Thoughts from an aggie and student. Taking full responsibility for my words printed here.
Showing posts with label AgriAction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AgriAction. Show all posts
Friday, December 3, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Developing New Technology Is A Win For Ag
by Mike Friddle
If there is one thing I have learned as a plant breeder, it may just be that the more diverse traits you have available to your breeding program, the more you excel. Today more than ever, we are seeing a pallet of traits that can make any science nerd froth at the mouth.
This is extremely important to think about when we look at Round-Up Ready (RR) technology and Genetically Engineered (GE) crops. With the advancement of research and the undying quest to improve, Monsanto has opened our world to something that quite possibly could make, or break, agriculture.
These new sets of traits are harmless to human consumption, yet the straight fear of some alien product sweeps over the face of concerned consumers across the globe. With the unveiling of the RR Sugar Beets in 2005, the doors for science were blown open to positive alternatives. There have been great advances in this field, yet some set backs. If any reader can remember the scare of the fish gene in corn that was only approved for animal consumption, they remember the adverse affects of not keeping track of the crop and ending up in Taco Bell taco shells. It did not paint a positive picture for GE technology and painted a once positive advancement as evil.
The aftermath of the Taco Bell incident and the GE tomato that had unforeseen allergies in a few consumers directed the recent history of the engineering of new crop technologies. If my memory serves me right, it also changed the background of food labeling.
Today we have a choice presented before us. Round-Up Ready technology has been researched and the facts are there. We have not seen prominent diverse affects of RR Corn and Soybeans, at least as far as my research has shown. With this in mind, I direct you to the USDA’s proposed rule change to allow RR Sugar Beets to be opened back up for market/production in the United States. What is there to loose?
Eric McGilp, a Latah County, Idaho resident and Political Activist, says in his comment to the AgriAction post, that his first worry is changing DNA. He also is worried about the mislabeling of these crops and their impact on the world’s food supply. I tend to agree that these are valid points and hope that the proper officials have evaluated this.
There are certain reasons that the Palouse has not yet grown GE crops, labeling and fear being the main drivers. The company I work for full-time has a NO-GMO policy, stating that a cross contamination will kill our ability to market product. Yet, with recent drive to label both animal and plant products, this is covered if managers carried out a solid plan. An argument of labeling is not a technology issue, it’s a management issue.
I will be advocating for the choice that will be allowed to producers in this. I feel very strong for free-market principles if the situation is possible, and GE crops fit this bill. The EPA, USDA, and Monsanto have exercised every avenue in this new crop and there hasn’t been any sort of evidence that this specific crop, RR Sugar Beets, present an eminent threat to the ag industry. What are the benefits? Cleaner fields, more efficient management, and better information for the agronomy division of the farms that adopt this crop, which in turn will help farmers make better management decisions and apply less chemical to their fields.
Approving the production of GE crops that have been researched is a win-win for this country. We are facing a steep incline in population and this, among other technological advances, will allow for our producers to accomplish this task.
I encourage you all to check out the instructions on how to comment on the proposal. The more voices the USDA and the EPA hears, the better. I will be casting my vote to allow RR Sugar Beets into the market, I ask you to join me.
If there is one thing I have learned as a plant breeder, it may just be that the more diverse traits you have available to your breeding program, the more you excel. Today more than ever, we are seeing a pallet of traits that can make any science nerd froth at the mouth.
This is extremely important to think about when we look at Round-Up Ready (RR) technology and Genetically Engineered (GE) crops. With the advancement of research and the undying quest to improve, Monsanto has opened our world to something that quite possibly could make, or break, agriculture.
These new sets of traits are harmless to human consumption, yet the straight fear of some alien product sweeps over the face of concerned consumers across the globe. With the unveiling of the RR Sugar Beets in 2005, the doors for science were blown open to positive alternatives. There have been great advances in this field, yet some set backs. If any reader can remember the scare of the fish gene in corn that was only approved for animal consumption, they remember the adverse affects of not keeping track of the crop and ending up in Taco Bell taco shells. It did not paint a positive picture for GE technology and painted a once positive advancement as evil.
