Choices Article - History and Outlook for Farm Bill Conservation Programs. Over the last 7. 0 years, the United States Congress has taken on the task of determining how federal dollars will be invested in agriculture through farm bills. The focus of this paper is to determine how conservation programs have arisen and evolved and to speculate about future direction. Conservation programs have taken a variety of forms since 1. It was not until the mid- 1. History and Outlook for Farm Bill Conservation Programs. History of agricultural price-support and adjustment programs, 1933-84 (Agricultural Information Bulletin 485). The Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs. DAFP administers major portions of the farm bill including FSA's commodity price support activities. Farm Programs : Farm Loans . Several important environmental gains have been made over the last 7. Depression. The Great Depression of 1. Americans, especially farmers. One out of four Americans resided on farms at the time; today that figure is less than one out of 5. Between 1. 92. 9 and 1. Information on FSA's Price Support programs, including MILC, DELAP, loans, Market Loss Assistance, and other price support initiative programs. Price Support programs for farmers. USDA Expands Safety-Net for Dairy Operations Adding Next-Generation Family Members; USDA Announces 2016 Loan Rates for Wheat, Feed Grains and Oilseeds. Farm Programs: An Overview of Price and Income Support, and Storage Programs RCED-88-84BR: Published: Feb 29, 1988. Publicly Released: Feb 29, 1988. Agriculture in the WTO: Rules and Limits on Domestic Support Randy Schnepf Specialist in Agricultural Policy September 18, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS20840. Agricultural Subsidy Programs. These estimates aggregate into a single index a large range of government programs, including price. Domestic Price Support. The 2014 Farm Bill provides for USDA to make loans available to processors of domestically grown sugarcane and to. Unlike most other commodity programs, the sugar program makes loans to processors. In 1. 93. 3 rural incomes were 4. Doering, 1. 99. 7). When FDR was elected in 1. His administration, under the leadership of Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, produced the first farm bill: the 1. Agricultural Adjustment Act (PL 7. Wallace understood the financial crisis that faced rural Americans; the best way to get cash to rural, predominantly agricultural focused areas was via farm programs. Direct payments were not an option at this point in history; governments giving money directly to individuals would have been seen as socialistic. The act attempted to do this by setting price supports, or parity prices, to guarantee that prices did not fall below a set level. Farm Safety Net Programs: Issues for the Next Farm Bill. Parity was a statistical model that was used during the 30s to try to find out if farm income was keeping up with farm costs. Here's how it worked. This price support was available to producers who participated in voluntary production reduction programs, such as acreage set aside. In reality, the program was hardly voluntary- those who did not participate were subject to the uncertainty of low prices on the open market. The program was financed by levying a processing tax on the commodities. This tax was often passed straight to the consumer, who ended up paying more for food and fiber products. In 1. 93. 6 this tax was declared unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had passed a tax that was beneficial to one segment of the nation- the farmer- while causing detriment to everyone else. Congress needed to infuse cash into rural areas while controlling supply to achieve higher commodity prices, ultimately in hope of reducing the dependency of the American farmer on government subsidies. The Soil Conservation Act of 1. PL 7. 4- 4. 6) established the Soil Conservation Service and made funding available for farmers who established soil conservation practices. This mode of bringing cash to farmers had not been challenged in court, so it became the basis of economic relief in the next farm bill: the 1. Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (PL 7. Congress entitled the bill . Soil conservation was a justifiable public expenditure; Americans had seen how the Dust Bowl had driven farmers out of the Great Plains. Economic and social policy analysts saw that conservation was in the public interest, and therefore the public should contribute to the farmer's costs (Helms, 2. Soil conservation had also gained a formidable ally in . Bennett used his supreme showmanship and scientific knowledge to rally Congress and the American public to the need for soil conservation. The ACP sought to reduce commodity surplus by paying farmers to replace seven soil- depleting crops with soil- conserving crops. The seven soil- depleting crops included corn, cotton, wheat, and other commercial crops the USDA believed to be in surplus. By planting a grass, legume, or cover crop in place of one of these soil- depleting crops, the government would pay the farmer for participating in soil- conserving practices out of the general revenue fund instead of assessing a special tax. This can be attributed to farmers enrolling their poorest ground into conservation programs while using their guaranteed income via government payments to increase yields with fertilizers, machinery, and other technology on their best ground. The 1. 93. 8 Agricultural Adjustment Act sought to decrease these surpluses by using acreage allotments and the development of the ever normal granary to handle excess supply, to no avail. The act did continue to build on conservation policy by increasing payments to participants and setting rules for how those payments should be divided between landowners and producers (tenants and sharecroppers). The 1. 