Talking with a small-scale farmer over on the dry side

[eridani]

(Most recent posts first.)

Walter Kloefkorn <wkloefkorn {at} yahoo.com> wrote:

Sure, I'm even going to combine that response and this and make them into a post to my Progressive Farmer blog on Democrats.org. About time I posted something about farming.

There'll be plenty of Democratic ag types who don't agree We've actually got folks trying to build more dams, and want the second half of the Columbia Basin project undertaken. Some think we should abandon the dryland wheat model and go to irrigated wheat farming.

At the last Ag and Rural Caucus meeting in Moses Lake, the presentation on expensive new automation solutions to the farm labor problem in the tree fruit industry drew oohs and ahs. That this publicly subsidized (through WSU) research and development would further concentrate ownership and work against small farmers
wasn't considered. Get big or get out is still the operative mantra, and it's still the wrong advice for our party and our country.

Personaly I'm with Wendell Berry on the subject of technology, we cause new problems with every fix and in general are losing ground. With all the pesticdes we drench the crops with (to the benefit of Dow, Monsanto, Bayer, etc.), we're losing roughly the same percentage of the crop to pests as before WWII. Plus we've got water quality degredation, a Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, cancers and other human health problems, species extinction, and have helped to skew the power structure of the nation to the point where our Republic is almost a goner.

Here's a link to an article on what our goal should be for agriculture:

http://www.schumachersociety.org/publications/heinberg_06.html

I'm glad to see that it's spread around the net quite a bit in the past few months. Not only will we need this many farmers to feed ourselves post-oil economy, it will do wonders for our local economies and the working class. A dollar of farm income used to
translate to $7 of GDP and would again if we followed this model. This would put some reality into Bush's specious claim of an "ownership society." And our Republic would be safe for another 200 years.

Fifty million farmers translates to 1 million in Washington State. Needless to say, there is no public policy being advanced towards this end, nor do our agency bureaucrats in the WSDA in general support it. They're firmly in the agribusiness camp. There are a
few enlightened folks, mostly in WSU Extension, but not enough.

--- eridani wrote:

I thought as much. I'm trying to get up to speed on farm issues--can I share this around?

Walter Kloefkorn <wkloefkorn {at} yahoo.com> wrote:

Small farmers in general most assuredly will not benefit. Perhaps the price of whatever wheat they favor in Korea might tick up, and some family-owned wheat farms will benefit a ittle, especially if they're hedged against continued price increases in the futures market. That makes them commodity traders though, not farmers anymore. But whenever we ship our raw ag products grown by industral methods overseas, we are in essence sending a shovel of topsoil with every bushel. Of all the commodities, wheat is probably the least offensively grown, less chemicals, reduced tillage, smaller land ownership patterns, less dependence on subsidized irrigation, but they still have long bare fallow periods where the land is subject to severe wind erosion and the organic content of the soil in the Palouse is way down from where it was when we started farming it.

And average farm size has increased to the point where wheat is not supporting the small towns of the Palouse. I doubt this bumper year will provide any long term economic revival of the region. Topsoil is a renweable resource, but at nowhere near the level we are depleting it. The current efforts at no-till (we're letting the straw accumulate and compost in the field instead of hauling it off in bales), are more dependent on chemicals to kill weeds and will go by the wayside if any significant market for biomass for
conversion to energy develops.

The primary beneficiaries of reduced Korean ag tariffs will be the Cargills and ADMs of the world. Given the timing, this years crop is already mostly sold, any price increase will go to the buyers. Next year? Australia could have a bumper crop, our monoculture production could get hit by a devastating disease, Mt Hood could blow and scrw up everything. (although that would be a long term benefit to soil health), or George and Dick could start a war in Korea.

Meanwhile the big boys will have another year to schmooze the policy makers in DC and maximize their share of the
take.

---eridani wrote:

In an independent analysis required by law, the U.S. commission said exports of agricultural products will be a major export beneficiary of the agreement due to South Korea's removal of high tariffs on farm products.

Those high tariffs promote sustainable small-scale farming in Korea. I'd be hugely surprised if they help any small-scall producers here--mayby Charlie or Walter would weigh in on this?