Icon (Close Menu)

Logout

Farmers Dismayed As New Farm Bill Dumps Direct Payments

4 min read

The threatened end of cash subsidies to the nation’s row crop farmers dates back through at least the last two iterations of national agriculture policy legislation.

That threat became real, though, earlier this year when Congress passed the newest Farm Bill.

The measure eliminates direct payments, money doled out simply as a revenue enhancement based on a producer’s acreage.

In Arkansas, direct payments accounted for $244 million annually.

How will the state’s agriculture economy handle that fiscal blow?

“We don’t know yet, but if the prices go down any, Arkansas agriculture is going to be in trouble,” said Tony Schwarz, of Weiner, whose family has farmed Poinsett County land for generations. “If beans go to $10 a bushel and rice goes to $5, it’s going to be hard to pay out your crop loan. It really is.”

The bill, which governs agriculture policy on a multiyear basis, consists of several components. The federal food stamp program and other nutrition programs account for 80 percent of the legislation’s spending. Other components — “titles” in legislative language — deal with row-crop farming, regulations for livestock and poultry operations and conservation rules.

The Farm Bill is umbrella legislation but it does treat producers differently based on the crops they grow. Cotton farmers work under a different set of rules, for example, than rice growers.

In the give-and-take of negotiating the final bill, members of Congress agreed to replace direct payments with two programs designed to help farmers manage risk, while also enhancing crop insurance programs. Farmers can opt into one of the programs, or not, but they can only participate in one at a time for the duration of the five-year legislation.

Ben Noble, president of the Arkansas Rice Federation, predicted that the state’s farmers will likely choose to participate in the program that focuses on commodity pricing.

“Farmers have the option of opting into programs that best meet their specific needs with emphasis on price protection and yield protection,” Noble said. “Many row crop producers in Arkansas are expected to enroll in the Price Loss Coverage program that sets target pricing and pays farmers if prices fall. Many program options exist and farmers will likely rely on software under development that will assist them in analyzing the best approach for their specific farm.”

Farm advocates in the state note that the yield-loss program is more likely to benefit producers in Missouri, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, where few row-crop acres have irrigation systems. Most Arkansas farmers irrigate their soybeans, corn and cotton crops.

Rep. Rick Crawford, who represents the farm-centric Arkansas 1st District, graded the overall legislation fairly well but said an accurate assessment of the bill’s effect on the state’s agriculture industry is at least a year away.

“You have to grade it on a curve. On one hand, pass/fail, OK, it passed. On the other, it was tough sledding,” he said. “I’m going to say it is about a ‘B’, maybe a ‘B-minus’. We certainly didn’t get everything we wanted.”

Crawford acknowledged that it is not clear how effective the new programs will be toward providing a revenue safety net for the state’s row-crop farmers.

“It was an uphill battle, and we just couldn’t win it,” he said.

Noble explained that federal support for farmers dates back to the Great Depression era and the new legislation will cut that support by about a third.

“It’s extremely frustrating that we had that debate in the first place,” he said. “The United States had taken the lead in reducing support in the agriculture sector and had taken steps to move toward a trade-friendly structure. Other countries are subsidizing agriculture at a much higher rate. They basically watched us take our support down while they held steady, if not increasing theirs. It’s certainly going to be a challenge for Arkansas farmers as this is implemented.”

Noble noted, though, that the market pricing program will give some stability, which could help producers decide how to best manage their operations.

“Farmers are watching the market very closely and making planning decisions based on that, and that’s a good thing,” he said.

Andrew Grobmyer, executive vice president of the Arkansas Agriculture Council, suggested that the new legislation shrinks the federal safety net.

“The benefits to farmers do not trigger until farmers experience a problem based on revenue declines or price declines or yield losses,” he said. “That is a pretty big transition away from the direct payment system.”

Direct payments became the primary target in the battle over the legislation because commodity prices in recent years had been at high levels, Grobmyer noted.

“People saw it as something not politically defensible,” he said. “The climate in Washington changed with the budget situation. There was a call to cut back on spending and move toward something more risk-oriented and defensible, not only defensible to the general public in urban and suburban areas but also defensible on a global scale with the world.”

(Read more from the latest digital issue of Arkansas AgBusiness.)

Send this to a friend