The data from USDA is based on recommended rates not actual applications rates. The main reason for the increase in productivity is mechanization. Better tractors that plant more efficently, the use of satalite technology to show weak spots in a field and acturately guide harvestors. Chemicals have nothing to do increased productivity however the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides in the mid-west are the primary source for the pollution of the Gulf of Mexico. The Feds have a name for it is “Gulf Hypoxia”, it’s the largest dead zone in US waters.

But your claim that Big Ag might not exist is absurd. If you doubt the existence of big Ag just look at the Ag companies listed on the stock exchange.

Starting with the Regan administration, which unilaterally called the loans in millions of small and midsized farmers in the 80’s, the policies of Washington have driven marginal farmers out of business. The large corporate farmers became bigger as did their corporate welfare.

In 1999 I went to the EU as part of a USDA program to promote organic farming. I gave a speech that talked about the concerns of GMO’s. I found myself in the office the US Ag Attache with in minutes. Was told that I could NOT talk about GMO’s again. Since I was on a USDA junket, I would be sent back to the US if I did not change my presentation. That is perfect example how Monsanto owns the USDA. Farmers listen to USDA Ag extension agents and they follow the guidelines set by Washington. So yes, Monsanto does cram their products down the throats farmers and US citizens.

I suggest that you crawl back in you WinNut hole and stay there.

US agricultural policy is a lot more complex than this post would lead us to believe. Demonizing “big ag” may be popular but not useful and I wonder if there really is such a thing. Agriculture as an industry has some big players, but it is not dominated by them. Nobody, including Monsanto, is cramming things down producer’s (farmers) throats. By and large, producers are responding to market forces. Consumers want cheap food and producers need to make a profit. A good bit of farm policy is driven by the need to keep commodity prices stable and by the desire to not drive marginal producers out of business, which would increasingly concentrate agricultural production in fewer hands.

The website and newsletter FarmPolicy.com is a great place to keep up with farm bill news.

In the mid-west, pre ethanol, they refer to subsidies as farming your mailbox, plant a crop and wait for your government check.

The real problem with subsidies is that they are based on “yield per acre” which is a false economy. If you or I were to go into business based on how many widgets we could produce, without concern on who many widgets the world needed, we would all go broke. The real economic gauge is “return per acre” which is how non commodity crop farmers make a living.

But let’s not focus on how much money is paid to farmers since they end up with only a fraction of the money. (with exception of the 1%) The vast majority of the federal dollars go to:

1. The bank that makes loans to the farmer

2. The chemical companies that sell them synthetic fertilizer and pesticides

3. Seed companies that sell the GMO seed that need more chemical and pesticides, read (Monsanto)

4. Farm equipment companies

5. Landlords, most farming is done on leased land.

6. Ag processing companies, ADM – Cargill-etc who are assured a constant supply of low cost farm commodities

The farm bill is really corporate welfare, so do not believe anyone when they talk about the needs of farmers.

What farmers need is affordable crop insurance, to cover catastrophic losses due to the weather.

What the earth needs is Ag based on “return per acre” and organic farming methods.

The current bill has a bone in it for “speciality crop producers” aimed at CA non-commodity farmers. So when you call understand that the CA Senators have to protect the speciality crop provisions.

Inform yourself. Read The Omnivore’s Dilemma,Hope’s Edge,books on small scale farms and CSAs. Form your own food networks(you grow tomatoes,your neighbor grows peas or beans,your sister grows corn and you all share). Learn to preserve food. Stay the hell out of WalMart and other big box stores as much as possible. Visit ethnic grocery stores instead,ask them where their meat comes from. But organic as much as you can,even if it costs more(the cost won’t come down without support from consumers).

If say one year most of the corn production in Australia is lost, without supports many of those producers will be lost to the world market. If the the next year, its Argentina, and the next its China, and the next its us, then your world market is gone. That’s why you need stability in grain markets. It’s not about any one year. It’s about across years.

well that is the essence of our disagreement Staple grains are the least susceptible to this kind of problem, because they can be stored year to year. I’m not sure what you’re suggesting will happen to those farmers in australia if there is crop failure (which, by the way, there pretty much isn’t in staple grain production these days). Are you suggesting that they’ll simply stop farming? Then you have to argue that the land would be taken out of production entirely,

Another way of making your argument is that you believe we need to have a global surplus, at all times, in staple grains. That’s obviously a bad idea; it means that produciton levels of other crops are too low–and we end up as we have in the US, using corn for everything from animal feed to plastics.

So, no I don’t get this argument.

And kirk ((I am not a captain, I’m a doctor, dammit) when I say that famine is a political phenomenon rather than an agriicultural phenomenon, what I am saying is that there is always, at time of famine, ample food supplies to feed those in the region of famine–at least that’s been the case since the 18th century or so.

Whether you subsidize or not doesn’t matter. There’s always enough food. Whether to let people starve or not is a political decision;

Hugh, pardon my ignorance, but is it possible to give the broad outlines of farm subsidies which would prevent famine, yet avoid the negative consequences (including carbon production, so much as possible) of the current FB subsidies?

[if this sounds snarky or demanding, please forgive - not intended. trying to cook an blog and hence rushing to find words]

A la Paul Krugman’s Conscience of a Liberal, that should free us from our inertia and make it easier to do something about it.

[Mod Note; absent a snark tag, it may be wise to be more clear when using racial and ethnic references. Thanks.]