The Farmers Advocate – Politics and Partisanship

October 3, 1907

Editorial

Politics and Partisanship

THERE is a great difference between the two terms and the farmers of this great country should respect the difference. It is important that the farmer should study the issues to see if he can not logically conclude which of the many parties in existence comes more nearly standing for his political beliefs. It is all wrong for him to sell out to any party that he believes is wrong or to assist in causing the farmer organization to which he belongs to become an auxiliary to any party for the purpose of placing a few farmers in office. There are certain organizations which should never be used to further the ends of any party. One of these is the church. No reader wants to see any denomination give itself over to the success of any particular political party. It’s mission is far above that. It is all right that the members of that church should study political questions and become members of the different political organizations, but they should not prostitute the church organization by making it an adjunct to any political party. Another organization that should not be so prostituted is the farmers’ organization. It is too sacred. It’s mission is much more than that. It is the all important thing that members study the political issues, but it is just wrong to try to prostitute the organization by making it a kindergarten to any political party as it is to try to use the church for the same purpose.

The things for which the average farmers’ organizations stand, such as education and co-operation, cannot be accomplished by an alliance with a political party …

The salvation of a human soul can never be accomplished by a political party and when the church as an organization becomes part of a political party its mission as a savior of souls ceases. The things for which the average farmers’ organizations stand, such as education and co-operation, cannot be accomplished by an alliance with a political party and if such an alliance is made, the usefulness of the organization ceases.

Other business organizations do not form alliances with any of the political parties. Grocery, dry goods, implement, in fact all interests, have their co-operative organizations, yet not one of them is allowed to become and auxiliary to any party, no matter how many politicians may belong to it. The farmer should use the same sound sense. Be a politician in that you keep posted on and take interest in the issues of the day, but do not be a partisan by attempting to play your organization in the hands of any party.

Thanks to Tom Giessel, NFU historian

Posted in General Advocacy | Leave a comment

No Country for Young Farmers vs. The Value of a Small Farm Well Tilled

A stark warning comes from Cody Atkinson of the feudalism monopoly control of our food system brings. We declared ourselves independent and free men in 1776 in a battle against the monopoly power of the British Crown and East India Company partnership, and again with the breakup of the Robber Barons of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Today, we are once again faced with the enslaving forces of highly concentrated power and wealth. Will we use the tools available to reassert our liberty?

The Value of a Small Farm Well Tilled was written one hundred and fourteen years before No Country for Young Farmers. Today, as with the Robber Baron days of 1906, concentrated power and wealth are back, bigger and more insidious than before.  Will we become modern-day subjects to monopoly power, or will we once again, as citizens, declare our independence?

No Country for Young Farmers

Dec 21

Perhaps the biggest problem looming in farming and ranching is the average age of the American farmer is steadily creeping toward 60. This aging population, combined with youth flight from their rural homes, and sky-high barriers to entry have our farm economy careening toward feudalism. If current trends continue, Big Ag will join the Big Banks as too big to fail. The power that monopolies like Brazil’s JBS, China’s Smithfield, and the US’ Cargill and Tyson have over our political process has led to financial ruin for rural America and bold action is needed to reverse these trends before it’s too late.

As trends toward larger farms that rotate between 2, maybe 3, crops that are only fit for animal consumption dominate the landscape across America’s breadbasket, it would seem crazy for anyone to even consider farming. However, a desire to reconnect to our land and food runs deep in many Millenials and Zoomers but the opportunity to throw on a pair of bib overalls and produce food that humans eat is narrowing. Unless you were born expecting to inherit land or wealth, farming likely isn’t on the table. Even farming part-time is a distant dream as wages in rural areas are too low and broadband required for remote work that pays better is scarce, if available at all.

Aggressive steps need to be taken to revitalize rural areas and bring in the diversity that has helped urban areas thrive. Loans for new and beginning farmers, especially BIPOC and female farmers, need to be more accessible, student loan debt needs to be canceled, broadband must be expanded, and agribusiness giants must be shackled. And that’s just the start.

