The Wisconsin Magazine; 1522[?]; It pays to grow corn

If you want to go into farming, there is a future there. If you want to be farmers into the next century, you can be that. And ?that- really that? farm bill is going to decide it. The farm bill Senator Leahy will be helping to write in 1990 may be what will make or break sustainable agriculture. The farm bill sets up the price support systems. These are programs established because farm production can go wildly up or down depending on the weather. Price supports smooth out the peaks and valleys of prices. But price supports penalize sustainable farmers like Greg ?Cater?. If he tries an alternative crop for environmental reasons and fails, he won't be allowed to go back to planting corn and the price supports that go with it. It's--oh, it's--it's a real small seed. I don't know if you can see it there or not.

So late... Last year, Greg Cater was trying Amaranth, a relative of pigweed that's grown around the world for animal feed and human consumption. For a farmer who wants to lower costs and use fewer chemicals, it offers some real potential. It's a lot more drought-tolerant, and it-- of course, being seeded like this, it doesn't require any cultivation. You have less erosion, and it doesn't require nearly the fertilizer that--that a crop of corn does. I don't--I think it's a lot more economically sound plant to grow than corn. But if Greg ?Cater? does what he feels is necessary to be a good steward of the land, the price support programs will penalize him.

The USDA's Paul O'Connell. And when they go to their bank--their financial institution, their financial institution will tell 'em they get much better rates and more likely to get loans if they're under the farm program. I mean, that's a matter of fact and that's a shame. Uh, uh, from my standpoint we need to give the farmers the flexibility to do what he needs to do and to get back to allowing the market dictate that, not the government. Paul O'Connell says his agency is trying hard to sell farmers on planting alternative crops. One example is canola, used in low-cholesterol cooking oils. Where is canola growing? Primarily in Canada. We can grow it here and I think we will be growing it here. Why aren't we growing more of it here. Primarily because of the--of some of the programs. It's not advantageous for the farmer to be moving into some of these new crops, uh, because of the protection they have with ?crop programs?. So it's- it's- it's

really--we're putting ourselves at a disadvantage. The farm programs stop farmers from adapting to changing markets. Take the case of oats. Oat bran is a hot item in the supermarket these days, but a farmer who plants oats instead of corn risks losing forever his price protection. Largely because of the effect of price support programs, USDA figures show oat production has dropped by more than 2/3 since 1972. Oat imports, meanwhile, have risen from 1 million bushels in 1980 to an estimated 60 million last year. That's about 20 percent of total demand. Senator Patrick Leahy. Sure. What are you thinkin'? What, ?How does it feel when-? The United States should never have to import basic food commodities. That's absolutely crazy. We're the only major

military power in the world with enough capacity to be able to produce all its own food and have food left over. And we actually damage our national security, say nothing about the fiscal integrity of this country, if we start importing basic necessities and food. It makes no sense at all. ?Cater? says there's an irony in the system that discourages planting a variety of crops by doing what's best for the productivity of his soil. ?Cater? is reducing the potential resale value of his farm. Land planted with corn, and thus eligible for price subsidies is worth more. Although, I think I'm building the quality of my land, I'm actually for--terms of the government program, I'm hurting the value of it. And remember crop rotation? Government price support programs discourage rotation. When Iowa State University ranked, the profitability of rotations of different crops, rotations of corn and soybeans were the most profitable. Continuous corn was the least

profitable. But when the effects of price supports are included, continuous corn goes from a tie for last place to a close number 2. ISU agricultural economist Mike Duffy. It turns the economic order around because the way the programs are structured, you're rewarded for the corn that you produce. The more corn that you've produced, the more benefit you get from the government program. This has left the United States with a surplus of corn. The surplus hit a peak of 5.2 billion bushels in 1986. And when there's a surplus, prices go down. That means price supports kick in, and the bill to the taxpayers goes way up. The corn surplus of 1986 translated into a corn price support bill of $12.3 billion dollars in 1987. The new secretary of agriculture, Clayton Yeutter, acknowledges that the present system is in trouble. Despite huge cash outlays on the part of the federal government,

the farmer still has problems. Much of American agriculture is still inordinately dependent, uh, upon a flow of, uh, funds from the federal government. That's simply not a--a healthy or sustainable long term situation. [sliding farm implements] Some farmers have already realized this and are planning to get out of the farm program. In Burnie Kleiber's case, he's experimenting with planting wheat. This will give him 1 more crop to protect his income from fluctuations in corn and soybean prices. If this--if this really were to take off, it'd be 1/3 wheat, 1/3 beans, and 1/3 corn. But this will mean getting off of the price support wagon. But this is not a concern. My own gut feeling is that I'd like to be without having Uncle Sam watch over my shoulder. No anxiety about that? No. No. None. [chuckles] None. [Laughs] You're glad to be rid of it? Yes. but that does cause anxiety by itself.