I heartily agree that we need all types of agriculture to keep farming going. And to make sure that happens, we should stop using our tax dollars to subsidize the consolidation of agriculture into one type of farming. Can anyone doubt that farm subsidies have favored one type of farm to the detriment of others? Farm programs are necessary, but there must be limits on what you can receive. Without limits, farm programs give an enormous advantage to large, aggressively expanding farms that grow one of the five main programs crops, and that works against the diversity necessary to feed this great nation over the decades to come.

I am a livestock producer and we do not directly benefit from subsidy payments, but we do indirectly. How you might ask? We need corn and soybeans to feed our livestock, if farmers stop planting these crops because they are not profitable, we will not be able to feed our livestock.
These subsidies allow grain farmers to continue to take the risks involved with planting these crops so livestock producers can feed their livestock. It is a chain reaction. Subsidies do not benefit just a selected few as it may appear on paper.

As for your comment regarding the size of payment to large farms, you must remember that if you have twice as many acres to farm, your bills will be twice as much! It all balances out. Do you honestly think a large farm has the same expenses as a smaller farm?

Livestock producers most certainly have been the prime beneficiary of subsidy payments, and you can find an excellent column about that by Alan Guebert here: http://www.thelandonline.com/currentedition/local_story_157170216.html The Tufts study he references can also be found online. I do agree that farm programs are needed. But to say that farmers would stop planting feed crops if they were not profitable is not quite accurate. Farmers would continue to plant those crops if there was a customer that would pay for them- and pay their true cost of production plus a profit. If not, farmers would plant something else. That's called a free market, and it is something mainstream agriculture interests have been championing for a long time. I happen to believe there are inherently unique characteristics of agricultural markets that do require government intervention- but that intervention must be calibrated to ensure it does as little harm as possible. I do not think that a large farm has the same expenses as a small farm. However, I do believe that farm programs use our tax dollars and we have a right to spend those tax dollars as we see fit. If we want to spend those tax dollars to support the small, diversified family farms that have been proven time and again to be the best sort of agricultural production for rural community health, so be it. And our subsidy system today- with paper limits and enormous loopholes- does not simply reflect the concentration of food production in this country, it actually reinforces and enables that concentration. And farmers, who know the effects of farm programs better than anyone, including myself, understand this. That is why, by vast margins, they support a $250,000 strict payment limit. And you can find the links to the polls that prove that at http://www.cfra.org/policy/2007

Farm program payments are a public investment in the nation’s food and economic security. They help provide some measure of stability to the volatile business of food production, keeping Americans supplied with the safest and most affordable food in the world.

We as a country have to decide whether we are going to continue to invest in food security and stability, which is a major reason for the variety and affordability of the food that is abundant for all of us, or whether we are going to shift toward a policy of supporting small, low-production, scenic and hobby farms. If it’s the latter, then we should get ready to see our trade deficit increase, we should get ready to rely on more melamine-tainted food imports from China, and we should get ready to see some of our nation’s best farmland developed. If we want to continue to ensure an adequate supply of food that’s produced here in the U.S., then we should stick with the current program.

Advocating for a %250,000 payment limit is in no way advocating for "hobby farms". That 250,000 dollars includes a $40,000 limit on direct payments, currently for corn about $25 per acre. That means you have to get to about 1600 acres (actually more, because you get paid on 85% of base acres) before you'll hit that limit. And if you consider a 50/50 corn/soybean split, you can have many more acres. And if you add a son or daughter to that operation, you can receive even more. I would like to know who considers 1600 acres a hobby farm. However, a crop like rice receives approximately $96 per acre in directs. So they would hit the limit on a much smaller number of acres, which is why we thing we should adjust the limits for individual commodities. And you can receive that $96 per acre for sitting in front of the couch watching TV. You don't have to produce anything at all. Actual numbers for this and an explanation of how this is calculated can be found here: http://www.cfra.org/policy/2007/paymentlimits The countercyclicals and marketing loan limits in Grassley-Dorgan result in an even higher number of acres. And melamine food imports are the result of FDA failure and trade rules that treat food like any other product. Those trade rules have long been promoted by many mainstream agriculture groups as "exporting our way to success" even if we are exporting below-the-cost-of-production grain, which is really exporting our wealth. For the first time ever, the US is now importing more food than exporting, and has occurred under the current program. But the main point I would like to make is that in my current job, I advocate for farmers and rural communities. I do not advocate for a cheap food supply. Since when is providing cheap products good for farmers? I do not advocate for some illusory "stability". I do not advocate for a safe food supply either, though certainly treating the vast majority of our food as interchangeable commodities increases the potential for food contamination. I want a farm program that helps farms and rural communities, and as I look around the 900 person town I live in, things don't look so hot. For 30 years we have had unlimited farm payments, and the proof is in the results. Farm profits are no better now than they were 30 years ago. Farmers pay more in interest on their loans than they receive in farm subsidies. In the early 1980s, we had over 500,000 hog producers. Today we have less than 100,000. The numbers are endless. For those who care about a cheap food supply and ensuring the profits of those who purchase commodities, I suppose this is progress. For farmers and all of rural America, this is social decay. None of this is to say that Grassley-Dorgan will bring about some sort of agricultural renaissance. But it is the place to start- to say that farm programs are supposed to be and should be about helping small and mid sized family farms.

"And if you add a son or daughter to that operation, you can receive even more" Not under the hard $250,000 cap proposed by Grassley, EWG, etc. Under those proposals, the payment limit would be tied to the individual and prevent farmers from receiving payments for up to three farms in which they may be invested. Of course, 1,600 acres isn't a hobby farm. But that is missing the point. What these folks are advocating is more money for small producers at the expense of those who produce larger quantities, and that would be a major policy shift from supporting production to supporting a certain type of farm. It's just important to look at what that means for food security before we get into designing the acceptable-size farm. You are doing exactly what my article suggests we shouldn't do, pitting farmer against farmer, destroying diversity and wreaking havoc on our agriculture industry. You are picking apart agriculture and trying to divide us. These actions play into the activists hands. I hope you like eating foreign food because if you continue to encourage this way of thinking, we are all going to be reliant on foreign agriculture to feed us.

Under Grassley-Dorgan, the father or mother would be eligible for 250,000 as long as they were actual farmers, and the son or daughter would be eligible for another 250,000. You can invest in as many farms as you want, but every government payment must be tracked back to an individual who can receive no more than 250,000. And that individual must be a farmer. I completely agree that Grassley-Dorgan would be a major policy shift. I support that shift. And I somewhat agree that I am pitting farmer against farmer. To be more accurate, I'll say I'm pitting subsidy recipient vs. subsidy recipient. To use the extreme example EWG provided us with today, I don't think Maurice Wilder who is worth 500 million dollars and owns 10 office buildings in Tampa should get 3 million or so in farm payments in 3 years. I also truly believe that the majority of farmers favor Grassley-Dorgan, and in a previous post I cite the polls. We'll never have complete unanimity on any topic, but on payment limits the consensus is clear. But that belief also stems from my work. I have not personally encountered a farmer yet who disagrees with Grassley-Dorgan, and many of the farmers I meet with think 250,000 is way too high. I am not advocating for more money for smaller producers, I am advocating for less money for the very largest producers. If a farmer wants to farm six counties, fine, but he shouldn't use tax dollars to do it. And we should take the money saved and put it into rural development programs that would create a future for rural America. Let's not forget that the farm bill is the number one piece of legislation affecting all of rural America, not just farmers. And when you look at US agriculture statistics that matter to rural communities- number of farmers, amount they spend in their communities on inputs- the picture is grim. Maybe it is time for more farmers to stand up and denounce their peers whose only goal is to expand- and thus drive their neighbors off the land. Lastly, I would say again that in markets there are winners and losers. And when the government is heavily involved in setting the rules of the market- as they are in agriculture- the government is determining the winners and losers. Right now, when it comes to farm programs, the winners are the very largest farmers that can receive enormous checks. If we think those people should be the winners, fine. I don't. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that we're not already supporting a certain type of farm. We're supporting a certain type of farm, a certain type of agriculture, and a certain type of crop production. And any farmer that does not fit is now and will forever be at a market disadvantage with a subsidized producer. Of course we could argue about this forever. And I do appreciate your participation- many blogs would simply not post my comments if they did not want to engage on the issue. Last August I listened to the presidents of the Nebraska Corn Growers, Wheat Growers, Soybean Association and Sorghum Growers testify to the US Senate. Every single one told Senator Ben Nelson that they hoped their children would leave the farm and not return. That says something to me. If there is no future in farming, we have a problem. And it is abundantly clear to me that unlimited commodity checks are only making that problem worse. Thanks for the discussion, and I'm sure we'll talk again. ISAIAH 5:8 Woe to those who join house to house, who lay field to field, until there is no room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land!