The global pandemic that has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans has exposed just how weak our food system has become under corporate control. As images of heartbroken dairy farmers disposing of thousands of gallons of fresh milk as they already struggle to get by are juxtaposed with food bank lines wrapping around city blocks, a conversation has been sparked about our broken supply chains. Fixing this problem will require renewed and increased investments in local and regional food systems that support farmers and the communities they call home.

Of course, no discussion about farming should be taken seriously without at least mentioning the long-term environmental damage of industrial agriculture. I fear the lack of seriousness with which this issue is being approached stems from the lack of decision-makers who are likely to be around when the most dangerous and consequential effects of climate change occur. As our drinking water fills with pesticides and pig shit, the air we breathe poisons our lungs, and the soil we rely upon to produce a successful crop erodes. Quite frankly, the future of agriculture is bleak and there must be a changing of the guard and real support for sustainable production if we hope to have a livable future not littered by factory farms.

Sadly, help doesn’t seem to be on the way. The recent nomination of Tom Vilsack to be the next Secretary of Agriculture (again) has rallied both conservatives and progressives in a unified voice I thought the nation could no longer muster. His record of support for industry over independent producers is evident as his first stint oversaw a complete lack of intestinal fortitude when it came to standing up to corporate titans despite promises and hearings to do just that. Farmers risked their livelihoods to speak out against monopoly abuse and the lack of action has marred the Democratic brand across rural America. A return to the poisoned well is no way to water the next crop of progressives.

If we, as a nation, want a food system that feeds our communities, respects its workers, and practices good stewardship of our shared natural resources, Tom Vilsack will have to do an about-face on his first term and lead the charge for new and beginning farmers. Will he answer the call?

Cody Atkinson is the son of a long line of Missouri farmers. Cody grew up in Odessa, Missouri spending time on his family’s small cow/calf operation. Cody and his wife, Haven, hope to one day run their own farming operation raising bison and produce with a focus on sustainable development and disabled community integration.

When do we need our neighbors more than we need their land?

The Value of a Small Farm Well Tilled

Reverse the Values

Put a $16,000 Boy on a $1,000 Farm Instead of a $1,000 Boy on a $16,000 Farm.

Published in The Farmers Advocate, Topeka, Kansas, February 15, 1906

In a recent review on the ever-increasing value of farm lands and the difficulties encountered by the young man who would take up farming for a living, Maxwell’s Talisman said:

Does not the increase in land values in this country raise a question of supreme importance with reference to the opportunities of our coming generation, — the young men who now are growing into manhood and must soon face the problem of providing a living for a family?

The price of land in all the states where agriculture has become a well-established industry, is now so high that a young man coming out of school or college, with his life and all its problems before it, cannot, in any reasonable time, in any occupation open to the average man, earn enough under ordinary circumstances, to buy a farm for himself, so that he may own a home. He must be either a wage-worker or a tenant farmer.

“And is not that solution to put the value and the power of production from the land into the boy himself, by a system of right education …”

Is there not a solution of this problem which can be made to apply to every young man of average industry and capacity? And is not that solution to put the value and the power of production from the land into the boy himself, by a system of right education, rather than in the land? In other words, to make this point clear, one hundred and sixty acres of land is none too much for a man to have to furnish a good living for himself and a family, under the ordinary methods of farming now prevailing in this country. But what is the purpose of working the farm? Is it not, first, that the farmer may have a home for himself and his family, and second, that he may have an income sufficient to enable them to live in comfort, with all the advantages of education and social environment, which every citizen in this country craves and should have?

If that home and that income can be just as well produced from ten acres of land as from one hundred and sixty acres, the amount of money necessary to secure the acreage required is reduced from $16,000, the cost of 160 acres at $100 an acre, to $1,000, the cost of 10 acres at $100 an acre. The acreage cost may be put at $100 because, although in many places land demands a much higher price, there is still plenty of good land to be had where a young farmer could start a life, for $100 an acre.