The aftermath of the Taco Bell incident and the GE tomato that had unforeseen allergies in a few consumers directed the recent history of the engineering of new crop technologies. If my memory serves me right, it also changed the background of food labeling.
Today we have a choice presented before us. Round-Up Ready technology has been researched and the facts are there. We have not seen prominent diverse affects of RR Corn and Soybeans, at least as far as my research has shown. With this in mind, I direct you to the USDA’s proposed rule change to allow RR Sugar Beets to be opened back up for market/production in the United States. What is there to loose?
Eric McGilp, a Latah County, Idaho resident and Political Activist, says in his comment to the AgriAction post, that his first worry is changing DNA. He also is worried about the mislabeling of these crops and their impact on the world’s food supply. I tend to agree that these are valid points and hope that the proper officials have evaluated this.
There are certain reasons that the Palouse has not yet grown GE crops, labeling and fear being the main drivers. The company I work for full-time has a NO-GMO policy, stating that a cross contamination will kill our ability to market product. Yet, with recent drive to label both animal and plant products, this is covered if managers carried out a solid plan. An argument of labeling is not a technology issue, it’s a management issue.
I will be advocating for the choice that will be allowed to producers in this. I feel very strong for free-market principles if the situation is possible, and GE crops fit this bill. The EPA, USDA, and Monsanto have exercised every avenue in this new crop and there hasn’t been any sort of evidence that this specific crop, RR Sugar Beets, present an eminent threat to the ag industry. What are the benefits? Cleaner fields, more efficient management, and better information for the agronomy division of the farms that adopt this crop, which in turn will help farmers make better management decisions and apply less chemical to their fields.
Approving the production of GE crops that have been researched is a win-win for this country. We are facing a steep incline in population and this, among other technological advances, will allow for our producers to accomplish this task.
I encourage you all to check out the instructions on how to comment on the proposal. The more voices the USDA and the EPA hears, the better. I will be casting my vote to allow RR Sugar Beets into the market, I ask you to join me.
Farm Subsidies: Are They Needed?
This guest blog is written by Robert Blair of Leland, ID. Robert has a 1500 acre farm where he and his wife, Rhonda, raise their two sons, Logan and Dillon. Robert is the Nez Perce County Farm Bureau President and the State Director for the Nez Perce County Grain Growers. Robert was the 2009 Precision Farmer of the year and is the 2011 Eisenhower Fellow in Agriculture. He is also a University of Idaho Grad.
It seems like there is a perennial discussion about farm subsidies, especially as we prepare for another Farm Bill. What seems to be a weed to some is a crop to others, depending upon which side of the fence you are on (and how green it is on your side.)
Subsidies for the most part are looked down upon by the public because of bad press and lack of understanding. There are also growers who feel that subsidies should be done away with similar to pull combines and stationary threshers. However, there are growers out there where subsidies are the difference between staying on the farm or finding a job in town.
In my experience, the farmers that want subsidies dropped like a hot branding iron are the ones that have plenty of money, usually from a source outside of the farm. They understand if subsidies are cut, their operation has the potential to grow in acres. They are greedy, capitalist, pigs - and as well they should be. God Bless America.
But what are subsidies? Farmers do not pay the full price for crop insurance; there are usually tax exemptions in fuel, personal property, and sales tax that could eat up money, and farm loans. Do the farmers that want them cut really understand the depth in which their operation is subsidized? Subsidies help the U.S. compete with other countries that put on tariffs or use subsidies to keep out U.S. products. To take it one more step, subsidies help to ensure a stable and reliable agricultural industry.
We Americans pay the lowest cost for food of any country in the world, thanks to subsidies and the strength of American agriculture. Everyone, from farmers to their city cousins, needs to realize what the future of agriculture is looking at. Most experts say that current global ag production needs to double by the year 2050. This is no small task.
