It is about time that I actually take a few moments to throw out some ideas of what I would do if I was the incoming Agricultural Secretary. It is safe to say that many of these things have been mentioned in prior comments, but I think that says a lot about the similarities I have with a lot of this blogs readers when it comes to agriculture. Oh, and as your incoming Ag Secretary I would like this photo to be my official picture for all press releases :)
- One of the first things I would try to do would be to make a major over-haul of the current farm bill. By major I mean that I would cut out the "social programs" from the farm bill and allow it to focus completely on the nuts and bolts of farming, not the distribution of food (and other peoples money) to others. If this were done I would hope that people could look more objectively at some of the things in the farm bill that actually apply to farming instead of focusing on the social components.
- After that was taken care of I would take a major look at the current subsidy system and the incentive programs. Not only do I believe that we need to phase out our current love of paying people to own crop land, but I also think we need to look at the ramifications of paying people not to farm. There are lots of good programs that have a lot that can be beneficial (see the Conservation Securities Program), but there are too many loopholes in the programs that we have. For example, our land had been in CRP for 14 years. At the beginning it was seeded down with native grasses, which was great, but in the subsequent 14 years nothing has been done and because of that it has even begun to suffer a little.
- Here is the big pipe dream, but I would not allow larger seed companies and packers to influence policy. They are going to only be looking out for themselves (as they probably should), but we need a government that hears and sees all sides of the story. Like I said, this is a bit unlikely, but it is what I would do.
- I would build a program for agricultural education to be taught in schools. I know that our schools have enough to worry about already, but at some point our students need to learn where food comes from and how it is produced. If we can again have educated food consumers (I believe we did at one time) than agricultural policy and support will probably change for the better.
- I would require staff to have a intimate knowledge of life on the farm, not just fiscal principles. I wouldn't go so far as saying that they had to be farmers (I don't want to be closed minded), but I do think it wouldn't be too much to ask that they at least spend some time with farmers and get to know their needs, wants, and desires.
- Oh, and one more thing... I would give all of you guys positions in my office so that I would know that I at least had some people willing to think, and think outside of the box!
It is about time that I actually take a few moments to throw out some ideas of what I would do if I was the incoming Agricultural Secretary. It is safe to say that many of these things have been mentioned in prior comments, but I think that says a lot about the similarities I have with a lot of this blogs readers when it comes to agriculture. Oh, and as your incoming Ag Secretary I would like this photo to be my official picture for all press releases :)
15 comments:
"Oh, and as your incoming Ag Secretary I would like this photo to be my official picture for all press releases :)"
Shoot, it's a tremendous improvement over the past already!
"One of the first things I would try to do would be to make a major over-haul of the current farm bill. By major I mean that I would cut out the "social programs" from the farm bill and allow it to focus completely on the nuts and bolts of farming, not the distribution of food (and other peoples money) to others. If this were done I would hope that people could look more objectively at some of the things in the farm bill that actually apply to farming instead of focusing on the social components."
I wholeheartedly agree.
Too much our nation's "farm program" is camouflaged social welfare or income redistribution. It's easy to forget that taxation is basically equivalent to somebody coming to your house, knocking on your door, telling you that they have a need for your cash for something worthy, and then taking it directly from your wallet.
I'm not a tax radical by any means, but on social welfare programs and income redistribution, I'm bothered by the idea that somebody has decided these programs are nifty, that people can't be trusted to pay for them if left to their own devices, and therefore, you'll be forced to via a tax. Not only that, but in a manner somewhat hidden, lest you figure it out.
While it wouldn't work as a test by any means, to a degree, I feel the first question that should be asked of any tax bill, indeed any government bill that spends public money, is "would people be willing to chip in for this voluntarily?" If the answer is no, perhaps the government should rethink forcing us to pay for it.
"Here is the big pipe dream, but I would not allow larger seed companies and packers to influence policy. They are going to only be looking out for themselves (as they probably should), but we need a government that hears and sees all sides of the story. Like I said, this is a bit unlikely, but it is what I would do."