A young man with no capital except industry and ordinary capacity can hardly hope to earn $16,000, or to in any way save it as a reward of his own labor, during the earlier years of his life. He might, if more than ordinarily industrious and economical, save enough by the time he reaches middle life to buy such as a farm, but he could not do so until a reasonable time after he was ready to marry and establish a home; much less, before or at that time.

“… educate and train every boy willing to receive the training, in the public schools, from kindergarten to and including the country college, so that he will become so skilled in the art of science of close and intensive cultivation of the soil …”

Now, instead of bringing together a sixteen thousand dollar farm and one thousand dollar boy, suppose we reverse the combination and placed the sixteen thousand dollar boy on a one thousand dollar farm? All that is necessary to do that is to educate and train every boy willing to receive the training, in the public schools, from kindergarten to and including the country college, so that he will become so skilled in the art of science of close and intensive cultivation of the soil, in the process of plant growth, and irrigation, soil culture and fertilization, and the selection of the kind of crops to grow, and in the methods, processes and systems of marketing them, that by intensive farming of a ten-acre tract, costing $1,000, a $16,000 boy will be able to produce from 10 acres by better and more intensive methods of farming, than a farmer now produces from 160 acres.

It is no longer a theory. It is an established and unquestioned fact that this is quite practicable, and that the only element of doubt is in the farmer himself.

Of course the average farmer and land owner imagine the very least acreage he can get on with is a quarter section, and the more land he has the richer he is, and consequently, he spends all of his energies on crowding out his neighbors and adding as many acres as he can to his own domain.

In the near future this greed for land will gradually fade away, and farmers will find with less land and more cultivation, they can make more money, and that the smaller the farms the better the roads will be, the more neighbors they will have, the better the churches and schools, the libraries and social environment, and the greater will be the educational advantages they will be able to give to their children. With “the small farm well tended,” life itself becomes a more vastly enjoyable thing than on an isolated farm, where the owner is devoting himself to laboriously laying up money to buy out his neighbors and isolate himself still more from his fellow-man.

“… provide a system of public school education and bring it within the reach of every boy and girl within the land, which will train everyone of them so they will know how to cultivate ten acres of land in such a way that it will yield a greater profit than a quarter-section …”

To carry out the plan above suggested, it is only necessary to get two ideas firmly planted in the American mind:

That the first thing to be considered is the life we live and our relations with our fellow men, rather than the amount of money we may have in the bank or the number of acres over which we may exercise dominion.

Second, that to reconstruct our social system and solve every social and political problem which now confronts this country, nothing is necessary but to provide a system of public school education and bring it within the reach of every boy and girl within the land, which will train everyone of them so they will know how to cultivate ten acres of land in such a way that it will yield a greater profit than a quarter-section farm ordinarily does today, and will know how to cultivate one acre of land — a home acre — in the suburbs of a city or factory town, so as to produce from it a large measure of the living for a family, not withstanding that the head of the family, or other members of it, may be occupied in a clerical capacity elsewhere during the day or working in a factory or a mine.

Thanks to Tom Giessel, NFU Historian

For more on why and how:

Posted in General Advocacy | Leave a comment

Trickle Down Effect? It’s Worse Now!

Since 1997 the producer share of the consumer beef dollar has declined an additional 10% or around $400 per head. Between 1975 and 1997 meatpackers, cooperating with each other and with the big retailers, had already taken 20% more than a competitive market would have allowed — all the while touting their efficiencies and economies of scale. They never said what they were really efficient at.

2020 – This government enabled wealth extraction scheme has resulted in nearly half of our cow-calf producers, and over 84,000 cattle feeding operations, going out of business.

Today, twenty-three years later, NCBA is still using nearly $40 million dollars of the beef checkoff tax every year to promote the meatpackers’ and retailers’ interests and to convince producers, who are forced to pay the checkoff, they are better off.