How is a shrinking population segment in America, and the world, supposed to meet this new task? For generations, members of farm families have decided to give up the long hours and hard work for a more “secure” job in town or within agriculture. Agriculture is losing the youngest generations to the bright lights and bustle of town while the older generation, which grew up on a farm and knew how to do anything, is dying off. Who is going to fill their shoes? I don’t see any of the critics rushing out to a field near you any time soon.
As the fight for the next Farm Bill takes place, the same arguments will come out about subsidies. Do we need them or should we let them go? If we let them go, how many farmers will be lost in the following decade? I don’t know the answer, but I get chills thinking about it.
If we lose the number of farmers in America, who will, and how many will, be left to sign onto a letter fighting environmental activists and their ilk? I have yet to see any of the farmers that call for dropping subsidies serve on boards or committees in my area. What a shame for those farmers to be relying on subsidized farmers to do their dirty work in the halls of the Legislature or Congress.
Also, I have never heard of the farmers that criticize subsidies giving them back or donating them to charity. I have never heard of them paying extra fuel or sales taxes or paying the non-subsidized rate for crop insurance. If I am mistaken, please provide me with the proof of purchase.
For the time being I am for keeping farm subsidies until there are no trade barriers, real or artificial, left in the world. Ag needs everyone one out there to help keep the wolves and tree huggers from the door. Until everyone fully understands the ramifications of removing subsidies, they should thank all U.S. agriculture at every meal.
follow The Homestead on Facebook
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
A Case Against Farm Subsidies
This guest blog is written by Sterling Stoddard, a student at the University of Idaho. Sterling is majoring in Agribusiness in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Stoddard is the President of the Young Americans for Liberty-U of I chapter. He is from Grace, Idaho in Caribou County. His family farms 3500 acres, 2500 acres of malt barley and 1000 acres of potatoes. Sterling plans on entering into farm management upon graduation.
OVERVIEW
In a country that despises massive debt, government programs seem to be ever growing. The government seems to have the mindset of continuing status quo and trying to use centralized planning to run our nation’s economy. If history has shown us anything, it’s that in a highly competitive market industrialists love to turn to the government to protect themselves from competition and give themselves an advantage, agriculture is no exception.
Each year the USDA pays out between $10 and $30 billion is cash subsidies to farmers and farmland owners. These account for over 800,000 people. However, the largest producers receive the most in benefits.
Federal subsidies in agriculture have a long history although subsidies were relatively small until the 1920's. The majority of subsidies came in the form of conducting research and gathering statistics for the industry. As part of FDR's ingenious idea known as 'The New Deal,' farm subsidies grew to include commodity price supports and production controls, marketing orders to limit competition, import barriers, and crop insurance. Agriculture was in no way the only industry to be heavily regulated in the 30’s. Unlike agriculture, many other industries have been deregulated and have seen great success.
Today, farmers represent a small portion of the population but they still have a very strong lobby. One reason is that farm-state legislators have co-opted the support of urban legislators, who seek increased subsidies in agriculture bills for programs such as food stamps. Legislators in favor of environmental subsidies have also been co-opted as supporters of farm bills. Unfortunately the support for the common tax payer isn’t near as strong.
This industry welfare program is especially costly to tax payers. Since it consists largely of government actions to hold up the price of crops, it is paid partly by taxes and higher food prices. Higher food prices have the effect of a regressive tax, since low-income people spend a greater portion of their income on food.
The game that the government plays with farm subsidies is a vicious cycle. Subsidies induce farmers to overproduce, which pushes down prices and creates political demands for further subsidies. Subsidies inflate land prices in rural America. The flow of subsidies from Washington hinders farmers from innovating, cutting costs, diversifying their land use, taking the actions needed to prosper in a competitive global economy.
