Farm income

Why is it Wrong for Farmers to Make Money?

November 10, 2013
Gary Truitt

It is not a new argument; it surfaces every time a Farm Bill comes up for debate in Congress. Farmers get lots of bad press because they take subsidies from the government while making millions from high grain prices which drive up the cost of food. Do a Google news search with the words farm and subsidies, and you will get over 7,000 news stories, none of which are positive toward farmers. In most of these stories, farm subsidies are criticized as being “unnecessary” and   farmers are demonized for making a profit off food production.

Those who label farm subsidies as unnecessary never look into why they were created in the first place. First of all, government programs that provide payments to producers are many and quite varied, yet get lumped into one big pot called subsidies.  The impression that is given to the public is that all you need to qualify for a farm subsidy is some land, a barn, and a mailbox.  The public is led to believe that each month the postman fills a famer’s mailbox with thousands of tax payer dollars.  Anyone who has been to an FAS office knows the bewildering complexity of most federal farm programs and the mountains of paperwork required o qualify for these programs.

The majority of farm subsidy programs were started because Congress wanted low food prices and wanted to avoid food price spikes, especially around election time. The way to do this was to take the risk out of food production. In the 1960s and 1970s, the government actually managed food production by paying some farmers to grow certain crops while paying others not to grow certain crops.  Beginning in 1985, this policy began to change in favor of letting the free market set the price and determine production.  Since then farm programs have become more market-oriented, and taxpayer dollars going to direct payments has tumbled. The new Farm Bill being drafted in Congress today would eliminate almost all direct payments to farmers.

The media loves to report of “Billionaire Farmers get Tax Payer Dollars.” While there are likely some abuses as there are in any government program, the majority of government program payments are not going to fat cats lying on tome tropical beach in the Caribbean.   Over 90% of US farmers are family-owned farms; and, while that family farm may be incorporated and may be a multimillion dollar operation, they are also the people working the land and taking the risks.

I guess that is what gets me really riled up. Farm families work hard and take enormous risks to produce the food, fuel, and fiber we all take for granted. Why? To make a living — in other words, to make money. The concept of taking a risk and working hard in order to reap a financial reward is the bedrock of the capitalistic free market system.  Yet today, those who do this are criticized and despised and expected to share their reward with the rest of the community. The Obama Administration has been advocating this in both public statements and policy incentives. “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, the someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more,” Michelle Obama states.

I am also infuriated by the fact that those who are some of the loudest critics of farm programs are also the biggest champions of subsidies for oil companies, car makers, New York banks, and PBS. Let’s face it, what is it more important to have: a consistent and reliable supply of food on the table or Big Bird on the TV? 

Farm programs need to be revised, loopholes closed, and in some cases programs canceled. The same can be said for energy, housing, Medicaid, student loans, and many other government subsidy programs. We also need to get rid of this concept that farmers, even ones with million dollar operations, should not make money.

 Farming is a business that produces a valuable product at high risk and high cost. Government programs that provide farmers the incentive to produce our food and the safety net to insure their sustainability, benefits all of us.

By Gary Truitt

EQIP sign up begins

Sign Up Begins for EQUIP Projects

November 5, 2013
Gary Truitt

Today State Conservationist Jane Hardisty announced the sign up period for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). EQIP provides farmers with financial and technical assistance to install conservation practices on their land to address specific resource concerns. Hardisty explains that Indiana is accepting applications for the general EQIP which includes practices such as fencing, animal watering systems, pasture planting, wildlife habitat, erosion control structures, manure storage structures, crop and pest management, plus soil health practices such as no-till and cover crops. “We are also taking applications for several special landscape initiatives that target specific habitat or water quality resource concerns,” Hardisty said.

Included in this year’s sign up are the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, National Water Quality Initiative, Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative, and Western Lake Erie Basin Initiative.  “Targeting designated areas allows us to address specific natural resource concerns, and provides farmers with a less competitive option. Farmers applying for projects in the designated areas will not have to compete with the statewide EQIP applications, just those applying for each specific initiative,” said Hardisty. 

Farmers have until February 21, 2014 to submit an application.   

