American agriculture has changed dramatically since the first days of mechanized equipment and large-scale crop production. “Many conceived of farming as a rewarding life . . . and a source of moral virtue” (Mariola, 2005). While presently, many view farming as purely economic in purpose. It has been stated that farming in America is decreasing more quickly than any other occupation. Yet, population increases steadily, making agriculture all the more essential. Many current issues are affecting agricultural progress in America; basic concerns over water, land, and climate only begin to describe the complex predicament. Economics, as well as public involvement and education are important tools, needed to save American agriculture.
According to the documentary Food, Inc. (2008), the government does not give any incentives for farmers to grow food that is healthy for the population, such as apples and oranges. However, the government will pay farmers to grow corn even though there is already an abundance of corn, because corn can be transformed into almost anything. Nearly everything an American eats has corn in it. Farmers can make an outrageous amount of corn because if they don’t sell all of it, then they can either feed it to their livestock, or sell it to a factory which will modify the corn. The government has ignored the fact that modifying corn is a health concern. Why would they do this? Well, Food, Inc. (2008) also mentions how the government is now filled with people who used to be in important positions with the money-making corporations.
Many policies on farm and agriculture has impacted the way food is grown in America. For example hedge funds, described in page 11 of Foodopoly have essentially driven the prices of land in America and worldwide. This has resulted in farmers having to either cut down costs and make due with lesser land, or be forced out of business. Along with pollution to environment, this policy along with many others results in the situation described in page 12, with lesser farmers working to supply the nation (from 6.8 million to under 1 million). Most often, farmers sell their products are low prices to pay off land that is priced higher...
Farmers are essentially the back-bone of the entire food system. Large-scale family farms account for 10% of all farms, but 75% of overall food production, (CSS statistics). Without farmers, there would be no food for us to consume. Big business picked up on this right away and began to control the farmers profits and products. When farmers buy their land, they take out a loan in order to pay for their land and farm house and for the livestock, crops, and machinery that are involved in the farming process. Today, the loans are paid off through contracts with big business corporations. Since big business has such a hold over the farmers, they take advantage of this and capitalize on their crops, commodities, and profits. Farmers are life-long slaves to these b...
Agriculture has long been a topic of interest and will continue due to the necessity of
In 1919, farmers from thirty states, including Missouri, saw a need. They gathered in Chicago and formed the American Farm Bureau Federation. In 1919, they had one goal, they wanted to speak for themselves with the help of their own national organization. Since 1919, Farm Bureau has operated by a philosophy that states: “analyze the problem of farmers and develop a plan of action for these problems” (Missouri). In the past 94 years, the A...
When you walk into a grocery store, you have the option to buy two kinds of food: subsidized and unsubsidized. The subsidized (and usually unhealthy) foods appear to be cheaper, and thus people purchase them in order to save money. However, subsidizing the commodity crops, that make the unhealthy foods cheaper, is not how the government should be spending our tax dollars. As a result of paying taxes, we have essentially paid the government to see lower prices of the unhealthy food in the grocery store aisle. If you add up all the costs associated with the unhealthy foods, you will find that they no longer cost significantly less than their healthier and more nutritious counterparts. Commodity crops should no longer be subsidized because subsidized commodity crops are driving down the price of unhealthy foods. In order to convince people to purchase healthy food, the unhealthy food needs to sell at the price that it actually costs, not at a subsidized price.
Richardson, J. ( 2011). Are All Farm Subsidies Giveaways to Corporate Farmers? Nope, Here's a
In the 1920's, farmers were encouraged to increase food production to keep up with the demand for food caused by World War I. After the war ended, production stayed at a high level, which led to a large surplus in agricultural products. The large surplus caused a steep drop in the price for the products. The drop in prices caused the market value for crops to go down and made things tougher on the economy. The United States government decided that the best way to correct the market was to put a limit on how many acres that farmers could grow. The government would pay farmers to grow nothing more than their allotted acreage. This allowed farmers to continue making money while the government controlled the surplus and kept the market prices at a reasonable level. In a personal interview with Anne Allen from the Williamson County Farm Service Agency, she explained that farmers are payed to grow at or below their acreage and that they don't have to grow every year to get payed for their acreage. However, they do have to raise crops for two out of every three years or they lose their acreage and subsequently lose their subsidy.
Gaer,Joseph, Toward Farm Security: The Problem of Rural Poverty and the Work of the Farm Security Administration (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1941). Paul E. Mertz, New Deal Policy and Southern Rural Poverty(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978). Alfred Carl Seago, "A Comparison of Results From Planned and Actual Operation on Farm Security Administration Farms, Pawnee and Payne Counties, Oklahoma" (M.A. thesis, Oklahoma A&M College, 1946).
The expiration of the tax relief act will negatively affect the next generation of American farmers. Farming does not generate enough income to meet the estate taxes that will be owed on a piece of farm ground. According to Editor Stu Ellis, in “End Estate Tax, Cut Deficit,” “Despite the high value of farm property, estates have relatively low liquid assets necessary to pay the high estate...
Subsidized grazing occurs when the government leases public land to a rancher for the purpose of grazing. The grazing fee on the land is usually lower than comparable private land fees. The first public grazing in the United States was created by the Forest Service through the Timberland Reserve program in 1891 (Thomas 1994). Grazing fees were not charged until 1906 (The Secretary of Agriculture & Secretary of The Interior 1986). In 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act was created to establish control over grazing on public lands. The Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1952 stated that the grazing fees needed to be “self-sustaining, uniform, and fair and equitable to the public and user.” (The Secretary of Agriculture & Secretary of The Interior 1986) The concept of fair to both the public and the user is where the public grazing disagreement begins. Opponents to the public grazing program insist that the program is ineffective, a waste of money, detrimental to the land, and does not benefit enough of the public.
The Affordable Care Act is projected to have a net cost of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, even though we were told it would save money once implemented. The Agricultural Act of 2014, a/k/a the “Farm Bill,” was originally estimated to cost $956 billion over the next ten years [$756 billion dedicated to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as Food Stamps), which has nothing to do with farming], however, several news sources are already stating the Congressional Budget Office projections are too low. The list of programs continues to expand, both in size and scope, as we get further and further away from our founding principles. Our nation is becoming more and more liberal. Our government, more and more secular. The removal of our founding principles and Judeo-Christian values have permeated not just the government but most industries, especially entertainment and academia, and thereby have the ability to affect most public policy decisions. There are those who believe:
United States Department of Agriculture. (2010, September 10). Economic research service. Retrieved on April 10, 2011, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/