EXAMPLES OF SUBSIDIES
Recently, direct payments have been among the largest form of subsidies. Direct payments are cash payments for producers of: wheat, corn, sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, soybeans, minor oilseeds, and peanuts. Direct payments were intended to be transitional, a way to wean farmers from old-fashioned price guarantee programs. Unfortunately, direct payments have not been reduced over time as originally planned. Direct payments are based on a historical measure of the farm’s acrage used for production and are NOT related to current production or prices. The Washington Post estimated that between 2000 and 2006 the USDA handed out $1.3 billion in direct payments to people who do not farm. The newspaper pointed to thousands of acres of land previously used for rice growing in Texas.
Marketing Loans were created as a part of the 'New Deal.' They were meant to be, like most farm subsidies, a temporary solution. Yet, they still exist 70 years later. Marketing Loans create a price floor for crops (same ones covered in direct payments). Price floors in agriculture and all industry creates incentive for producers to overproduce. Under the program, farmers take loans with their crops as collateral. This allows farmers to keep the loan, and forfeit their low value crop. Tax payers are then stuck with the loan cost and the cost to store the crop. Farmers don’t receive subsidies from the marketing loan program only when crop prices are low, they have become experts at working the system to maximize their subsidies every year. Farmers can lock in high government benefits when seasonal prices are low, and then sell their crops when market prices are higher.
Countercyclical Payments are a classic example of agriculture receiving special protection that most industries don’t, and shouldn’t, receive. Countercyclical payments are basically a price guarantee which allows for over production because farmers are receiving a payment that is higher then what the market allows so they will produce more then what the market allows.
My personal favorite subsidy is Conservation Subsidies. The largest conservation subsidy program is the Conservation Reserve Program, which was created in 1985 to idle millions of acres of farmland. Under CRP, farmers are paid to not grow crops, but to cultivate ground cover such as grass or trees on retired acres. A large share of land idled under the CRP is owned by retired farmers, thus one does not even have to be a working farmer to get these subsidies. In Idaho, Shoshone Bannock Tribe was the 2nd largest recipient of farm subsidies in 2009. Shoshone Bannock Tribe received $510,364 in total payments, $503,629 was in Conservation Subsidies. In 2009 Shoshone Bannock Tribe received over half a million dollars to do absolutely nothing!
REASON TO REPEAL
Farm subsidies are a clear example of redistribution of wealth. In this case it’s distributing wealth from less income to more income. The average farmer income is higher than the average American’s income. Ten percent of all farmers collected 74 percent of all subsidies. Top 10% based on size of producer received $29,675 average per year between 1995 and 2009 while the bottom 80% receive $579 average per year between 1995 and 2009. The largest recipients of these subsidies are the largest producers. The myth that these program are meant to help the small farm just doesn’t hold water.
Farm subsidies hurt the overall economy. In most industries, prices are set by the balance of supply and demand. Profits signal investment opportunities while downturn results in innovation and cost cutting. However, these market mechanisms are not found in a government controlled industry like agriculture. As a result, federal agricultural policies produce substantial “deadweight losses” and reduced U.S. incomes. What does result is overproduction, overuse of marginal farmland, and land price inflation.
Like all government subsidies programs, farm subsidies are prone to waste and scandal. Farm programs are subject to bureaucratic inefficiencies, recipient fraud, and congressional pork-barrel politics. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)found that as much as half a billion dollars in farm subsidies are paid improperly or fraudulently each year. Farmers create complex legal structures to get around legal subsidy limits. Another reason why large producers receive a disproportionately high amount of subsidies is because they have the recourses to get through the legal hoops that the small producer doesn’t have.
Farm subsidies damage U.S. trade relations. U.S. and European farm subsidies and agricultural import barriers are a serious hurdle to making progress in global trade agreements. Free trade helps global economic stability and security. "If goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will." The World Trade Organization (WTO) estimates that even a one-third drop in all tariffs around the world would boost global output by $686 billion, including $164 billion for the United States.
Farming would see great success without subsidies. It is true that agriculture would change with the repealing of farm subsidies. Different crops would be planted, land usage would change, and some farms would go bankrupt. However a stronger and more innovative industry would likely emerge having greater resilience to shocks and downturns. It’s important to remember that commodities that are covered by subsidies only account for about 36% of all production. Most farm production isn’t even currently eligible for subsidies and they still strive within a free market.