Another great idea.
I'll confess I'm not terribly familiar with the seed companies, but I am a bit with the packers. Indeed, my family once owned a packing house.
The principal problem with packing has been the consolidation of packing. There's too few packers. They should be busted up.
"I would build a program for agricultural education to be taught in schools. I know that our schools have enough to worry about already, but at some point our students need to learn where food comes from and how it is produced. If we can again have educated food consumers (I believe we did at one time) than agricultural policy and support will probably change for the better."
Let me throw a radical one out in this area.
I'd try to encourage Agricultural Departments in university to require some teaching of traditional agriculture (i.e., pre 1940, let's say) and "alternative ag". Added to that, I'd add a "Reading in Agriculture" requirement to the curriculum.
So, at the univesity level, in order to graduate with any ag degree, I'd require the student to pick up one 3 hr course in Alt Ag, one 3hr in Trad Ag, and one 3 hr course in Reading in Ag.
Why?
Simple enough.
I've tended to find that the Ag world is busted up into two groups, with one of those groups having two divisions.
One group is Main Ag, which makes up darned near every farmer/rancher, and son or daughter of farmer/rancher who wants in ag. This includes darned near everyone who teaches Ag.
The other group is Outside the Box Ag. This group (most of us here) is willing to think about alternatives and read about ag.
Group one has a lot of practical experience, but only in what they're doing. They're close to unwilling to consider anything else, and many of them regard Group Two as a bunch of nuts.
Group Two includes a lot of free thinkers, but they often don't have as much experience as Group One.
My concern is Group One makes up most Ag students, and most working farmers/ranchers. They're darned near willing to run agriculture in the ground, as they only know what they're doing, and don't know how to even consider any alternatives. To the extent they learn of alternatives, or even older way of doing things, they're unwilling to consider it, as they're training has all been through experts who are equally closed minded, if not more so. The experts they're familiar with tend to have a "more of the same, but more so" type of inclination.
Hope that's not too harsh.
To add to that, I'd very much encourage, if the university program could be so changed, high school ag kids to go to college. At least in ranching, quite frankly, you don't need any college to do it, although it's helpful on the business end. But it'd be super helpful if you learned how things used to be done and what some alternatives are, and what the folks who write books like "The Omnivores Dilemma" have to say.
Expanding on one of Yeoman's comments,
"...The principal problem with packing has been the consolidation of packing. There's too few packers. They should be busted up..."
Shouldn't the reasons behind the consolidation of the packers into a handful of larger operations be addressed before arbitrarily forcing them to break up into smaller operations? Unless the forces that led to (or required) the consolidations are dealt with, eventually they will just grow back into a handful of large packers once again.
Is it still possible to profitably operate a small packing house? If it is possible, then why don't they still exist? How does the presence of large packers prevent the existence of small packers?
Yeoman commented,
"...I've tended to find that the Ag world is busted up into two groups...One group is Main Ag, which makes up darned near every farmer/rancher...The other group is Outside the Box Ag. This group (most of us here) is willing to think about alternatives...Group one has a lot of practical experience,...and many of them regard Group Two as a bunch of nuts...Group Two includes a lot of free thinkers, but they often don't have as much experience as Group One..."
It might be due the local area I am familiar with, but I don't think the divide is quite as vast between the two groups as it is sometimes portrayed.
While I will admit the Main Ag does some (maybe a lot) of things that don't make sense to me, I will also admit that the Outside the Box Group has its fair share of "nuts" too.
Personally, I've always thought that picking and choosing common sense techniques from both camps to be the best path.
Rich said:
"Shouldn't the reasons behind the consolidation of the packers into a handful of larger operations be addressed before arbitrarily forcing them to break up into smaller operations? Unless the forces that led to (or required) the consolidations are dealt with, eventually they will just grow back into a handful of large packers once again."
Absolutely the cause of the consolidation should be addressed. That cause is that, ultimately, its economically wiser to buy out your competition rather than compete. If you do that, at some point, you no longer have to compete. A monopoly is the most lucrative type of any business, particularly in the case of something that everyone most buy.
It is, of course, also the least efficient form of business, once achieved, and it's the least productive, for its workers, as it need not compete for anything.
We have a lot of experience with monopolies in the US, as it has long been the case that free enterprise, if unrestrained as to monopolies, nearly always leads to them. That's why we've had oil monopolies, telephone monopolies, and the like, over the years. From time to time, we've had government sponsored monopolies, such as various natural gas utilities, which had monopolies by region.
The packing industry has simply operated the same way that other monopolies have over the years. The competition has been bought out, and because this allows the purchasing entity to obtain a huge scale, it can ultimately dictate the industry's costs and expenses.
"Is it still possible to profitably operate a small packing house? If it is possible, then why don't they still exist? How does the presence of large packers prevent the existence of small packers?"
No, not really. They cannot operate, as they cannot compete against the monopoly. This is partially due to the case that the monopoly has operated to control national packing from the most productive localities, so that they control those packing facilities which have the best cost advantages. This has been the case since the 1930s, at least. Maybe earlier.
Local packing houses can and do compete, but only where people are willing to pay for custom packing.
To expand out, we as Americans are so enamored with the myth of a "free" market, that we really truly tend to believe in a fully unregulated market. No fully unregulated market, however, is free. The natural competitive inclination in the free market is to win the competition. No industry seeks to go out and create competitors, they seek to crush them. We all benefit from a free market, as long as it is free. But the ultimate goal of any industry is to be the "only". General Motors, or Toyota, would like to be the only car maker. Exxon would like to be the only oil production company. Microsoft would like to be the only computer software company.
That's good for the economy as long as they aren't the only. Once they are, it's a very bad think. Busting up the monopolies, which has happened from time to time, has been a benefit to the consumer in every single instance in which it has been done. There are no exceptions. We had an oil monopoly in this country at one time. Busting it up made the oil companies competitive, way back when, when it occurred. We had an absolute telephone monopoly. Crushing it lead to a massive expansion of telephone technology and a huge reduction in telephone costs (those old enough will recall how making a long distance phone call used to be a really big deal, and when you received one it was such a big deal that you'd almost brag it up, my mother's siblings used to write here about when they'd call, as it was so planned out). And so on.
This would be equally true of the packers. Busing them up would lead to competition, and better prices for the stockmen. It likely would lead to lower prices for the consumers. Right now, the packers have no incentive to pay, and no incentive to cut costs either.
Rich said:
"While I will admit the Main Ag does some (maybe a lot) of things that don't make sense to me, I will also admit that the Outside the Box Group has its fair share of "nuts" too.
Personally, I've always thought that picking and choosing common sense techniques from both camps to be the best path."
I quite agree.
The problem, I think, is that in many areas there's simply no exposure to anything outside of academic ag to students. This may be unique to the area I am in, however. To the extent it is, there's very little exposure to anything outside.
One of the oddities of agriculture is that it is, in some ways, a spectator sport. That's bad in that everyone thinks they know how to farm or ranch. That makes us naturally defensive. On the other hand, however, I'm often impressed by how much really good agricultural literature is out there. Magazines like Rural Heritage, or books like those of Berry and Logsdon, say a lot things to us that we can benefit from. Even thinking about why we farm, which Berry and Logsdon ponder, is very helpful to us. But, ironically, farmers are amongst the least likely to actually read any of this material.
I agree that monopolies stifle competition, but have we reached the point where a packer monopoly actually exists yet?
If the monopoly doesn't exist, then is there any benefit to preemptively busting up a monopoly (if that is possible in the absence of an actual monopoly)? Or, would preemptively breaking up an imagined monopoly lead to a worse situation? If we accept that preemptively breaking up monopolies is a valid policy, then where would it stop, would packers be limited to a certain size?
Yeoman said,
"...The problem, I think, is that in many areas there's simply no exposure to anything outside of academic ag to students. This may be unique to the area I am in, however. To the extent it is, there's very little exposure to anything outside..."
