SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE | June 23, 2001 | By WAYNE FALDA; Tribune Farm Writer
Roslyn Amor is seeing something for the first time that disturbs her greatly: farmers who throw in the towel prematurely.
"We have seen a lot more liquidations where the farmer, I think, really could have done something," said Amor, Indiana's director of the Farm Counseling Project.
She attributed this new phenomenon to the sweeping changes that not only have been altering the structure of agriculture, but apparently changing perception, moods and attitudes among family farmers about their future in agriculture over the long haul.
As Indiana agricultural officials continue to develop the state's position on the makeup of the upcoming national farm bill, a little known trend is taking place within the Farm Counseling Project's three offices in Lakeville, Attica and Columbus.
Simply put, more and more farmers are assessing their future and are deciding to cut their ties before it is too late.
"They wind up getting a second job -- an off-farm job that all of a sudden becomes very lucrative," she said. "You can't blame them for walking away. It's just a shame."
Amor said some of these family farmers could have stayed in business by making the necessary adjustments to modify their farm's operations and finances.
"Many lenders were working with them at the time," she noted. "That really concerns me."
On the other end of the spectrum are farmers who are ignoring the changes happening in agriculture and are not taking the steps to realign themselves to the new realities.
"They want to operate as they have operated for years," she said. "Those are the ones who scare me the most because they are the ones who will wind up losing out in the end."
As another sign of the times, farmers of late are taking huge gambles by paying off their seed, fuel and fertilizer bills with credit cards rather than going the traditional bank operating loan route. Lured by short-term 1.9 percent interest rates, they hope to pay off the debt before the interest rates suddenly switch to 18 percent.
But what happens, Amor wondered, when the crop goes bad or a marketing scheme goes awry?
Indiana's Lt. Gov. Joseph Kernan has come to know farmers as "good people who work hard in a tough industry."
For the past two months agricultural officials in the state have been meeting under the auspices of the Indiana Commission for Agriculture and Rural Development (ICARD) to develop the state's recommendation to Indiana's congressmen and senators as deliberations on the new farm bill continue in Washington.
Public comment on the recommendations will continue until July 2, when ICARD members finalize the state's farm bill policies.
The specifics run the gamut from changing global markets to environmental protections to commodity loan rates. But the overarching concern of the process is how to provide a climate where Hoosier farmers stand a chance in an agricultural world that has become increasingly hostile to the security of a small, independent farming operation.
Kernan acknowledged that "changes will be very rapid in the industry."
"It will be different tomorrow than it is today," he said.
"For the first time in my short time in this office there are now more than 50 percent of our Indiana farmers who make a majority of their income in town," Kernan said. "Who would have thought that?"
As Commissioner of Agriculture, Kernan presided over the first reports of 10 committees that were presented to ICARD on Tuesday in Indianapolis. Amor presented the findings of the financial committee.
Paul Anderson considers the trends covered by his "Competitiveness in Agriculture" committee to be "the most important issue we have on the docket right now."
The Indiana Farm Bureau member from Ripley County said ICARD members even took issue with the word "competitiveness" of his committee.
"The true word behind the word 'competitiveness' is a word called concentration," said Anderson.
"I don't believe it's any secret to anyone that the agricultural industry is in the midst of the most sweeping changes in the history of America.
"The trends that we see taking place today are leading us to believe we may only have five, or possibly six, world food processors, most of which will be European-based."
In an era in which global companies are on the verge of controlling all aspects of the food system, Anderson asked, "Will the American farmer be able to survive in this environment?
"We do believe that the new farm bill has got to address this concentration issue because this is what will turn agriculture upside down in America. It has already begun."
The agri-giants are industrializing agriculture "and a captive supply is one of the tools they will use," he said.
"Already contracts are taking place in the poultry industry, in swine and in tobacco. Contracts are beginning to take place in grain. It's just a matter of time," he said.
"Will the farmer (get) a fair shake?" Anderson continued. "Right now, he doesn't have a say about it. He has no choice (but to) either take it or leave it. In many cases we believe the producer will be swept aside. He won't even be considered."
Consumers have a stake in food security, too, he said.
"I do believe we all can agree that when you get to a point where you have just a handful of oligopolistic setups in any given area (of food processing) will we get the best quality, the safest product and at the lower price to the consumer? I don't believe we will," he said.
Jim Hoyer, a member of the commodities committee, said 160 organizations representing agricultural, religious, labor, consumer and environmental groups in the National Farm Action Campaign will campaign on behalf of the family farmer.
The coalition has already mounted opposition to the agriculture secretary's choice of Thomas Dorr of Iowa as agriculture undersecretary, based on Dorr's statements in support of large-scale farming.
Hoyer, a member of Citizens Action Coalition, said the 1996 farm bill is a failure in that it tilts the odds in favor of the agri-giants while the U.S. Treasury pumps more than $20 billion each year to prop up net farm income.
"We are subsidizing our farmers to price commodities below their cost of production so that corporate agribusiness can buy those commodities at a cheap rate," Hoyer said. "But the corporations don't pass those savings on to the consumers. So the consumers and the farmers are getting ripped off by this policy."
Citizens Action Coalition supports the concept of returning to the former farmer-owned reserve program, which has received widespread opposition by many farm organizations fearful that America will price itself out of the world grain markets.
Citizens Action has also joined with the National Family Farm Coalition in the belief that the national food system is best served when "food is produced by families who own the land and take care of the land," Hoyer said. "It's definitely a populist movement."
Staff writer Wayne Falda: [email protected], (219) 235-6326
Copyright 2001 South Bend Tribune CorporationSOUTH BEND TRIBUNE:
