The Farmer and World Food Shortages

MOST of the working people in the world​—yes, three out of every four—​live on farms and are often desperately poor. The vast majority of these poor are in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In good years, they eke out enough food for themselves, their families and possibly a few others. In bad years, many starve.

In the more industrialized sectors of the world a smaller percentage of people produce food for the majority of the population. One of the most productive lands is the United States, where, although small farms exist, large ones predominate.

Bountiful Production

In the some forty years since the Great Depression, the increase of corn per acre in the U.S. has almost quadrupled, going from an average of 22 bushels to 84. Wheat has jumped from 13 bushels to 31; and rice, from 2,100 pounds per acre to 4,600, on the average.

In 1974, with more land than ever under cultivation, the U.S. farmer produced almost 1.8 billion bushels of wheat, second only to the Soviet Union. The 1974 U.S. corn crop was 4.6 billion bushels, the largest in the world. And 36 million head of cattle were slaughtered, a 7-percent increase over 1973.

This tremendous bounty of food is produced by only 2.8 million farmers in a nation of 208 million people. That means that each farmer feeds about 74 Americans.

Although this food is produced at a fairly modest price when compared to many other countries, persons on fixed incomes and those in lower economic brackets have been paying a rising percentage of their money for food. While farmers may sympathize with the hardships of others, they too face financial problems.

What Farmers Feel Forced to Do

The U.S. farmer would like to help feed the poor throughout the world, and he has provided considerable food for millions of starving people in other lands. Between the years 1965 and 1972, the United States says, it provided 84 percent of all so-called “food aid” in the world. However, only 20 percent of what is allocated for “food aid” by the U.S. goes to famished nations; the rest is sold to those who can pay the price.

Profit is considered vital, since the way the U.S. agriculture system operates requires the farmer to make money on what he produces if he is to stay in business. And to try to make known their need to make a profit, some farmers have taken drastic measures. In several states they killed hundreds of calves and threw them into ditches to rot.

Of course, farmers may admit that such killing is a shameful waste of food, but a cattle farmer from Motley, Minnesota, adds: “It’s also a shame for a farmer to work a year and find out he’s $20,000 or $30,000 in the hole. . . . I think that’s a lot bigger shame than dumping some of this meat in the pit.”

Varied Circumstances

Recent economic developments have hit many farmers hard. For example, to bring a calf to the point where it can be sold for veal has, at times, cost farmers more in grain than they received for the animal at the market. Likewise, the feed used to produce one hundred pounds of milk can cost more than the milk itself. As a result, in Wisconsin nearly ten dairies a day were recently reported to be closing.

On the other hand, some farmers are doing well financially. One, who farms about a hundred acres in Iowa, admits: “I can truthfully agree with the Secretary of Agriculture that I never had it so good. So my conclusion is, it depends on where one lives. Here it is good, at other places it is very bad.”

But even those who had an excellent year know that their condition can change almost overnight. Thus, in 1974 grain farmers generally made good money, since grain sold for high prices. But many cattlemen who needed the expensive grain to feed their cattle went bankrupt.

Why this uncertainty and lopsidedness?

Basic Farm Problems

Many farmers consider the weather a number one problem, and expert meteorologists confirm that recent peculiar weather patterns are hurting farmers. To take one instance: In Iowa last year, heavy, devastating rains washed out much land, preventing early planting. Then a sizzling July with temperatures of 100 degrees Fahrenheit ruined vast sections of crops, only to be followed by a record-breaking early frost on September 2.

A major new problem is the tremendous increase in the price of petroleum, upon which modern agriculture is dependent. It has been estimated that the equivalent of eighty gallons of gasoline is used to produce just one acre of corn. The operation of farm equipment, as well as the production of commercial fertilizers, requires petroleum. In 1972 petroleum-base fertilizer was $65.50 per ton; by 1974 farmers were paying $175.00.

Also, the cost of farm machinery has skyrocketed. In some cases a tractor that cost $7,800 about two years ago now costs twice that much. Even at that, at times manufacturers did not keep up with demand and farmers had to wait three to six months for delivery of new equipment. Getting replacement parts was sometimes a bigger job than buying a new tractor, so some farmers buy two tractors or combines, even at inflated prices, just in case one breaks down at a critical time. In the long run, they figure, it costs them less than would the loss of the crops.