I wonder if academic ag and/or an agricultural college degree IS the problem? I have an engineering degree, (not much of an engineering career, though), but it formed (or honed) my way of thinking. Wouldn't strictly studying Agriculture (either Conventional or Out of the Box) only serve to teach you specific methods of agriculture, instead of thinking about the whys of agriculture?
Interestingly, when I was in college, there were a significant number of engineering students that came from farming backgrounds. One of my professors even commented that some of the best engineers came from the farm. I wonder how many of those engineers (and farmland) would have been better served to start farming after graduation instead of being confined to a cubicle?
"Rich said...
I wonder if academic ag and/or an agricultural college degree IS the problem? I have an engineering degree, (not much of an engineering career, though), but it formed (or honed) my way of thinking. Wouldn't strictly studying Agriculture (either Conventional or Out of the Box) only serve to teach you specific methods of agriculture, instead of thinking about the whys of agriculture?"
Interesting point. I think there's a lot to that, although I think your point can be expanded out beyond that.
We've reached the point somehow where we feel that a degree is necessary for a good life. Sadly, we're also working on a society where that's darned near true. By overemphasizing degrees, we're creating a society that's hypersensitive to certification. Additionally, we're giving darned near everyone in the Middle Class the spoon fed idea that the life they must lead, if it is to be worthwhile, entails getting a degree, and a cubicle job. A sad state of affairs.
Not all that long ago, labor jobs were regarded as good jobs. We have few of those now, in comparison to the past, but beyond that, we all operate against the assumption that labor jobs, and agricultural jobs, are poor jobs, to be done only if you can't do anything else. Even farmers and ranchers buy into that line of thinking, as it's so prevalent.
On the flipside, having wiped out so many decent entry level jobs, a college degree is becoming increasingly necessary just to get buy. At the same time, high school degrees are so diluted, that they mean darn near nothing. It's often pointed out that in the 40s and 50s the drop out rate, from high school was high, but it's also rarely noted that a high school student came out of hs with a degree that's the equivalent of an Associates Degree, in terms of difficulty, today. We'd be much better off toughening up hs degrees and college degrees, which would mean fewer grads, but that'd be okay.
Having said all that, I think that if a farm or ranch kid can go to college, they should. I sort of feel, however, that maybe they ought to look at a non ag degree, potentially. Part of staying alive in agriculture is being broad based. I wouldn't have made if this far in ag if I didn't have a JD, even though I don't like the work that it's brought me to. The income, however, has allowed me to get by. Still, in retrospect, I really wish that the money that went into college, for me, in the 80s, had gone into cattle instead.
Here's another one that I'd do, as Ag Sec in the Obama Administration.
As we all know, out of a fear that the nation is headed into a Second Great Depress (which would be something like a fourth great depression actually, and which we aren't anywhere near to sliding into in reality, at least looking at the stats), the incoming Administration is getting ready to violently hurl cash at the economy.
More specifically, the incoming administration is getting ready to start all sorts of "infrastructure" programs. The thesis behind all this is that the US's infrastructure is in the dumper, and that funding all sorts of road and bridge work will put those thousands upon thousands of hard hat workers we had back in the 60s, and who are apparently hiding somewhere but are ready to spring to work, back to work. In turn, they'll go out and buy 67 Pontiac Sedans and station wagons and the like.
Okay, that expressed some undue sarcasm. In part, because I don't think that the economy is really comparable to the 1929 economy in any sense. Shoot, it's not as bad as the 1983 economy. But, more than that, my sarcasm is based on the optimism expressed in investing in an obsolete infrastructure.
We all know that part of our recent problem was inspired by the fact that the country cannot continue to consume an unending supply of petroleum. So why invest in an obsolete petroleum infrastructure? At best, that makes it easier to keep entrenched in the petroleum economy that's wrecking some things and likely tottering towards obsolesce anyhow. If I were the President, and wanted to invest in infrastructure, I'd invest in electric rail, wind power, and nuclear power, which is likely something we'll be needing, and paying for, anyhow.