Agriculture has changed a lot since the days farm subsidies were established. USDA figures show that only 38 percent of farm households consider farming their primary occupation. So the majority of farm households earn the bulk of their income from non-farm sources which creates financial stability. An interesting example of farmers prospering without subsidies is in New Zealand. That nation ended its farm subsidies in 1984, which was a bold stroke because the country is four times more dependent on farming than is the United States. The changes were initially met with fierce resistance, but New Zealand farm productivity, profitability, and output have soared since the reforms. New Zealand’s farmers have cut costs, diversified their land use, sought off-farm income, and developed niche markets such as kiwifruit.
In my opinion it has become obvious that it is time to largely cut government programs to help fix our problems in this country and I think agriculture subsidies and trade barriers are a clear place to start.
OVERVIEW
In a country that despises massive debt, government programs seem to be ever growing. The government seems to have the mindset of continuing status quo and trying to use centralized planning to run our nation’s economy. If history has shown us anything, it’s that in a highly competitive market industrialists love to turn to the government to protect themselves from competition and give themselves an advantage, agriculture is no exception.
Each year the USDA pays out between $10 and $30 billion is cash subsidies to farmers and farmland owners. These account for over 800,000 people. However, the largest producers receive the most in benefits.
Federal subsidies in agriculture have a long history although subsidies were relatively small until the 1920's. The majority of subsidies came in the form of conducting research and gathering statistics for the industry. As part of FDR's ingenious idea known as 'The New Deal,' farm subsidies grew to include commodity price supports and production controls, marketing orders to limit competition, import barriers, and crop insurance. Agriculture was in no way the only industry to be heavily regulated in the 30’s. Unlike agriculture, many other industries have been deregulated and have seen great success.
Today, farmers represent a small portion of the population but they still have a very strong lobby. One reason is that farm-state legislators have co-opted the support of urban legislators, who seek increased subsidies in agriculture bills for programs such as food stamps. Legislators in favor of environmental subsidies have also been co-opted as supporters of farm bills. Unfortunately the support for the common tax payer isn’t near as strong.
This industry welfare program is especially costly to tax payers. Since it consists largely of government actions to hold up the price of crops, it is paid partly by taxes and higher food prices. Higher food prices have the effect of a regressive tax, since low-income people spend a greater portion of their income on food.
The game that the government plays with farm subsidies is a vicious cycle. Subsidies induce farmers to overproduce, which pushes down prices and creates political demands for further subsidies. Subsidies inflate land prices in rural America. The flow of subsidies from Washington hinders farmers from innovating, cutting costs, diversifying their land use, taking the actions needed to prosper in a competitive global economy.
EXAMPLES OF SUBSIDIES
Recently, direct payments have been among the largest form of subsidies. Direct payments are cash payments for producers of: wheat, corn, sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, soybeans, minor oilseeds, and peanuts. Direct payments were intended to be transitional, a way to wean farmers from old-fashioned price guarantee programs. Unfortunately, direct payments have not been reduced over time as originally planned. Direct payments are based on a historical measure of the farm’s acrage used for production and are NOT related to current production or prices. The Washington Post estimated that between 2000 and 2006 the USDA handed out $1.3 billion in direct payments to people who do not farm. The newspaper pointed to thousands of acres of land previously used for rice growing in Texas.
Marketing Loans were created as a part of the 'New Deal.' They were meant to be, like most farm subsidies, a temporary solution. Yet, they still exist 70 years later. Marketing Loans create a price floor for crops (same ones covered in direct payments). Price floors in agriculture and all industry creates incentive for producers to overproduce. Under the program, farmers take loans with their crops as collateral. This allows farmers to keep the loan, and forfeit their low value crop. Tax payers are then stuck with the loan cost and the cost to store the crop. Farmers don’t receive subsidies from the marketing loan program only when crop prices are low, they have become experts at working the system to maximize their subsidies every year. Farmers can lock in high government benefits when seasonal prices are low, and then sell their crops when market prices are higher.