Seed prices too have risen astronomically. The average cost of seed corn rose over 30 percent between 1974 and 1975. Also, baling wire, used to bale hay, has gone up over 400 percent in three years.

Then there is the somewhat related problem of farm labor. When the farmer is forced to use unskilled labor to run his equipment, many repairs are often needed. One Midwest farmer, listing the reasons why he quit the farming business, put as the first point: “The difficulty in hiring honest and dependable labor.”

There are dozens​—possibly hundreds—​of “little things” that seem to have hit the farmer at one time, resulting in a tremendous collective blow. Yet, at the same time, there has been pressure to produce more because of food shortages. But rising costs often make expansion difficult.

Farmland, for another example, is steadily increasing in price. In the state of New Jersey, it now costs, on the average, over $2,000 per acre! And, says the Denison (Iowa) Review: “This year’s [1974] statewide 31 per cent jump in the value of all grades of farm land comes on the heels of a 32 per cent rise in 1973.”

For these and other reasons farmers say that they must now have higher prices for their products.

Setting the Prices of Farm Products

Yet, farmers say, they are locked into an economic system that does not allow them to set the price of their own product. Farmers charge that they must take the price they are offered for their products, which may be less than what it costs to produce them. But, then, just suppose that farmers could set their own prices. Would the whole world somehow be better off?

Frankly, consider: How many grain farmers, who did quite well last year, shared their wealth with not-so-prosperous cattle farmers? The Seattle (Washington) Times, reporting on the state’s recent Association of Wheat Growers’ meeting in Spokane, says: “The farmers . . . obviously enjoy their prosperity . . . If wheat farmers finally seem to be in the driver’s seat, they are not about to apologize for it.”

The farmer, actually, is just part of an economic system that, in effect, demands that each person look out for himself. It is based on the so-called profit incentive. Consider the effects that this incentive has had in a time when the world is calling for more food.

Profit Incentive​—Subtle Enemy of the Hungry World

UNITED STATES exports accounted for one in every five acres harvested in the country during 1973. If that huge export market is closed or is too tightly restricted, farm products pile up in the U.S. and this results in sagging prices. Then what happens?

The farmer may purposely grow less food. To continue flooding the market with food would bring yet lower prices.

Not surprisingly, therefore, when Farm Chemicals journal asked U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz what would happen if farm prices declined, he responded: “Agricultural production also will decline.” Yes, farmers have concluded, says an observer in Iowa, that ‘the name of the game is profits.’

On the other hand, the same profit incentive has produced a euphoria among many farmers. Until events of the last couple of years shattered many farmers’ serene picture, they believed that there was no end to the money that they could make. But some who invested more and more money in their desire for big profits are now overwhelmingly in debt.

The profit incentive has also moved many farmers to oppose world food reserves. If you are not a farmer, the idea of setting aside an ample storage of grain during abundant years to provide for lean ones probably seems reasonable. The Bible records how this was done in ancient Egypt in the days of Joseph, a fact noted by any number of world food reserve advocates.​—See Genesis chapters 41-47.

But, to many American farmers, this is not a good idea. Why? One answer comes from a former assistant U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, who told farmers that they would have to fill and fund any world food reserve. The need for exports would then dwindle, and a major base of the farmer’s income would slip from under him. Farm Journal asked experts if the reserve could be set up without adversely affecting prices for the farmer. The answer was a plain “No!”

The profit incentive could therefore produce disastrous worldwide results.

Is the Middleman Reaping Profits?

If the farmer is not getting rich from rising prices, who is? Many farmers and consumers point to “The Middleman.” Who is that?

The term is used to describe everybody involved in the food picture from the time the food leaves the farmer until you purchase it at the grocery store. Farmers blame packers, shippers, managers of supermarkets and others for higher food prices. Yet each of these groups claims that they, like the farmer, are victims of inflation and that they must raise prices as their own costs go up. All they want, they say, is an honest profit to support themselves and to stay in business. In other words, they are just part of the system.