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative focuses on wetland and habitat restoration, invasive species control, and nonpoint source pollution that threaten the water quality of the lakes. The targeted watersheds include:  St. Joseph, Upper Maumee, Auglaize and St. Mary’s watersheds in the Northeast part of Indiana and include all or parts of Steuben, Noble, DeKalb, Allen, Wells and Adams Counties.

The Western Lake Erie Basin Initiative focuses on reducing nutrient loading to Lake Erie, and eligible watersheds in Indiana include St. Joseph, Upper Maumee, Auglaize and St. Mary’s watersheds in the Northeast, which include portions of Steuben, Noble, DeKalb, Allen, Wells and Adams Counties.

The National Water Quality Initiative makes funds available to farmers and forest landowners in selected watersheds for conservation practices that address specific water quality issues. Funding will be available in these three watersheds: Silver Creek (Kosciusko and Wabash Counties); Eagle Creek (Hendricks and Marion Counties); and Ell Creek (Dubois County).

Under the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative, the NRCS enters into partnership agreements with eligible entities that want to enhance conservation outcomes on agricultural and nonindustrial private forest lands. Indiana has one CCPI project underway—a partnership in Sullivan, Greene and Knox Counties focused on irrigation improvement and water quality. 

For more information on any of these EQIP opportunities, contact your local NRCS District Conservationist. To locate the office near you, visithttp://www.in.nrcs.usda.gov/contact/directory/dclist.html. Information on the EQIP program is also available on the Indiana NRCS webpage athttp://www.in.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip.html

Gary Truitt on HSUS

The Hidden Agenda Behind The Animal Care Movement

November 3, 2013
Gary Truitt

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to participate in a panel discussion hosted by FarmWorld. The topic was legislation that prevents the videotaping and photographing of farming operations without the farmer’s knowledge or permission.  Also on the panel were representatives of the print media, Indiana Farm Bureau, and Kim E. Ferraro, Staff Attorney and Director of Agricultural and Water Policy with the Hoosier Environmental Council. While the discussion was spirited, for the most part it traversed some well-traveled ground on this issue, much of which I have written about in previous columns. There were, however, some interesting insights gleaned from the statements made by HEC that provide a glimpse into the agenda behind its animal care facade.

Ironically, just a few days after this panel discussion, another undercover video alleging animal mistreatment made the news.  It is getting to be so commonplace that that national news media hardly covers it anymore. The video purported to show mistreatment of hogs on a Minnesota farm. While local media coverage was significant and over-dramatic, very little national coverage occurred. Only the Huffington Post — and I only marginally consider them a news source — picked up the story. There was also something different about this case, the farmer fought back.

Following a allegations by Mercy for Animals, a front group for HSUS, an independent veterinarian, who was taken by law enforcement to the Pipestone Farm facility shown in the video, determined that there were no signs of inhumane treatment or violations of good production standards. Therefore, no charges were filed. The farm did not stop there. They brought in a third party to investigate. The farm’s investigation determined that the employee involved had not been following animal care protocols, and he was immediately fired.

While the farm had done nothing wrong, its image and reputation have been damaged. But this is perfectly acceptable to groups like HSUS and HEC. During the panel discussion, the HEC attorney said that, even if farmers were not doing anything illegally, they still should be subject to unauthorized public inspection and exposure. Ms. Ferraro stated that, if legal and industry acceptable practices of a farm offended the sensibilities of the public, they should be exposed with undercover investigations.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to uncovering the agenda behind the animal activist movement. Later in the panel discussion, HEC attacked Farm Bureau on their support of laws that protect farmers from frivolous lawsuits. The National Pork Producers Council asserts that the Pipestone case came in response to HSUS losing a court battle with NPPC over the pork logo, ” HSUS has spent significant amounts of its donors’ money on futile legislative efforts and on a lawsuit that had nothing to do with animal welfare which was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge.”

The real agenda behind the animal activist movement is the total domination and, in some cases, elimination of animal agriculture.  These groups are also prepared to fight farmers who try and defend themselves and their industry from these attacks. The anti-videotaping legislation being proposed across the country is an example of this. Farmers are tired of being victims and are not just reacting but being proactive in the fight against those who are committed more to an anti-meat agenda than animal care. This agenda is not limited to the livestock sector, row crop farmers are beginning to face the same battle from biotech and environmental activists. 

By Gary Truitt