Countercyclical Payments are a classic example of agriculture receiving special protection that most industries don’t, and shouldn’t, receive. Countercyclical payments are basically a price guarantee which allows for over production because farmers are receiving a payment that is higher then what the market allows so they will produce more then what the market allows.
My personal favorite subsidy is Conservation Subsidies. The largest conservation subsidy program is the Conservation Reserve Program, which was created in 1985 to idle millions of acres of farmland. Under CRP, farmers are paid to not grow crops, but to cultivate ground cover such as grass or trees on retired acres. A large share of land idled under the CRP is owned by retired farmers, thus one does not even have to be a working farmer to get these subsidies. In Idaho, Shoshone Bannock Tribe was the 2nd largest recipient of farm subsidies in 2009. Shoshone Bannock Tribe received $510,364 in total payments, $503,629 was in Conservation Subsidies. In 2009 Shoshone Bannock Tribe received over half a million dollars to do absolutely nothing!
REASON TO REPEAL
Farm subsidies are a clear example of redistribution of wealth. In this case it’s distributing wealth from less income to more income. The average farmer income is higher than the average American’s income. Ten percent of all farmers collected 74 percent of all subsidies. Top 10% based on size of producer received $29,675 average per year between 1995 and 2009 while the bottom 80% receive $579 average per year between 1995 and 2009. The largest recipients of these subsidies are the largest producers. The myth that these program are meant to help the small farm just doesn’t hold water.
Farm subsidies hurt the overall economy. In most industries, prices are set by the balance of supply and demand. Profits signal investment opportunities while downturn results in innovation and cost cutting. However, these market mechanisms are not found in a government controlled industry like agriculture. As a result, federal agricultural policies produce substantial “deadweight losses” and reduced U.S. incomes. What does result is overproduction, overuse of marginal farmland, and land price inflation.
Like all government subsidies programs, farm subsidies are prone to waste and scandal. Farm programs are subject to bureaucratic inefficiencies, recipient fraud, and congressional pork-barrel politics. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)found that as much as half a billion dollars in farm subsidies are paid improperly or fraudulently each year. Farmers create complex legal structures to get around legal subsidy limits. Another reason why large producers receive a disproportionately high amount of subsidies is because they have the recourses to get through the legal hoops that the small producer doesn’t have.
Farm subsidies damage U.S. trade relations. U.S. and European farm subsidies and agricultural import barriers are a serious hurdle to making progress in global trade agreements. Free trade helps global economic stability and security. "If goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will." The World Trade Organization (WTO) estimates that even a one-third drop in all tariffs around the world would boost global output by $686 billion, including $164 billion for the United States.
Farming would see great success without subsidies. It is true that agriculture would change with the repealing of farm subsidies. Different crops would be planted, land usage would change, and some farms would go bankrupt. However a stronger and more innovative industry would likely emerge having greater resilience to shocks and downturns. It’s important to remember that commodities that are covered by subsidies only account for about 36% of all production. Most farm production isn’t even currently eligible for subsidies and they still strive within a free market.
Agriculture has changed a lot since the days farm subsidies were established. USDA figures show that only 38 percent of farm households consider farming their primary occupation. So the majority of farm households earn the bulk of their income from non-farm sources which creates financial stability. An interesting example of farmers prospering without subsidies is in New Zealand. That nation ended its farm subsidies in 1984, which was a bold stroke because the country is four times more dependent on farming than is the United States. The changes were initially met with fierce resistance, but New Zealand farm productivity, profitability, and output have soared since the reforms. New Zealand’s farmers have cut costs, diversified their land use, sought off-farm income, and developed niche markets such as kiwifruit.
In my opinion it has become obvious that it is time to largely cut government programs to help fix our problems in this country and I think agriculture subsidies and trade barriers are a clear place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
