1990 Farm Bill Forum 



Proceedings 



their poorest land idle and then try to maximize 

 production on the remaining acres by increas- 

 ing the use of chemical inputs. 



A more reasonable approach to supply manage- 

 ment is a bush el age-based system. To deter- 

 mine the number of bushels each farmer can 

 market, multiply base acres by proven yield or 

 county averages to estimate total production for 

 each farm. The secretary of agriculture can then 

 calculate what percentage of our national 

 production capability we actually need to 

 satisfy domestic and export demand, maintain 

 strategic reserves, and maintain charitable food 

 programs; much as it's done under the current 

 acreage set-aside program. The difference is 

 that instead of deciding that we must idle 20 

 percent of our acreage because we only need 80 

 percent of our productive capability, the 

 secretary multiplies each farmer's estimated 

 production by the 80 percent factor. 

 So if a farmer had a 1 ,000-acre base and a 

 proven yield of 30 bushels, that would be an 

 estimated production of 30,000 bushels. He 

 would then be issued marketing certificates for 

 80 percent of 30,000, or a total of 24,000 bushels. 

 The advantage of this method is that it is a more 

 precise way of managing supplies. It also 

 redefines efficiency. Since the farmer could only 

 market 24,000 bushels, he has no incentive to 

 produce more than we need by maximizing 

 chemical usage. This means farmers would 

 begin producing their allotted production in the 

 most cost effective manner, resulting in the use 

 of less chemical inputs. 



Target Benefits to Small and Medium Farms 

 Does everyone remember John Greytak, the 

 investor who became the one of the world's 

 largest wheat farmers by sodbusting thousands 

 of acres? One of his farms borders mine. Huge 

 areas were sodbusted, resulting in soil erosion 

 so severe that fence rows have filled up two feet 

 high and blew out several times. John Greytak, 

 and countless corporate farmers like him, farm 

 with only the dollar in mind. 



Countless polls reveal overwhelming public 

 support for preserving a viable system of 

 family-sized farms. To do this we must provide 

 incentives to farmers of this size by issuing 

 them a greater p>erccntage of marketing certifi- 

 cates for their total production capability than 



MoDtioi Cbaptsp, SoD ind Witsr Contarvatloi Society 



are issued to large corporate farms. For ex- 

 ample, if the secretary determines that we need 

 only 80 percent of our total productive capacity, 

 the largest farms could be issued marketing 

 certificates for less than 80 percent of their total 

 capability and the smallest farms could be 

 issued more than 80 percent. 



Incentives for Sustainable Farming 

 Practices 



Would anyone here use farm chemicals if they 

 didn't feel they were necessary? Of course not. 

 No farmer wants to spend the extra money for 

 them or the additional time applying them. 

 However, to stop using all herbicides, pesti- 

 cides, and fertilizers overnight is not feasible for 

 most farmers. Anyone who has switched to sus- 

 tainable farming will tell you that yields may 

 drop during the first three to five years of the 

 transition. It takes the land time to rebuild itself 

 and new farming methods must be adopted. 

 Most farmers are far too close to the edge to 

 make this transition without help. To facilitate 

 the move to sustainable methods, financial 

 incentives must be given to farmers who wish 

 to reduce chemical inputs to make it affordable. 

 This, combined with additional technical 

 assistance from the extension service, would 

 contribute greatly to the conservation of our soil 

 and water resources. 



Summary 



Our pxjlicymakers must face some tough 

 problems when designing the 1990 Farm Bill. 

 Our rural economy continues to deteriorate as 

 low commodity prices deny adequate income to 

 farmers, our federal budget deficit continues to 

 grow, our soil and water continue to be de- 

 graded, and consumers demand food produced 

 with far fewer chemicals. 



I believe that by raising price support levels 

 above the cost of production, managing supn 

 plies on a bushelage-basis, targeting benefits to 

 small and medium-sized producers and pro\nd- 

 ing incentive for low chemical input, sustain- 

 able agriculture we can effectively address 

 these problems. We can save rural America by 

 increasing farm income, save the federal 

 government about $14 billion annually by 

 eliminating subsidy payments, encourage better 

 conservation of our precious soil and wafer and 

 be sensitive to the new demands of the market. 



30 



Augutt 28, 1888 



