The farm bill: we might actually agree on something

I don't normally agree with this weekly column. They tend to be the equivalent answer to the hysterical anti-meat protesters, and I don't like either attitude. Here, though, they get it just about right.

THE VOCAL POINT: Reforming the farm bill likely to be industry's job No. 1

By Dan Murphy on 3/23/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Over the last five years that have elapsed since passage of the 2002 farm bill, one conclusion is inescapable: Our agricultural policy is broken.

Reform is not only desirable; in many respects, it's inevitable.

The pressure — and the political will — to control federal budget deficits is for real, and that alone makes it likely that the next five-year funding cycle for farm programs could be significantly reduced.

Additionally, with the massive federal commitment to diversion of corn from feed and food toward ethanol production, the funding available to prop up program crop prices cannot and will not remain static.

It's time that all constituencies impacted by our current system of ag subsidies recognize that the farm bill has evolved into a gigantic entitlement program, supporting a small, special-interest group to the exclusion of other broader, more beneficial outcomes that agricultural policy could and should support.

With farmers and ranchers themselves being the top beneficiaries.

Certainly, the political pressure to continue subsidizing commodity crops to enhance ag exports cannot be ignored — without the more than $60 billion in food and fiber we export, our balance of trade would be even more horrendous than it already is.

But the bottom line is that serious challenges lie ahead for both farmers and livestock producers in this country, and without a shift in the focus and funding priorities of federal farm programs, the outlook is bleak for continued growth of a healthy, sustainable agricultural sector.

Redirecting policy priorities

There are many, many options to slice apart the way our costly, antiquated farm programs damage both short-term viability and long-term sustainability of animal and plant food production. Let's limit ourselves to three key areas.

Biofuel production. USDA Secretary Mike Johanns just this week touted the department's provision of more than $1.6 billion in new funding for renewable energy R&D, specifically the development and production of so-called "cellulosic ethanol" made from switchgrass, wood chips and other biomass.

Stop me before I hurt myself laughing.

That funding ought to be 10 times the proposed amount if anyone in government seriously intends to make biofuel production something that helps, rather than hurts, the farm sector — meaning livestock producers looking at corn prices heading sky high. There are both huge opportunities to be pursued, and equally huge obstacles to be overcome, in diversifying biofuel production beyond ethanol — as well as serious challenges inherent in making corn-to-ethanol conversion efficient — and it all depends on ramping up the technologies currently available.

Make no mistake: The Bioenergy and Bioproducts Research Initiative proposed as part of USDA's biofuels program is a good start. But that initiative needs much more than the pitiful $50 million a year in funding currently on the table to ensure any real progress toward utilization of renewable fuel sources other than feed grains.

So where can larger levels of funding be found? There's only one logical source: Diversion of program crop support payments. Instead of propping up commodity prices, some of those billions need to go into vastly accelerated research efforts to expand biofuel production beyond the questionable conversion of corn from food to fuel.

Otherwise, we're just paying lip service to our (alleged) commitment to weaning the nation off imported oil.

Land use. This challenge here is simple yet profound: We cannot sustain continued population growth and the concurrent expansion of housing, transportation corridors and commercial development without seriously impacting the availability of arable acreage needed to maintain domestic food security.

Without a national initiative to preserve and protect our agricultural land base, everything else in the way of conservation efforts, resource management and environmental sustainability falls apart. Short-term, several states are working to stopgap the disappearance of prime farmland to development, but eventually, as it always does, those initiatives come down to funding.

As a nation, we either support food security by subsidizing the continued presence of hog farms, feedlots, dairy farms, orchards, vineyards, specialty farms and other non-commodity ag operations on the land base adjacent to our major population centers, or else we'd better be prepared to suffer the consequences inherent in a gradual but ultimately significant outsourcing of food production.

Can't happen here? In just a couple generations, Japan went from self sufficiency — indeed from food exporting — to one of the world's largest food importers, dependent on trading partners for more than 60 percent of its basic foodstuffs. That didn't happen by accident; it happened by default, and it's not inconceivable that a similar scenario could take place here unless dollars are devoted to making sure that farmland stays in production.

Sustainability. Overriding all of the macro-dynamics affecting farm policy is the one factor I consider most crucial: Maintaining the long-term viability of the resource base that supports food production.

If we look ahead 10 or 20 years, we have to ask: Will there be enough water to maintain beef production on the High Plains? Will watershed impacts curtail the growth of confinement pork production? Will there be sufficient rangeland to ramp up production of grassfed or natural beef, should those categories continue to expand? Will loss of soil fertility and ongoing erosion jeopardize current yield levels of critical food and feed crops?

Right now, I'm afraid the answer to all those questions is no.

How do we improve that prognosis? The obvious answer is public-private partnerships to create marketable programs that allow agriculture to be part of the solution to the threats listed above.

Why shouldn't farmers, ranchers and producers be deputized as leaders in programs to conserve water resources, maintain water quality, restore wetlands (anyone remember Hurricane Katrina?), enhance wildlife habitat and even reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Individually, those are all massive challenges. Collectively, they cannot be addressed solely by policymaking mandates — no matter what the level of funding — coming from Washington.

Not that such mandates are anywhere near any politician's agenda.

Bottom line, we need to not just sustain but increase our farm productivity. We will continue to depend on export markets to ensure the profitability of food, fiber and meat products. We can and must depend on the agricultural sector to play a key role in everything from national security to environmental protection to global warming to energy independence.

None of those priorities can be achieved by funneling multi-billions into maintenance of an outdated, crudely structured, long-ago obsolete structure of agricultural subsidies.

If we make the requisite changes, yes: The net result is that we'll end up paying more for our food.

The alternative is paying an even steeper price in terms of lost export opportunities, rural viability and preservation of the resource base on which our entire economy depends.

Dan Murphy, former editor of MMT magazine, is communications integrator + principal at Seattle-based Outsource Marketing and author of the forthcoming book, "Meat of the Matter."