93. 8 Act also laid the groundwork for soil conservation districts at the county level. Table 1 provides a comparison between conservation expenditures in 1. Wartime. World War II brought a hungry world market to American producers. High demand led to higher prices, and the government developed great surpluses to ensure national security. Conservation was put on the back burner as producers scrambled to cash in on high prices. This was a period of turf wars, where the Soil Conservation Service, land- grant colleges, Farm Bureau, extension, the Department of the Interior, and others attempted to shape their roles in conservation programs. There developed under Bennett a sense that SCS, as the keeper of the conservation flame, had the mandate and mission to plan and execute a national program of soil and water conservation. Conservation was defined as what the SCS decided to do. After World War II, the SCS was project oriented, conducting activities like the Small Watershed Program and Great Plains Conservation Program. These were seen as public works programs that usually were funded to benefit the home district of some congressional representative (Doering, 1. Dealing with Surpluses. The war ended, demand shrank, and surpluses grew. Farm bills in 1. 94. The Agricultural Act of 1. PL 7. 0- 5. 40) created the Soil Bank, which took 2. By transferring these acres into conserving practices, the government could decrease surplus supply as well as deal with (as stated in the act) . The acreage reserve program made farmers refrain from planting surplus commodities (corn, wheat, cotton, rice, peanuts, and several varieties of tobacco) or plow down the crops they had already planted. The conservation reserve program called for a three- year contract wherein the government would pay for land improvements that increased soil, water, forestry, and wildlife quality if the farmer would agree not to harvest or graze contracted land. This act also stated that newly irrigated or drained farmland could not be used to produce these surplus commodities, as well as providing matching funds to the state for reforestation of private lands. Land retirement programs had several objectives: reducing erosion, supporting farm incomes, and reducing commodity price support payments by reducing the supply and thereby raising market prices (Helms, 2. This period started a trend that would be followed until the early 1. Several important lessons would be learned about land retirement programs by the failures of the Soil Bank, such as limiting retirement on a per- county basis so as not to devastate local economies and the importance of a bid system rather than fixed payments. The acreage reserve ended in 1. Bowers, Rasmussen, & Baker, 1. Targeting Surplus Commodities. Surpluses were still the norm in the 1. Conservation payments through the ACP were being used for lime and drainage, which improved soil quality and increased yields. In 1. 96. 2, 3. 8% of funds were spent on fertilizer and lime. These major outlays were starting to be questioned as a driving force behind producing further surpluses. Farm productivity grew by 4. The Emergency Feed Grain Act of 1. PL 8. 7- 5) attempted to take additional corn and grain sorghum out of production by paying farmers to replace production acreage with conservation areas. Designed only for 1. Subsequent acts of the 1. The 1. 96. 5 Act established a cropland adjustment program, giving the Secretary of Agriculture authority to make 5- to 1. Payments could not exceed 4. Fence Row to Fence Row. The Russians were running out of food and the Secretary of Agriculture told farmers to . The Russian grain purchases ensured that prices and demand were high. American farmers were more than willing to answer the call to produce more. In retrospect, this attitude was very detrimental to the gains that conservation programs had made during the previous 4. Farmers tilled up their conservation acreage and went back to their old ways. A 1. 97. 7 Congressional study found that 2. Great Plains Conservation Program had plowed up their newly established grasslands for wheat production after their contracts had expired (Doering, 1. This emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining long- term conservation practices, especially in land retirement programs. The Water Bank of 1. The Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1. PL 9. 3- 8. 6) authorized long- term contracts (up to 2. Rural Environment Conservation Program and Water Bank Program. There was a push in conservation to increase the . The language used in the Food and Agriculture Act of 1. PL 9. 5- 1. 13) shows the USDA was starting to take a harder look at sources and solutions for point and nonpoint farm pollution, including animal wastes. The administration began looking not only at water pollution from sediment runoff but also the overall quality of water supplies in rural America. This also led to increased targeting, putting money where it was deemed most beneficial for water quality instead of in the hands of any and all farmers. Conservation Policy that has Conservation Implications. The farm policy of the 1. Until this time, two major themes had dominated the conservation debate: first, reducing high levels of erosion; second, providing water to agriculture in quantities and qualities that enhanced production (Zinn, 2. Increased public awareness about the deleterious effects farming had on not only soil quality, but also water, air, and wildlife, came to life. Conservation programs started to focus on conservation, not supply control or rural development. This page is currently under construction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |