Many U.S. farmers would embrace a new farm safety net measure known as revenue protection that would guarantee them income despite poor yields or low market prices, according to a Reuters straw poll.
But even more of the farmers favored the current subsidy system which guarantees many of them a higher payment from the government each year.
A poll of 686 U.S. farmers attending the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting in New Orleans found that 66 percent would participate in a revenue protection plan being considered in Congress.
"This is the direction that we need to start moving," said Bruce Lewis, a Michigan corn, soybean and wheat farmer. "It makes sense to look at revenue rather than production."
Revenue protection, a core component of the $286 billion overhaul of farm policy underway in Congress, would mark a departure from the decades-old traditional subsidies tied to low prices, that are of little value to growers who do not have a crop to sell. The proposal would enable growers to receive payments if revenue from a crop was below a target level.
The House and Senate have voted to create an optional revenue protection plan, although in sharply different forms, for grain, cotton and soybean growers. The Bush administration has proposed a mandatory revenue protection plan.
The straw poll did not attempt to weigh responses by state, size of farm or other criteria. The farmers sampled were responding voluntarily in the poll from about 5,000 in attendance.
Some analysts have said growers will flock to revenue protection as a safeguard against crop losses because high grain prices make it unlikely traditional subsidies will be paid. Others said the revenue guarantees will be set too low to be of use.
Critics contend the Senate plan has unpalatable details, such as a lower guaranteed annual payment to farmers than current law.
Responding to a different question on the survey, 76 percent of participants said they wanted to keep the "direct" annual payments. The payments total $5.2 billion a year and are based on past production of subsidized crops.
Many farmers have said they need subsidy payments to combat rising fuel costs and tougher competition from foreign growers who receive generous aid and have lower labor costs.
"That's what we're used to. I think the market should drive itself," said Rick Pearson, an Idaho farmer. "Isn't that the farmers' way? Nobody wants anything new."
Congress has struggled to draft a farm bill to replace the 2002 legislation that officially expired on September 30, 2007. The House of Representatives and the Senate, which have each voted to maintain generous direct payment rates included in the 2002 farm law, are expected to begin working together on crafting a final version this month to send to President George W. Bush.
Already, some farmers are being impacted by Congress' failure to pass a new farm bill. Of those surveyed, 36 percent said the failure to pass a new farm bill has made it harder to determine how much or which crops to plant.
"We're getting to the point where in about two or three weeks they'll be planting crops in southern Texas," said Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman. "Farmers still don't know what the rules are going to be. It's frustrating for farmers. It's frustrating for their bankers."
He said unless Congress acts soon it could be too late to even implement a new farm bill in 2008.
The Bush administration has said the farm bills proposed in the House and Senate do not go far enough in overhauling crop subsidy rules and it has threatened to veto the measure without significant changes.
Instead, the administration has supported direct payments, which they say are predictable and satisfy World Trade Organization rules against trade-distorting subsidies.Reuters
