ITVS: Delafield - Rural Farming

Rural Farming

Because farming no longer anchors most rural economies as it did through the mid-20th century, many areas of the Great Plains and western corn belt have been in decline for decades. In these communities, depopulation and economic stress are directly tied to the price of grain. Currently, farmers over the age of 65 outnumber farmers under the age of 35 by three to one, and farmers are five times more likely to die from suicide than from farm injuries.

There are a number of ways in which a community that diminishes in population is negatively impacted. It is difficult to sustain local businesses with less consumers. Small retail stores are also forced to compete with larger chains. As the number of family farms decreases, unemployment rises, as more jobs are concentrated in regional centers rather than small towns. The depopulation of rural areas has major implications on local services. Social centers such as the school, the church and the community hall have been replaced by those in more remote areas. Health services have likewise changed, with doctors and hospitals located in the larger rural centers. These services mean long travel distances and higher transportation costs.

Threats to Family Farms

Bob Brodin on his farm

In recent years, shrinking export markets, global economic collapse, overproduction and deregulation have threatened farmers' livelihoods. The Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 was aimed at deregulating agriculture for the first time since the Great Depression so that market forces would reconcile supply and demand and open up the global market to farmers. It scheduled a seven-year phase out of subsidies. But in 1997, commodity prices dropped, due in part to a long run of good weather, which produced more supply and depressed prices. By 1998, subsidies to farmers tripled when Congress enacted emergency relief measures. By 2000, subsidies provided farmers 49 percent of their net income, up from 13 percent in 1996. It is estimated that $170 billion in aid will go to farmers over the next ten years, because farmers cannot raise slumping commodity prices and have no way of reducing production costs.

Crop farming in the Midwest is barely a break-even business in the current market. In 1998, one-third of American farmers grew a crop that cost more to produce than it sold for at market. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that corn would earn $1.95 a bushel, compared with $2.43 in 1998. As crop prices remain depressed, machinery and land continue to be expensive, especially as technology makes farming more efficient.

Technological advances have enabled a smaller number of producers to meet world needs. In 1997, 157,000 big farms - eight percent of all farms - accounted for nearly three-quarters of commodity sales in the United States. "Given the efficiency and size of machinery nowadays, one can cover a lot of ground, but one has to cover a lot of ground in order to pay for the efficient machinery. It's kind of a vicious cycle," says retired farmer Robert Brodin. Higher yields and greater productive capacity can also mean more surpluses.

Alliances with Agribusiness

One consequence of the price collapse is that farmers are accepting fixed-price contracts with corporations, leaving them more dependent on agribusiness. While the farmers suffered three years of depressed prices at the end of the 1990s, corporations saw soaring profits. In virtually every segment of the food sector - beef, chickens, cereals, grains - three or four companies control 80 percent of the market. With this kind of market leverage, companies have a major pricing advantage over farmers and ranchers. Filmmaker Mark Brodin explains, "Kellogg told me they can make 38-12 ounce boxes of Corn Flakes™ from a bushel of corn. If each of those boxes cost four dollars at the grocery store, this bushel grosses $152.00 for the processors and distributors. The farmer got $1.30."

Sources