But this brings me to my next point. Being just as willing to accept cash as anyone else, but feeling that the proposed spending isn't wisely thought out, as Ag Secretary, I'd propose to get some of my hands on that cash, and start up the 21st Century Homesteading Act.
Yes, we haven't had a Homesteading Act since 1932. And we couldn't keep the one we had at that time. But, why not use some of this cash to buy back some of the property from large Mega Farms.
The land that was acquired would then be subject to a sort of homesteading program for small farmers. In order to participate in it, you'd have to be a family farmer, not a corporation. You could acquire a small farm, but at a level of at least hopeful economic viability. You'd have to agree to farm in an environmentally conscientious manner for at least a decade, and you couldn't sell the land to an outside party for a decade, or perhaps 15 years. If you wanted to sell, you could sell it back to the government. And, unlikely the original Homestead Acts, you would actually purchase the farm from the government, but for some realistic amount, based on its production value, not speculative value. Perhaps the government could assure that value to be the ongoing one, by retaining a conservation easement on the property.
Now, why would this fit into an economic recover program? Easy enough. I'm pretty convinced there's a lot of would be farmers out there who are priced out of farming, as the farms have become so large, or because all the smaller properties are priced at their speculative/hobby value. These folks, and there's probably thousands of them, could remove themselves from the urban economy, and become independent small businessmen. Their positions in the urban economy would open up for others. And the increase in farmers would spur an increase in the sales of various items that small farmers purchase.
Sure, this isn't going to cause an economic recovery overnight. But I'd bet it would have just about as much economic impact as building a bunch of bridges, and it would have a lot fewer detrimental effects.
Yeoman, in a funny coincidence, while you were outlining your idea for a new version of a Homesteading Act today, I was thinking about something slightly related to that subject.
The recent comments about 10,000 acre ranches and farms and how much land is actually needed to farm, led me to look through some online real estate listings today.
I couldn't help but notice that many of the larger listings in the western part of the country have 'deeded acres' and 'leased acres'(which are either state lands or BLM land). Since the leased acres are included in the listings, I assume that they are somehow tied to the deeded acres in a long term lease.
If the government controlled lands are tied up in long-term lease agreements, (if that is the case), is there any land available that is actually not already being used in some way?
If public land is in long term leases that are linked to privately-owned lands, then who actually owns the land?
If the government decides to 'sell' the land for other uses, does that violate the property rights (however slight or loosely defined) of the lease holders? How would compensation for lease holders be determined?
Who would determine what was "environmentally conscientious"?
Didn't a similar process result in past homesteaders having just 160 acres to farm in Eastern Montana because bureaucrats didn't know (or care) that different regions require different farming techniques?
Rich asked:
"couldn't help but notice that many of the larger listings in the western part of the country have 'deeded acres' and 'leased acres'(which are either state lands or BLM land). Since the leased acres are included in the listings, I assume that they are somehow tied to the deeded acres in a long term lease.
If the government controlled lands are tied up in long-term lease agreements, (if that is the case), is there any land available that is actually not already being used in some way?"
The answer to that could fill volumes, to include the history of the lease, how the system came about, etc.
In a very shortened variant of it, there is no unclaimed land. Under the original Homestead Acts, contrary to the general thumbnail history of it, homesteaders were encouraged to only homestead base lands, and otherwise graze on the public domain. The grazing districts were legally recognized, although other entrants could come on and homestead or claim under the 1872 Mining Law. In short, while a homesteader only acquired the fee to the homesteaded lands, and could buy additional lands (ranchers almost always did buy added lands), the encouraged system was to homestead or buy the basic watered ground, and the graze in a district beyond that. A lot of the public districts were held communally, based on a system of rights on a per head basis.
