I don’t get it! When I owned part of an Iowa family farm, we worried about our land and took care of it. We resisted planting up and down hills and carefully followed USDA directions about planting, chemicals, and herbicides. Sadly, it turned out that USDA’s then “state-of-the-art” research was wrong.
Iowa’s water quality has declined due to the overuse of chemicals, resulting in Iowa water unsafe to drink! and Iowa has the second highest cancer rate of any state. The move we farmers made at USDA’s direction to mono-crop farming has proved to be wrong. This move to mono-crop made BIG AG, i.e., corporate America’s agriculture, happy, but it didn’t help our farmers, and it continues to hurt the land.
Ask any farmer: Have things changed? How about the land?
The farmer will answer, “Well, the land doesn’t hold water like it used to. The seasons seem to be changing, and crop yields are trending down a bit. We tried pouring on more fertilizer, but that didn’t help either. The soil just isn’t what it used to be.”
Would of, Could of, Should of
What did the House Agriculture Committee do? It voted 33 to 21 (29 Republicans and 4 Democrats) to say no to helping farmers adjust their farming practices in ways that would help build back the land. The House spending plan slashed funds that go directly to farmers from Natural Resources Conservation and were intended to take better care of the land. It also slashed vital research funding about best practices and growing crops at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
It wasn’t enough to stop farmers from learning and investing in farming practices designed to build back the land.
In the “Should of” category, it must be noted that crop insurance is getting more money. If anyone was paying attention to the program, it would be a good idea, but it seems no one is.
- Years ago, when I was Deputy Manager of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation’s (FCIC) crop insurance program, we depended on accurate data and experienced economists to evaluate the risk. Then, we were directed to give our data, which was checked three times for accuracy, to the Farm Service Agency (FSA) but FSA did not check theirs even twice, and now the complaints keep coming in — the data is dirty!
- Now, the FCIC program desperately needs experienced economists to determine risk, but even if this need were filled, even the most experienced economists can’t determine risk when the data is dirty.
- Also lacking at RMA is consideration of the required growing standards used in crop insurance policies. When the land changes, the growing standards need to be updated.
The 33’s so-called generous increase in funding will be used to increase payments to farmers, but the payments will be based upon dirty — inaccurate! — data. Expect blow-ups! Some insurance programs can be expected to collapse if the risk is not figured out accurately. These payments — both through crop insurance and through FSA will be based on old growing standards that, as the land gets worse, the crop production will decrease.
And meanwhile, kids and their families will go hungry.
The 33 proved they think kids going hungry is a good thing.
In the big picture, USDA’s longstanding mission is to stop hunger by ensuring farmers stay in business. We need these farmers to grow crops that people and animals can eat.
People who eat—note that everyone eats or needs to—are the buyers of farmers’ production, but the 33 voted to cut farmers’ sales potential by cutting nutrition by $27 billion. This cut means farmers face a diminished market while their land grows less productive. As this situation progresses, more people will be hungry.
For families in need, the cut means kids and their parents will go hungry over the next five years the Farm Bill covers—if we get a Farm Bill at all. School lunch and Nutrition programs (SNAP) are only two of the hunger programs that will be cut. Originally, the House Ag Committee Chairman said he was “shocked” that the committee would cut $30 billion from SNAP.
Apparently, $27 Bbllion is not shocking. Whether $27 or $30 billion, these cuts will stop the Farm Bill in its tracks, and families could go hungry.
Oh, so long ago, House Ag Committee Chairman Glen Thompson (R-PA) promised to get out a Farm Bill before it expired, i.e., September 30, 2023. This did not happen, so the old Farm Bill was extended for a year. This year, the extended bill will again expire. September 30, 2024, is not very far away.
The 33 gave us a Farm Bill that cannot pass the Senate. See the Senate Bill for an example of the direction that the 33 should have taken: Chairwoman Stabenow Unveils the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act
Instead of offering practical solutions, 33 irresponsible House members’ decisions (29 Republicans and 4 Democrats) will likely result in another extension.
Have things changed in the last seven years since the original Farm Bill passed? In a word, yes!
There are more “devils” in the details of the House Farm Bill:
Chris Clayton, DTN Ag Policy Editor, Progressive Farmer: House Ag Committee Farm Bill Markup Reflects New-Age Rancor and Leaves a StainAg Policy Blog
Bryce Oates and Jake Davis, BARN RAISER — Inside the Farm Bill: Six Takeaways from the GOP’s Farm Bill Draft
Investigate Midwest: Latest farm data a ‘wake-up call’ as Midwest farmers face ever steeper challenges
Investigate Midwest: Latest farm data a ‘wake-up call’ as Midwest farmers face ever steeper challenges