Farmers also blame market speculators and large food commodity companies for higher prices. How valid are such charges?

When a farmer has some major food commodity to sell, such as grain, he does not ordinarily sell it directly to a bakery or someone else that will actually put it to use. Rather, it is taken to a local grain elevator where it is bought and at least temporarily stored. The price that the farmer is paid at the elevator is determined by the ‘commodity market.’

The Board of Trade keeps track of the amount of grain (and other commodities) coming into elevators all over the country, letting prospective buyers know what is for sale. Then it accepts orders from buyers. The supply available in bins around the U.S. weighed against the demand for that supply from buyers determines the price that the farmer is paid for his grain.

Speculators buy commodities for a certain price, much as someone might purchase stocks on the stock exchange. The speculator does not actually buy the grain; he has no intention of ever taking delivery of it, but merely waits for its price on the market to go up. Then he sells and realizes a profit. These men, argue the farmers, even though they have no direct connection with growing food, are major contributors to higher food costs.

But the speculators remind farmers that they, too, are just part of the system, merely interested in an honest profit. They take a big chance every time that they invest. Prices do not always go up, they point out, and when they go down, speculators can suffer devastating losses.

In any event, the speculator says, somebody must own the grain after it leaves the farmer’s hands and before it reaches the actual user. If the speculator did not risk his money to pay for what amounts to “storing” that grain, then, he notes, somebody else would have to do so; thus, somebody would have to be paid what the speculator is getting.

And what about the big grain companies? Do they manipulate the market, that is, conspire together so as to make tremendous profits? Of course, the possibility always exists that someone could control the market in some way for their benefit. But possibility is by no means proof. Like the farmer and all the rest of the “middlemen,” the grain companies too claim that they only want to make a decent profit. And it is for this reason that they sell most of the grain that is exported from the U.S. to “rich,” not “poor,” nations! The poor cannot afford it.

The huge American agriculture system based on profits, while partly successful, cannot continue to work indefinitely. It is like a pup chasing its own tail. Because everyone along the way wants, and necessarily needs, to make money according to the present economic system, food does not reach the ones who cannot afford to buy it or have someone buy it for them.

The St. Louis Globe-Democrat therefore concludes: “The food picture includes farmers on one hand, grocery shoppers on the other and a bewildering maze in between known as the middlemen. Pinpointing a villain, if there is one, is next to impossible.”

“Put this all together and what have you got?” asks Harper’s magazine. Its answer: “A prescription for a system on the verge of collapse.”

Obviously, some better system is needed. What?

Hope for the Hungry

Would not a system based on unselfishness, on true love and concern for others be better than the present profit-incentive system? But who can establish and put in operation such a new system?

The Creator of the earth and humankind can. And the Bible reveals that it is his purpose to do so. The Kingdom government for which Jesus Christ taught his followers to pray will see to it that a righteous new earthly system will soon be established. (Matt. 6:9, 10; 2 Pet. 3:13) The Bible promises that at that time “the earth itself will certainly give its produce; God, our God, will bless us.” (Ps. 67:6) Earth will be a paradise.

Why not let Jehovah’s witnesses explain to you from the Bible what the rule by God’s kingdom will eventually mean for the whole earth? You can reach them by writing to the publishers of this magazine.

But under the present system of things, what about farming? Many farmers do not want to quit farming. They appreciate that their chosen life has many fine benefits. A Wisconsin farmer notes: “There is the satisfaction of having your own business. It is enjoyable to work with animals and’ watch them grow up, going through their various playful stages of life. It is enjoyable, too, to see crops of grain and hay grow and to harvest it each year. A farmer can set his own work schedule and be with his family many times each day. So there is an enjoyable part to farming also. Many farmers feel that their occupation brings them close to God.”

They love farming. But they detest the oppressive worldwide system that will work honest men​—farmers, packers, sellers, shippers, distributors—​day and night, give them minimum returns for their labors and then somehow never get the food to the people that really need it. With real fervency, such people pray to God for the realization of his promise: “Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.”​—Matt. 6:9, 10.

[Picture on page 12]

The profit incentive moves most farmers and grain companies to oppose any form of world food reserve