 

Posted in General Advocacy | Leave a comment

HOW CAN YOU HELP MEN WHO WON’T HELP THEMSELVES?

“When the people quit voting for their enemies and stop crucifying their saviors …”

Thanks to NFU historian, Tom Giessel

 

Posted in General Advocacy | Leave a comment

Will Biden Stop the Stealin’?

Retailers are robbing the bank and the meatpackers are driving the getaway car.

Cattle producers feed us, provide care for our animals, and good stewardship for our nation’s land, but only if they are allowed a fair share of the consumer dollar.

Key to the growth of the current meat monopoly has been the worship of bigger-is-better, and the misguided belief in the concept of economies of scale and efficiency. Corrupt and fearful lawmakers and lawmen, assisted by captured producer groups and university economists, have cleared and guarded the way, bowing to political and money power as the many firms became the few and the few became the ag and food monopolies of today that prey on the public.

“Monopoly is Tyranny”

With the government’s permission, the biggest players merged, bought out, and eliminated weaker rivals. Then, with so few companies remaining, they cooperated to manage the market in their favor, paying executives, shareholders, lobbyists, and bribes to members of Congress instead of producers and workers. Predictably, we now have bankrupting cattle prices, lower pay for workers, dangerous working conditions, a tired and strip-mined heartland, bare grocery shelves, and far fewer choices for consumers.

In the mid-1970s, when I entered the cattle business, there were many sellers and many buyers for livestock. The market was competitive, the industry was resilient and sustainable. The competitive market efficiently allocated 65% of the consumer beef dollar back to the producer. All sectors from ranch to retail, if well managed, could be profitable. Rural communities were alive with living incomes, water was drinkable, and the air was breathable.

How much are they stealin’?

Today, efficiency is a measure of how much the meatpacker/retailer cartel can steal. 31% more of the consumer dollar is going into the cartel’s pockets than a 1970s competitive market allowed. 31% of the current $4,026 retail value for the average finished steer or heifer equals $1,248 per head loss to the producer. With an annual cattle slaughter of 33 million head, the cattle industry is suffering a $41 billion annual loss. Instead of protecting the producer from anti-competitive practices, as the law intends, Ag Secretary, Sonny Perdue, on his way out, has rewritten the already pathetically weak rules giving meatpackers permission to steal even more.

What is Folly? – Allowing meat monopolists like John Tyson to control our food supply.

Tyson/IBP, JBS, and Cargill cooperate with the major food retailers to control prices for cattle and beef.

When we lose our markets, we lose our freedom.

What if producers, instead of selling cattle to the big meatpackers, could market their beef directly to consumers? What if the consumer could buy higher quality, safer, locally produced beef at essentially the same prices they currently pay at the big box stores, keeping the money closer to home? What would be the impact on producers, workers, animal welfare, rural communities, and the environment?

What would rural America look like if competition could be restored and an additional $41 billion a year, just from the cattle industry alone, was circulated through our rural communities? What if, right now, we began building a new local/regional, small-to-medium-size, meat plant infrastructure parallel to the existing system, eventually replacing it, bringing the producer and consumer nearer to each other?

Note: The Current USDA reported Byproduct Drop Value of $123.79/head ($8.90/100 pounds live wt (1,391 lbs.)). for the hide, head, heart, liver, tongue, tail, etc.) is not included in the above calculation because small plants generally receive little to no value for the Drop (Offal). Many small plants are now composting or paying for the removal of slaughter waste, including the hides. Twenty years ago when I started Ranch Foods Direct the Drop Value credits were worth more than the kill cost.

Throwing away perfectly good hides represents just another failure of the highly concentrated, centrally planned global meat industry – it’s wasteful and is disrespectful of the animal.

Stop the Stealin’ – Break em’ up and Build Back Better!

Posted in General Advocacy | Leave a comment