This Week In Ag #146
‘Tis the season when farmers wait anxiously for an old man with a white beard to deliver their gifts. I’m talking about Uncle Sam, of course.
Last week USDA announced a much-anticipated $12 billion relief package for US farmers. This is touted as a “bridge” program until the promised price supports contained in next year’s Big Beautiful Bill take effect. The package provides single payments, depending on the size of the farming operation, to serve as relief due to the heavy burden farmers have had to bear due to tariffs and other factors.
As with most policy issues regarding US agriculture, the majority of these funds – $11 billion – are going to growers of row crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat. The remaining $1 billion will be dispersed among specialty crop producers. Livestock producers won’t even get a lump of coal.
Sadly, most farmers will have already spent their checks before they even arrive. These funds will go towards paying off crop production expenses from this past season. Even with these relief funds, most farmers will still be plenty short. Due to rising crop input costs, equipment and labor costs, interest rates and trade wars, commodity crop producers are expected to experience $44 billion in net cash income losses.
USDA has already doled out $40 billion in farm payments this year prior to this latest round. This year should mark the second time in history, and the second time during a Trump presidency, that farm subsidies have eclipsed $50 billion. In that record year of 2020, farm subsidies comprised over 37% of net farm income. Typically, subsidies make up about 13% of farm income.
While farmers welcome any relief, relying on subsidies is not how most prefer to operate. But as TWIA mentions frequently, politics and farming are as tied together as holly and ivy. A case can be made that generous government subsidies are a form of socialism. They unfairly benefit large farmers. They also place a hefty burden on taxpayers: this century, farm subsidies have totaled nearly $600 billion. On the other hand, food is a matter of national security. US consumers continue to demand low food prices. And with so much government meddling in issues such as foreign trade, fiscal policy, environmental regulations and more, farmers are often unduly impacted.
Related Posts
Toilet–to–Tap—Taking the Ick Out of Wastewater Recycling
By Jael Batty The UN warns that by 2030, over half the world will be water-stressed, affecting food production and increasing exposure to waterborne disease. There is enormous potential in directly recycled wastewater. Unfortunately, attempts at wastewater recycling have historically been shot down by the public.1 Thus, most treated wastewater is dumped into oceans and
Interview with The Fertilizer Institute’s CEO, Corey Rosenbusch
BHN CEO Lyndon Smith and The Fertilizer Institute’s President & CEO Corey Rosenbusch discuss TFI’s mission and vision, programs and initiatives, and challenges facing the fertilizer industry.
This Week in Ag #35
Last week I was a guest on the TopSoil Webinar series hosted by Mitchell Hora of Continuum Ag (you can check it out here). I mentioned how western growers seem further along in their regenerative agriculture journey. That’s largely driven by regional attitudes and the food companies, who have pledged to sell products grown using regen ag practices. This has motivated growers of crops such as potatoes, onions, apples, and blueberries to hasten their adoption. But in the Heartland, where commodity crops fill the landscape, these growers have lacked many of the market-driven economic incentives. Until now.