This system was changed in 1932, when the Homestead Acts were repealed. At that point, the system was also altered so that those grazing on certain lands had to instead enter into preferential leases with the government, in the case of Federally held land. This system, contrary to a lot of fluff that some people put out about it, is a very good deal for the Federal government, as most of the improvements on this land (nearly always dry) belong to the public, not the rancher improving it. The rancher basically acquires the grazing rights alone.
To reiterate, when this system was put in it was a shock to Western ranchers, as the Federal government had encouraged them to believe that they did own it, basically. The system had been that you bought the watered ground, that you could not afford to have a later homesteader take. Beyond that, you had a right, often a legally protected right, to graze on a certain portion of the public ground, which could only be diminished by later entrants of the Federal ground.
Today, the BLM and the Forest Service both administer grazing land. The Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife also administer a little.
The states, as you note, also have grazing land. This varies by state, but basically, in a lot of states, these were grants from the Federal government for the purpose of supporting the school system in those states.
In short, there is absolutely no open ground. It's all owned, or leased. The leases are renewed on a periodic basis, but they are long term, and preferential to the holder, in recognition that when the system changed, the grazers on the public ground were put at great risk.
By the way, in the West, a 10,000 acre ranch is not large. The lands dry. 10,000 acres is comfortable, but not big. 5,000 acres is marginal, in terms of being able to get by, in many locations.
I don't want to suggest that anything should be taken away from anyone. That would be Unconstitutional. What I want to suggest is that the government buy back larger holdings via some method, and make them available, once again, to smaller agricultural endeavors. That is, I'd like to see the government invest in purchasing large holdings, and selling them back out as smaller ones. But frankly, that would benefit farmers far more than ranchers, for the most part. There are some very large ranches, but until you get to the super huge level, it wouldn't be wise to bust up producing ranches. On the other hand, I would be in favor of buying out absentee owner places.
I guess that gets back to compulsion. I'm opposed to absentee landowning of agricultural land, and I'm opposed to corporate ownership of land, when that corporation isn't simply an incorporated family farmer. You're already familiar with my views on that. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to requiring the ending of these types of ownership, with the owners to be compensated at full value for their property.
"Didn't a similar process result in past homesteaders having just 160 acres to farm in Eastern Montana because bureaucrats didn't know (or care) that different regions require different farming techniques?"
Forgot to answer that one.
Yes and no.
The various homestead acts gave out various amounts of property. None of the amounts was large, but the Desert Lands Act, the last homesteading act passed, gave out a larger amount.
In terms of an agricultural unit, these were not enough to get by on, and were based on Eastern conditions that didn't apply to where they were being used.
However, you could also purchase land beyond the homestead, which was common.
Still, what you note was very much a problem. The solution to it came to be the way the homestead acts were actually applied, which I noted above. Basically, a ranch would homestead water righted ground. Beyond that lay the public land. The ranchers in that region got together and recognized it as a Grazing District. In the summer, each one had the right to put so many head out in the District. Spring and Fall roundups in the district were either administered by the Grazing Associations, or actually by the states. All this was done with the knowledge and acceptance of the Federal government, which through its actions basically encouraged it.
The sole exception, as noted above, was that new homesteaders could get in the act by homesteading.
This system, while highly imperfect, worked more or less well up until the 1920s. By that time, there was really no land left that wasn't highly marginal. Unfortunately, the Federal government encouraged a bunch of homesteading, mostly for grain farming, in the teens and twenties. When the drought came in the 30s, these went belly up. By that time, they'd really damaged the ranches that they'd came on to.
I'm not encouraging a revival of that system. The Federal government was right to end it in 1932. And I'm not at all in favor of taking any land out of the Federal Domain. The preservation of land in the Federal Domain has been a good thing. Rather, what I'd like to see is a system of buy backs and sales to encourage a reentry on to a lot of land that's been blocked up, while keeping it in farming.
There is, by the way, some precedent for buy backs. In the 30s (oh, oh, the Great Depression again) the Federal Government bought land back, but at an undervalued rate. It kept that land, which is fine, but it did convert a lot of it into National Grasslands, which are now leased for grazing.
Post a Comment