Frequently Asked Questions About MAAPP Answered by the MAAPP Committee
An American farm family needs at least $40,000 in annual living expenses; a Chinese farm family needs only $385. Is the concept of “farmers competing with farmers” a realistic goal?Answer: And the Chinese farmer would ask, “How am I supposed to live or compete with just $385 a year when the American farmer has a $40,000 annual family income, numerous 200 horsepower tractors, 24-row planters and combines that can harvest 200 acres a day or more?” It’s all relative; farmers competing with farmers is the ultimate goal.
Why doesn’t this report talk about individual commodities?Answer: If you look closely, the report does… The MAAPP report says that the agricultural community cannot continue to differentiate between commodities and that if we are able to construct a “comprehensive agriculture policy,” then everyone will have the same opportunities and the same the risks, regardless what you choose to produce. There should not be any “chosen” commodities that receive singular consideration.
What, if anything, should we do to try to halt the “collapse of the middle”?Answer: This is not a recent change, but one that has been impacting the agricultural sector for many years. Many farming operations are growing to become more efficient; at the other end of the scale, farms are shrinking as they specialize and concentrate to fill specific market niches or because family members are not staying on the farm. To change these trends, it will take major changes and investment in rural infrastructure by federal, state and local governments, as well as policy/regulatory changes to make sure rural communities can prosper. This will require effort by both agriculture and rural communities, with a unified voice, to get political leaders to understand this trend and provide solutions that will help the middle-size farmer be able to stay in production agriculture, as well as provide a vibrant and thriving community that can provide off-farm employment and services needed by rural residents.
As the shift occurs from mid-size farms to very large and small specialty farms, how do you see this affecting the agricultural support businesses (implement dealers, grain elevators and agronomy supply facilities)?Answer: Just as the structure of production agriculture has been changing rapidly, the structure of the agricultural support and marketing industries is not immune to structural change. Farmers cannot expect there to be a machinery dealer in every town or a livestock sale barn in every county any more. The message is that change is occurring throughout the agricultural industry, and the fact is that all sectors are going to have to adjust to the very rapid changes in technology. The best way for those changes to occur is allowing the marketplace to work and market signals to direct the changes that should occur. Those changes will make American agriculture productive and profitable.
How do you ensure that farmers on the “urban fringe” can continue to farm with escalating land prices and other environmental pressures pushing them out?Answer: At least two areas must be considered to address the challenge of farming on an urban fringe. First, there has to be a financial incentive for the farmer to remain and to have the ability to realize the appreciation in land values and realize the value that agricultural production provides. The second issue is the need for education and public relations efforts to bring acceptance and understanding in the public mind and neighbors of the adjacent operations.
Given their history of ignoring the “dollars and cents” of farming, how do we find a way to work with environmental groups?Answer: American farmers and ranchers need to show that we have things that we can provide to these environmental groups, at a cost, that are beneficial to them. We need to remain focused on being pro-active, not reactive; we need to make sure these groups understand that farmers and ranchers have a lot of those things these groups need, such as green spaces, habitats, etc. By working together, we could create a “green” income stream for American farmers and ranchers to satisfy environmental and recreational demands.
Even if there were no farm subsidies or agricultural tariffs anywhere in the world, how can the playing field be called “level” when some countries do not impose or enforce environmental regulations?Answer: The global landscape will never be perfectly level. China has less than 9% of world’s arable land and 22% of the world’s population; their soil is depleted and their water is listed as the most polluted in the world; they haven’t an extension service or outreach to educate their farmers nor do they have a farm organization to represent their interests. Some regions of Brazil have huge transportation cost just to get to market with their grain. Farmers in Argentina are required to pay a 22% input tax and a 23% value-added tax on exported raw commodities. Some developing countries seem incapable of governing themselves. When you look at it like that, few farmers around the world enjoy the advantages that we enjoy farming in the United States. Don’t sell short the ability of the American farmer and rancher to compete and prosper.
Can we maintain our competition in world agricultural markets while complying with an increasing regulatory climate at home?Answer: This will continue to be one of our greatest challenges, and it will become increasingly important to recognize these issues. It is especially important that our environmental regulations be based on applied or field-tested science that further demonstrates economic benefits or hardships. It is not reasonable to think or demand that we can or would impose our environmental regulations on another country. Therefore we, the American producer, must be watchful of regulators so that we are not required to endure extraordinary regulations that place an undue burden on the American farmer or rancher.
Why not move American agricultural support programs toward total insurance-based programs, rather than commodity programs?Answer: As we work within the global climate, the American agricultural sector can develop an insurance model that can transition to a total program, without turning the specialty crops upside down overnight. We have seen some abuses early on in revenue programs. As this type of program is developed, we must ensure that it is developed as a safety net for American farmers and ranchers, not as a hammock.
Did the committee look at “tough times” on the farm? Why shouldn’t we fight for and take our needed farm subsidies just as long as we can?Answer: Man, did we ever! There has always been and there always will be “tough times” on the farm in some region of the country, for some commodity or for some farmer. But, that’s our whole point… if we can truly develop a “comprehensive” agricultural policy, then we will be able to endure the tough times without constantly seeking endless government intervention. Furthermore, the longer we take to transition our current subsidy structure, the less we will be able to determine our own destiny. While that may be easier said than done, we our confident that Farm Bureau and America’s farmers and ranchers have the will, the fortitude, the commitment and the leadership to make it happen.
