenario reminds me of the Grapes of Wrath and in the novel Steinbeck describes peach farmers with migrant workers starving outside their fences, set fire to a recently picked peach crop rather than feed it to those that were hungry. We’re not without hunger here in the United States and when we have a call for children learning to read and write as in the “ No child left behind.” We also should have a call so that no person goes to bed hungry in the United States as charity is best served when our own homeless and those less fortunate in our own backyard have plenty to eat and a roof over their head. Both things Americans can accomplish but seem to have no interest in doing so as the problem still exists.  

      Small farmers should have direct support in payments for their products produced as a deterrent to large Agra- businesses trying to fix prices and increase their earnings. We need small farmers as a defensive posturing to protect us in times of war to be available also if a crisis in agricultural production should occur. Say for instance blight from genetically modified corn that would affect over 70 percent of our production of corn. I think small farmers should fill that niche of having true varieties and organically grown healthy foods to make available to the market. Also I believe we need to change the certification structure of organic definition to include a lot more naturally grown products as long as they don’t include GMO’s and pesticide and chemical use on fields where the product is produced.

      Also I believe we need to produce locally and help reduce our dependence on the transportation industry to get food products on our table. We don’t need Washington state apples when Sunny Slopes orchard in Dalton, Ohio does an excellent job of producing and having available any apple we should ever need at a shorter distance. We can grow head lettuce and even pineapple in right conditions as I have one growing now in my greenhouse. Trucking in produce from faraway places increases the cost and exposes our vulnerability to shortages while contributing to higher CO2 levels. We need to strive to grow more locally and of things we have never tried before in an efficient way. This will increase employment opportunities on a local level while reducing our energy and food dependence while producing healthier foods.

     These are all my opinions and open to discussion anytime. Respond via readers’ comments on this page,  or directly to my email at kdavis3051@yahoo.com.. I look forward to hearing reader comments, and will respond to all about your concerns discretely.