ANOTHER VOICE

There is no parallel agriculture
By Ron Macher

Editor’s note: Another Voice is an opinion column that provides perspective on issues that affect agriculture. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Today’s Farmer or MFA Incorporated. Submissions should be 700 words. Send submissions or inquiries to Todaysfarmer@mfa-inc.com.

The April Today’s Farmer editorial stated that if we found technology tomorrow that eliminated odor and environmental problems, a core group of people would still gripe. That, however, is a human nature problem and not specific to agriculture.

Why should a farmer pay big corporations for technology solutions when a simple no-cost change in production methods would suffice? There is more than one way to farm a piece of ground.

While much of agriculture is industrialized, I believe most of “getting bigger” was caused by shrinking profit margins and the consolidation of the agriculture industry. Too few corporations control the grain, meat and poultry industries; they hide behind the word “oligopoly” to disguise their monopolies.

Shrinking prices

Parity has a base period of 1910 to 1914, when farm income increased at the same rate as expenses. Corn is about 26 percent of parity, which means farmers should be getting $7 per bushel instead of $2. Cattle are 48 percent of parity; they should be $200 per hundredweight not $90.

If you prefer calculating using inflation, at a 3 percent inflation rate, corn should be $6 per bushel and wheat $12 per bushel. Either way, the farmer takes it in the shorts once again.

Raising 300-bushel-per-acre corn at $2 per bushel will not fix the problem, regardless the number of acres. We need a system of production that reduces input costs.

Average farm income went up 470 percent from 1949 to 1990. Unfortunately, farm expenses went up 1,893 percent. That is $4 of expense increase for every $1 increase in income.

Society

Since under 1 percent of all AM/FM radio stations in the United States report farm news, and weekly/daily newspapers had a 62 percent decline in farm writers, consumers are frequently misled on farm issues of great importance to them and their families.

Consumers no longer have a base knowledge to work from—most of the population is four or five generations removed from the farm.

From 1910 to 1990, agriculture changed dramatically. In 1910, the marketing segment got 44 percent of the money. In 1990, it was 67 percent. Farmers received 44 percent of the money in 1910; by 1990, their share was 9 percent. Inputs were 12 percent in 1910 and 24 percent in 1990.

If you go to a farmers’ market, you will find people with food stamps as well as affluent customers buying organic produce. There must be more than money making them buy organic. Every consumer makes daily choices, depending on price, convenience, quality and personal taste. What is most important to Americans is that we can make a choice.

The organic and sustainable farmers have had to do their own agricultural research for years. Although less than 1 percent of ag research dollars goes to organic production, that research (from seven state universities and two private research stations on a total of 154 growing seasons, irrigated and non-irrigated in different parts of the country) showed that organic production yielded 95 percent of the crops grown under traditional high-input systems. Organics has gone from zero to a $20 billion industry.

No parallel

I agree that nobody in any kind of business should badmouth their competition—it always comes out as sour grapes. It is hard, however, to take the high road when you are taken advantage of. I, too, would like to think that a parallel agriculture could exist, but I think corporations—not politics—could defeat it. Parallel lines do not intersect and go their own way. A parallel agriculture would not intersect, and the large farms would stay out of the small farm markets.

Still, big corporations took notice of the profit from the small farmers’ niche markets. But, oh my, it would be hard to mechanize and industrialize organic production under stringent production rules. No problem, they said. We’ll just get our buddy USDA to change the organic rules.

An organic grower who doesn’t spray crops has to pay to prove he didn’t spray—while the grower who sprays pays nothing to anybody. The spray crossed the road to the organic farm? That’s not the sprayer’s problem.

As Albert Einstein said, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction.”

Ron Macher is publisher of Small Farm Today and farms near Clark, Mo.